In the fall of 2018, water managers in Arizona were in heated discussions about how to limit the damage from a decades-long megadrought on the Colorado River. The drought has forced painful reckonings and realignments related to water use throughout the Colorado River Basin. Because of the way the water has been allocated over time, it had become clear that Arizona would bear the brunt of the looming shortages—and that farmers in the state, many of whom have low-priority water rights, would face severe cuts.

At a meeting that October, Stefanie Smallhouse, president of the Arizona Farm Bureau, denounced the proposed cuts. She suggested that the proposals showed disrespect for farmers, in particular for a white settler named Jack Swilling who, in her telling, had heroically made the desert bloom. “I find it’s ironic that we are exactly 150 years from the first farmer starting the settlement [of] the Phoenix area,” Smallhouse said. “There wasn’t anybody else here. There [were] relics of past tribal farming, but [Swilling] was pretty much the starter.”

Later in the meeting, Stephen Roe Lewis spoke. Lewis is the governor of the Gila River Indian Community, a reservation south of Phoenix that is home to members of the Akimel O’otham and Pee Posh tribes. The Akimel O’otham trace their heritage to the Huhugam civilization, which constructed a massive system of irrigation canals to support the cultivation of cotton, corn, and other crops in the area beginning about 1,400 years ago. But in the 1870s and 1880s, new canal systems built primarily by white farmers drained the Gila River, devastating the Akimel O’otham and Pee Posh farms and leading to famine and starvation. “History is important,” Governor Lewis stated, correcting Smallhouse’s account of Swilling finding only “relics” of tribal farming. “We’ve been farming for over 1,000 years, and the only time that was disrupted was when that water was taken away from us.”

The Gila River Indian Community has, in fact, spent much of the past 150 years trying to win back water its members had long depended on. In 2004, a congressionally approved settlement awarded the community a substantial quantity of water from the Colorado. Since then, the community has actively worked to protect those rights. “We will be here as long as it takes to find solutions,” Lewis told the assembled stakeholders in 2018. “But we will fight to the end to make sure that our water is not taken again.”

As that exchange illustrates, the long history of Native Americans in the Colorado River Basin is often ignored in discussions about the management of the resource, as are their social, cultural, and environmental attachments to the river. The comments from Lewis indicate how committed today’s tribal leaders are to changing that. Since the late 1970s, tribes in the region have won a series of settlements confirming their rights to Colorado River water. Today, tribes control an estimated 20 percent of the water in the river. As the entire basin faces the reality of serious shortages, it has become clear that tribes—which have sovereignty under the U.S. Constitution, giving them the right to govern themselves—must be key players in any conversation about the future.

The stakes are considerable, not just for tribes but for everyone who depends on the Colorado. Some 41 million people in seven American and two Mexican states use water from the river, which irrigates more than four million acres of farmland. If the Colorado watershed were a separate country, it would be among the 10 largest economies in the world. But drought and other effects of climate change are pushing the river beyond its ability to meet the enormous demands on it, bringing tribes more squarely into the river’s politics.

To improve the ability of tribes to manage their water, and to give them a stronger voice in management discussions and decisions in the basin, several organizations launched the Water & Tribes Initiative (WTI) in 2017, with funding from the Babbitt Center for Land and Water Policy, a program of the Lincoln Institute. Leaders of the project, which is now also funded by the Walton Family Foundation, Catena Foundation, and several other partners, include a cross-section of tribal representatives, current and former state and federal officials, researchers, conservation groups, and others.

“If we work together, we can find solutions to these issues,” says Daryl Vigil, a member of the Jicarilla Apache Nation and co-facilitator of WTI. He says this is a delicate time for the tribes: “If we’re not ahead of this game, in terms of just a basic recognition of tribal sovereignty in this process, there are huge risks.”

“We are excited to be part of this evolving and growing partnership,” says Jim Holway, director of the Babbitt Center. “The work WTI is doing is critical to the long-term sustainability of the basin and is central to our goal of improving the links between land and water management.”

Divided Waters

The 29 federally recognized tribes in the Colorado River Basin have long lived within a paradox. In 1908, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tribes have a right to water for their reservations. In the first come, first served hierarchy of western water law, the Court dealt them a powerful trump card, ruling that a tribe’s water rights were based on the date its reservation was created. Since most reservations were established by the U.S. government in the second half of the 1800s, tribes are theoretically in a stronger position than any of the other users on the river. Like the Akimel O’otham and Pee Posh, all of the tribes were here long before non-native settlers.

But when representatives from the seven basin states gathered in 1922 to draw up the Colorado River Compact, they pushed tribes into the background. The compact specifies the division of water among California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico and laid the foundation of a complex web of agreements, laws, and court rulings collectively known as the “Law of the River”—which essentially ignored Indians. (See the special issue of Land Lines, January 2019, for an in-depth exploration of the river and its history.) Although the compact briefly acknowledges “the obligations of the United States to American Indian tribes,” it does not go into detail about tribal water rights. As the scholar Daniel McCool has noted, “the omission of any consideration of Indian rights left unresolved one of the most important problems in the basin” (McCool 2003).

The author and historian Philip Fradkin put a finer point on it, declaring that “the Colorado is essentially a white man’s river.” But Anglo settlers had ignored Indians at their peril, he noted: the unresolved issue of Indians’ true rights to water from the Colorado was a “sword of Damocles” hanging over the river’s future (Fradkin 1996).

The full extent of Indian water rights is still not quantified. In the early 1970s, federal policy took a radically new course, adopting the principle of tribal self-determination. That led to tribes negotiating directly with the federal government to settle their water rights. In 1978, Arizona’s Ak-Chin Indian Community was the first to do so; since then, 36 water-rights settlements have been negotiated between tribes, other water-rights holders in the basin, and state and federal agencies. “The onset of negotiated settlements was an important part of the evolution” of tribal water rights, says Jason Robison, a law professor at the University of Wyoming. “But the features they’ve come to incorporate have also broken new ground.”

While tribal water rights were originally seen primarily as a necessity for farming on reservations, the settlements of the 20th century allowed some tribes to lease their water rights to users outside their reservations. This came to be seen as an economic development tool and a way to fund basic services for tribal members.

For the Navajo Nation in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, tying water to economic development is “all about creating a permanent homeland, where people go off, get educated, and come home,” says Bidtah Becker, a tribal member and attorney who has long been involved in water issues as a Navajo Nation government official. “We’re trying to develop a thriving homeland that people come home to, that works.”

In many cases, tribes don’t have the physical infrastructure to put their allocated water to use. Throughout the United States, Native American households are 19 times more likely than white households to lack indoor plumbing. On the Navajo Nation, the widespread lack of water services has likely contributed to the tribe’s horrendous losses to COVID-19; at one point in 2020, the nation had a higher per capita infection rate than any U.S. state (Dyer 2020). “Between 70,000 and 80,000 Navajos still haul water [to their homes] on a daily basis,” Vigil says. “In our country, in 2020, there’s still 70,000 to 80,000 people who aren’t connected to water infrastructure in a pandemic. It’s crazy.”

Vigil is the Water Administrator for the Jicarilla Apache Nation in New Mexico. In a 1992 settlement with the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), the tribe was allotted 40,000 acre-feet (roughly 13 billion gallons) of water per year, which it leased to the operator of a coal-fired power plant. The lease helped fund annual payments to tribal members for many years. But as the economy shifted toward green energy, the leases were not renewed. “So all of a sudden we’re left with settlement water stored [in a reservoir] 40 to 45 miles away, with no ability to use that water,” Vigil says.

Given the current drought, he says, the tribe could easily lease its water to others, but the terms of its federal settlement prohibit leasing water outside of New Mexico. Instead, the water flows out of the tribe’s hands and into the hands of other users. “No mechanisms are available to take our water outside of state boundaries,” Vigil says. “For the last two years, we’ve had over 30,000 acre-feet of unleased water going down the river.”

The ability to lease water can give tribes leverage—and an economic boost. In a hard-fought 2004 settlement, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) secured rights to more than twice as much water as the city of Las Vegas. It has used those rights to become a major, though often overlooked, force in Arizona water policies and politics. The tribe participated in negotiations around the Drought Contingency Plan (DCP), a multiyear, basinwide agreement signed in 2019 to address the impacts of the decades-long drought (Jenkins 2019).

States negotiated their own agreements as part of the DCP process; in Arizona, GRIC agreed to leave some of its water in Lake Mead, the reservoir that provides water to the Lower Basin, and to lease another portion to the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District to address concerns about long-term water supplies for new development. Together, the two deals could be worth as much as $200 million to the tribe.

The Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT)—a community that includes the Mohave, Chemehuevi, Hopi, and Navajo tribes on a reservation spanning the river in Arizona and California—was also an important participant in the DCP. The community’s participation was not without internal controversy: some tribal members were opposed to the DCP and attempted to recall the members of their tribal council. Ultimately CRIT agreed to leave up to 8 percent of its annual allocation in Lake Mead for three years in exchange for compensation of $30 million from the state of Arizona and an additional $8 million pledge from a group of foundations and corporations organized by the Walton Family Foundation and Water Funder Initiative.

The DCP negotiations were complex and contentious. In the end, coming to a resolution required getting tribes, cities, farmers, and other major stakeholders to the table.

The Relationship Between Tribal and State Allocations

When a tribe wins the right to use or lease a certain amount of Colorado River water, that water is considered part of the allocation of the state where the tribe is based. Because the states have individual allocations of water under the laws and agreements governing the river, newly negotiated tribal water settlements reduce the amount of water available for other users in that state. In the past, when tribal water allocations were not used, this water was left in the system for use by others. This issue is particularly acute in Arizona, where 22 of the 29 basin tribes have reservations. With the water rights of many tribes still unrecognized and unquantified, tribes and other stakeholders are understandably on edge about the future availability of water in the drought-stricken basin and intent on finding ways to work together to ensure a sustainable future.

To access policy briefs, reports, and other materials produced by the Water & Tribes Initiative, visit www.naturalresourcespolicy.org/projects/watertribes-colorado-river-basin.

Bridging the Gap

Since its inception, WTI has aimed to improve the tribes’ abilities to advance their interests and to promote sustainable water management in the basin through collaborative problem-solving. “We walk a tightrope,” says Matt McKinney, who co-facilitates the initiative with Vigil. McKinney is a longtime mediator who directs the Center for Natural Resources & Environmental Policy at the University of Montana. “On the one hand, it’s pretty easy to see us being advocates for tribes, which we are. But the larger frame is that we’re advocates for a fair, equitable, effective process of solving problems and making decisions.”

“The success of tribal water settlements has been based on the relationships of the people in the room,” says Margaret Vick, an attorney for the Colorado River Indian Tribes. “And the Water & Tribes Initiative has expanded the [number of] people in the room.” WTI is now working to shift away from narrow negotiations on individual water settlements to a much broader conversation spanning the basin: the current guidelines for managing the river will expire at the end of 2026, and new guidelines for the next several decades will soon be hammered out. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)—the division of DOI that manages the Colorado and other western waterways—is reviewing the past decade and a half of negotiations and operations to prepare for the next round. “We need a more inclusive renegotiation process,” says Morgan Snyder, senior program officer at the Walton Family Foundation’s environment program. “This is the opportunity to influence the next 25 years of water management in the basin.”

Anticipating the renegotiation process, McKinney and Vigil conducted interviews in 2019 with more than 100 people, including tribal leaders, water managers, and others involved in water issues in the region, to identify major issues facing the basin as well as ways to enhance collaborative problem-solving, particularly tribal participation in decisions about the river. WTI held workshops with tribal members and other interested parties from across the basin to identify strategies to enhance tribal and stakeholder engagement.

“Many interviewees believe it is time to move beyond managing the river as a plumbing and engineering system that supplies water to cities and farms and toward a more holistic, integrated system that better accommodates multiple needs and interests, including but not limited to tribal sacred and cultural values, ecological and recreational values, and the integration of land and water management decisions,” McKinney and Vigil wrote. “The intent here is to articulate a holistic, integrated vision and then make progress toward that vision incrementally over some period of time . . . and to move from a system focused on water use to watershed management” (WTI 2020).

To raise awareness, increase understanding, and catalyze conversations, WTI is issuing a series of policy briefs on topics ranging from the enduring role of tribes in the basin to a systemwide vision for sustainability. It is also helping the Ten Tribes Partnership, a coalition created in 1992 to increase the influence of tribes in Colorado River water management, develop a strategic plan.

But changing the nature of water management negotiations—to say nothing of the nature of water management itself—will not be easy. “Just like any other really complicated process, you have to figure out a way to break it down,” says Colby Pellegrino, deputy general manager for the Southern Nevada Water Authority, which supplies water to Las Vegas and its suburbs. “You have to eat the elephant that is Colorado River law and all of the interrelated problems one bite at a time. This presents issues if different stakeholder groups have differing opinions on the scope of negotiations.”

Some tribes have been frustrated by the difficulty of making their voices heard, even though they are sovereign nations. “We’re not ‘stakeholders,’” Vigil says. “We always get thrown into the same pool as NGOs, conservation groups. But it’s like, ‘No, we’re sovereigns.’”

The federal and state governments have also made some significant missteps. In 2009, the USBR launched a major study to assess current and future supply and demand along the river (USBR 2012), yet tribes weren’t meaningfully included in that process. Only after pressure from several tribes did the bureau commission a study of tribal water allotments, conducted with the Ten Tribes Partnership and released years later (USBR 2018). That study outlines the barriers to the full development of tribal water rights and analyzes the potential impacts of tribes developing those rights—especially for other users who have come to rely on the water that long went unused by the tribes. And in 2013, the basin states and the federal government began discussions about the Drought Contingency Plan without notifying tribes.

“States have ignored tribal water rights and tribal water use since the compact in the 1920s,” Vick says. “The [supply and demand study] was a state-driven process, and the states did not understand tribal water rights and were rarely involved in even considering what goes on on the reservation, as far as water use. They can’t [do this] anymore, because there has to be a full understanding to be able to manage the 20-year drought that we’re in.”

One basic but critical remaining challenge is finding a common way to understand and discuss issues related to the river. Anne Castle, a former assistant secretary for water and science at the DOI who held responsibility for the USBR from 2009 to 2014, is now a member of WTI’s leadership team. “The challenge is that we’re not talking about just having additional people—tribal representatives—at the table,” she says. “Those tribal representatives bring different values to the table as well. We haven’t really dealt with those cultural and spiritual and ecological values in these sorts of discussions previously.”

Bridging that gap is a slow process, Castle adds. “When you have spoken one language for as many years as state water managers have . . . to be exposed to a different way of talking about water is difficult,” she says. “But the converse is also true: it takes [tribal representatives] a long time of sitting in meetings and listening to understand how what state water managers are talking about will impact them.”

What Comes Next

The coming renegotiations “are a very important inflection point in how the basin states and the federal government treat tribal sovereignty in the Colorado River Basin going forward,” says Robison of the University of Wyoming. “When that process gets mapped out, you’ll be able to see, okay, to what extent are the tribes again being pushed to the margins? To what extent are the basin-state principals and the feds willing to actually not kick the can down the road?”

In a hopeful sign of potential collaboration, several large water agencies are contributing funding to the Water & Tribes Initiative, including the Southern Nevada Water Authority, Denver Water, the Imperial (CA) Irrigation District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Central Arizona Project. The Nature Conservancy and other environmental groups have provided support for WTI convenings as well.

Exactly how tribes might get a more substantial voice in decisions about the river’s future isn’t clear. One proposal that emerged from WTI’s basinwide interviews in 2019 is for the creation of a sovereign review team that would include state, federal, and tribal representatives, perhaps supplemented by an advisory council of representatives from each of the basin’s 29 tribes.

No matter how the negotiations are structured, much is at stake for all involved. While there seems to be a general commitment to consensus and collaboration, there is a fundamental tension at the heart of the endeavor. As McKinney notes, “One of the tribes’ fundamental interests is to develop and use their water rights. That interest seems to be diametrically opposed to the current interests of the basin states and the objectives of the DCP, which are all about using less water.” Historically, unused tribal water has been used by nontribal entities, in some cases allowing those entities to exceed their allocations. Now, in an era of long-term drought and climate change, there’s less and less water to go around. “You can see,” says McKinney, “that the basin is faced with some difficult conversations and tough choices.”

For most tribes, the choice is clear. “We need to develop our water rights,” says Crystal Tulley-Cordova, principal hydrologist for the Navajo Nation’s Department of Water Resources. “We shouldn’t be expected to forfeit our development.”

One of the most contentious issues centers on the ability of tribes to lease their water to users outside the boundaries of their reservations. Allowing tribes to lease their water—or not—is one of the principal sources of leverage that individual states have over the tribes within their boundaries. “Given that tribal water rights are counted as part of the allocation for the state in which the reservation is located, tribes need to work with state officials and other water users to find mutual gain solutions that balance everyone’s needs and interests,” says McKinney.

Vigil agrees and emphasizes that a tribe’s right to do what it wants with its water, whether using it for farming or economic development on tribal lands or leasing it to other users, is a key tenet of the self-determination principle codified in federal policy since the 1970s. “The heart of it goes to those foundational concepts of an ability to determine your own future,” Vigil says. “And that’s what sovereignty is to me.”

Finding Common Ground

WTI is already helping tribes work toward the kind of solidarity that will make it difficult for any entity to ignore their collective voice. Recently, 17 tribal leaders joined together to send a letter to the DOI about the next stage of negotiations. “When Tribes are included in major discussions and actions concerning the Colorado River, we can contribute—as we already have—to the creative solutions needed in an era of increasing water scarcity,” the letter read. “We believe frequent communication, preferably face-to-face, is appropriate and constructive.”

“The ‘Law of the River’ is always evolving,” says Holway of the Babbitt Center. “I am optimistic that we will better incorporate the perspectives and interests of the broader community in future Colorado River management discussions; in the face of increasing water scarcity, a broader base of engagement will be essential. I am also hopeful we will be seeing a stronger tribal voice within the U.S. Department of the Interior.” (At press time, President-elect Joe Biden had nominated Rep. Deb Haaland of New Mexico to serve as secretary of the Interior; Haaland would be the first Native American to head the agency and the first Native American Cabinet secretary.)

The guiding principle for WTI, McKinney says, is “to build on the collaborative culture in the basin and to focus on common ground, to build a sense of momentum by working on the 80 percent of the issues where tribal and other water leaders can agree—and then circle back around to address the differences.”

That focus on common ground is helping to create stronger ties not just among tribes, but also between tribes and the established water management community. “One of the great things about the Water & Tribes Initiative is that it’s trying to create this network of people who can all rely on each other,” says Colby Pellegrino. “It’s building a web for people to walk across instead of a tightrope.”

Matt Jenkins is a freelance writer who has contributed to the New York Times, Smithsonian, Men’s Journal, and numerous other publications.

Photograph: A member of the Cocopah Tribe surveys the tribe’s former fishing grounds along the Colorado River. Climate change and severe drought are leading to critical water shortages throughout the Colorado River Basin. Credit: Pete McBride.

References

Dyer, Jan. 2020. “Practicing Infection Prevention in Isolated Populations: How the Navajo Nation Took on COVID-19.” August 17. Infection Control Today 24(8). https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/how-the-navajo-nation-took-on-covid-19.

Fradkin, Philip. 1996. A River No More: The Colorado River and the West. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Jenkins, Matt. 2019. “Beyond Drought: The Search for Solutions as Climate Impacts a Legendary River.”
Land Lines. January. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/beyond-drought.

McCool, Daniel. 2003. Native Waters: Contemporary Indian Water Settlements and the Second Treaty Era. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

USBR (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). 2012. Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/index.html.

———. 2018. Colorado River Basin Ten Tribes Partnership Tribal Water Study Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/tws/finalreport.html.

WTI (Water & Tribes Initiative). 2020. “Toward a Sense of the Basin.” Missoula, MT: University of Montana Center for Natural Resources & Environmental Policy. https://naturalresourcespolicy.org/docs/colorado-river-basin/basin-report-2020.pdf.

Related

StoryMap: The Hardest Working River in the West

Next Steps: Hammering Out a Future for Water Users in the U.S. West

En la década de 1980, poco después de que China se hubiera abierto al mercado y el comercio internacionales, las tierras agrícolas del país empezaron a sucumbir a la súbita urbanización. Entre 1987 y 1995, el crecimiento explosivo de las ciudades consumió entre tres y cinco millones de hectáreas de tierras agrícolas excelentes. Este patrón provocó cambios drásticos en el paisaje y grandes preocupaciones sobre la seguridad alimentaria. El gobierno central, consciente de que la ausencia de granjas implicaría una ausencia de alimentos para la creciente población (que, por otro lado, hacía apenas unas décadas había sufrido una hambruna arrasadora que se había cobrado la vida de 20 a 50 millones de personas, entre 1958 y 1961), promulgó regulaciones que exigían a quienes destinaran tierras agrícolas a otros usos que garantizaran la protección de la misma cantidad de tierras agrícolas en otra parte.

El Ministerio de Suelo y Recursos de China hizo un esfuerzo heroico por cumplir estos mandatos de cero pérdida neta. Pero era imposible controlar la calidad del suelo y las decisiones locales sobre intercambio de tierras, en particular con sistemas de gestión antiguos, como datos limitados, registros en papel y mapas con baja resolución. Entre 2001 y 2013, la urbanización avanzó rápido y se tragó unas 33 millones de hectáreas de tierras agrícolas. En la mayoría de los casos, las tierras agrícolas ricas que rodeaban a las crecientes ciudades se “reemplazaron” por bosques menos productivos y pastizales. Para incrementar el rendimiento de un suelo menos fértil, los productores rurales debieron adoptar prácticas de cultivo más intensivas y recurrieron a fertilizantes químicos, pesticidas y sistemas de irrigación. Estas soluciones técnicas conservaron la seguridad alimentaria, pero a un costo elevado: entre otras cosas, agotaron los acuíferos y contaminaron el suelo.

Hoy, China es un país importador neto de granos, y el futuro de la producción depende de que se encuentren nuevas fuentes hídricas para irrigar. La seguridad alimentaria vuelve a ser un tema de preocupación cada vez mayor, pero algo más está cambiando en China: el organismo de suelo y recursos (que hoy se llama Ministerio de Recursos Naturales) está modernizando el sistema que usa para controlar y hacer cumplir la política de conservación de tierras agrícolas. Este incorpora la adopción de datos geoespaciales provenientes de imágenes satelitales y otras detecciones remotas para mapear y evaluar la calidad del suelo recuperado. También incluye controles en las fronteras urbanas para guiar mejor las decisiones de desarrollo.

Las mejoras recientes en la calidad de las imágenes satelitales y los métodos de análisis informático están permitiendo controlar las labores de preservación de tierras agrícolas en China con una precisión cada vez mayor. Estas mejoras también son muy prometedoras para la conservación territorial e hídrica en todo el mundo. En estos meses, el Instituto Lincoln dará un paso importantísimo para expandir la accesibilidad y el uso de esta tecnología de vanguardia: lanzará el Centro de Soluciones Geoespaciales (CGS, por sus siglas en inglés).

El CGS es un nuevo núcleo de datos, pericia y servicios para personas y organizaciones de los sectores público, privado y sin fines de lucro que trabajan para conservar los recursos hídricos y territoriales. Ampliará el acceso a sistemas de información geográfica (SIG), detección remota y otras herramientas que pueden ayudar a tomar decisiones sobre gestión territorial e hídrica. Si bien estas herramientas existen desde hace décadas, muchas organizaciones no cuentan con los datos, el equipo, el personal o la pericia para implementarlas, lo cual limita su capacidad de alcanzar los objetivos y colaborar con otras partes a gran escala. El centro se dedicará a habilitar el acceso a tecnología de vanguardia para personas y comunidades que, históricamente, vivieron oprimidas o marginadas; gobiernos de países, regiones o estados con ingresos bajos a medios; organizaciones sin fines de lucro con recursos limitados; y nuevos emprendimientos o empresas que operen en economías limitadas o en vías de desarrollo. 

Lanzamos esta iniciativa porque sabemos que las reformas de gran alcance como las que implementó China para conservar las tierras agrícolas son solo el primer paso hacia un resultado esperado. Para alcanzarlo, dichas políticas deben preceder al trabajo menos glamoroso de persistir en controlar y hacer cumplir las normas, además de ajustarlas en función de las lecciones aprendidas. Por otra parte, si los gestores desean supervisar las políticas de suelo a nivel nacional o internacional, deben acceder a los mejores datos y herramientas de precisión que puedan, para hacer un seguimiento de lo que está ocurriendo a nivel local y responder a ello. El CGS estará a cargo de empleados con amplia experiencia en tecnologías de mapeo, desarrollo organizacional, salud pública y conservación, y ofrecerá datos, realizará análisis y creará herramientas personalizadas para responder a la creciente demanda de organizaciones de todos los tamaños, con todos los niveles de capacidad técnica.

El CGS se erige sobre la amplia trayectoria del Instituto Lincoln de ideas pioneras que han transformado las políticas de suelo a nivel nacional y global. El Instituto Lincoln tiene un papel protagónico en el desarrollo de la tasación computarizada de bienes raíces desde la década de 1970. Esto revolucionó el modo en que los gobiernos locales de todo el mundo administraban el impuesto a la propiedad inmobiliaria, el componente más importante de la renta pública local en casi todas partes. A principios de los 80, el Instituto Lincoln acordó unos 40 fideicomisos de suelo para movilizar iniciativas para la conservación de suelos privados en los Estados Unidos y complementar la de tierras públicas. Desde que expandió el alcance y el uso de las servidumbres de conservación, y logró propugnar las deducciones tributarias estatales y federales para conservar tierras privadas, la coalición, que se convirtió en Land Trust Alliance, ayudó a proteger más de 22 millones de hectáreas de suelos privados, lo cual equivale a la superficie de Minnesota. Además, en 2014 lanzamos la Red Internacional de Conservación del Suelo (ILCN, por sus siglas en inglés), que conecta a organizaciones civiles y privadas de conservación territorial con personas de todo el mundo, y dio origen a iniciativas de conservación importantísimas en varios continentes.

Con el lanzamiento del CGS, nos preparamos para poner en práctica nuestra pericia en la labor de apoyar y amplificar las audaces iniciativas territoriales que existen en la actualidad. Por ejemplo, a principio de año, Campaign for Nature lanzó un trabajo mediante el que, para el año 2030, pretende proteger un 30 por ciento del suelo y los océanos del planeta. La “Campaña 30 para el 30” tiene como meta analizar el cambio climático, apoyar la creciente población mundial y evitar las extinciones masivas mediante la protección de recursos naturales y ecosistemas esenciales, y el control y la administración de dicha protección a perpetuidad. Esta iniciativa colosal puede aprender de las labores de protección de tierras agrícolas en China y otros esfuerzos audaces por gestionar el suelo y los recursos a niveles nacionales o globales, y se beneficiará con las herramientas y los análisis como los que propone el CGS.

Una primera pregunta que resulta importante es si podemos aprovechar los traumas de 2020 (una pandemia, incendios forestales devastadores en Australia y los Estados Unidos, la creciente frecuencia y gravedad de calamidades relacionadas con el clima) para forjar la voluntad política de realizar acciones globales significativas. ¿Podemos convencer a la clase política y los votantes del mundo de que la crisis climática o las extinciones masivas son una amenaza para la supervivencia de los humanos y exigen el tipo de acción global coordinada que provocó la pandemia? Además: ¿podemos ajustar el objetivo global de 30 para el 30 a fin de provocar acciones más específicas (y prácticas) a niveles más bajos de la geografía y evitar consecuencias inesperadas?  Si bien 30 para el 30 es una consigna práctica, el 30 por ciento del suelo y los océanos que la campaña elija proteger guardará una relación directa con la capacidad que tengamos de revertir la crisis climática o evitar extinciones masivas. Tendremos que determinar qué suelos y otros recursos debemos proteger, cuáles proteger primero, y cómo hacerlo. Tendremos que supervisar a los agentes locales para procurar que sus acciones sean coherentes con los objetivos y las estrategias globales. Y tendremos que encontrar formas de responsabilizar a los actores clave para que cumplan las referencias esenciales. Por último, cuando hayamos identificado los ecosistemas específicos que queremos proteger, necesitaremos mecanismos legales para hacerlo y medios para controlar la protección y la administración a perpetuidad. Se necesitarán miles de personas equipadas con las herramientas y la capacitación para controlar y hacer cumplir los convenios legales, y con la autoridad para hacerlo.

El Instituto Lincoln puede aportar a esta audaz labor global al ayudar a la Campaña a determinar qué suelos y otros recursos debe proteger primero, cómo controlar y administrar esa protección y, con la colaboración de la ILCN, cómo transitar los mecanismos legales relevantes en los distintos países con distintos sistemas normativos. En labores paralelas, el Instituto Lincoln está construyendo un plan de estudios a distancia para capacitar a funcionarios gubernamentales y profesionales locales en el uso más efectivo de nuevas herramientas y enfoques de gestión territorial e hídrica. El CGS puede ofrecer herramientas y capacitación que se puedan implementar a nivel local para respaldar objetivos globales, a fin de descentralizar la toma de decisiones. Al poner a disposición general la tecnología de mapeo, podemos darles a las personas y organizaciones la posibilidad de colaborar y lograr un impacto en la conservación territorial e hídrica que es mayor en varios órdenes de magnitud que lo que pueden lograr en soledad.

El Centro de Soluciones Geoespaciales existe para aportar nueva claridad y entendimiento al tema de la conservación territorial global, ya que aumenta el acceso a datos con la intención de construir un futuro más sostenible. Como una niebla que se dispersa, al aplicar tecnología geoespacial, todas las personas podrán ver qué está pasando en cualquier parte del planeta. Nos hará sentir que la Tierra es mucho más pequeña, y que las soluciones a los problemas más complicados de la humanidad son mucho más fáciles de alcanzar.

Imagen: El Centro de Soluciones Geoespaciales (CGS) ampliará el acceso a sistemas de información geográfica (SIG), detección remota y otras herramientas que pueden ayudar a tomar decisiones sobre gestión territorial e hídrica. Este mapa del CGS combina datos sociales y medioambientales para destacar entornos de los cuales dependen especies en riesgo, o que están bajo presión por el desarrollo y adyacentes a áreas protegidas existentes (en verde). Crédito: CGS.

Phoenix is the fifth-largest city in the United States and the fastest-growing city in the country. For Mayor Kate Gallego—the second elected female mayor in Phoenix history and, at 39, the youngest big-city mayor in the United States—navigating that growth means prioritizing economic diversity, investments in infrastructure, and sustainability.

Gallego was elected in March 2019 to complete the term of a mayor who was heading to Congress, then reelected in November 2020. As a member of the Phoenix City Council, she led the campaign to pass a citywide transportation plan for Phoenix through 2050, which represented the country’s largest local government commitment to transportation infrastructure when it passed in 2015.

Before entering politics, Gallego worked on economic development for the Salt River Project, a not-for-profit water and energy utility that serves more than 2 million people in central Arizona. Just days after her reelection, Mayor Gallego spoke with Senior Fellow Anthony Flint. The interview kicks off a series of conversations with mayors of cities that are especially significant to the Lincoln Institute, which is celebrating its 75th anniversary in 2021. An edited transcript follows; listen to the full interview on the Land Matters podcast.

Anthony Flint: Congratulations on your reelection. What issues do you think motivated voters most in these tumultuous times?

Kate Gallego: Voters were looking for candidates who would deliver on real data-driven leadership and science-based decision-making. I come to this job with a background in economic development and an undergraduate environmental degree. My chemistry professor told us that the more chemistry you take, the less likely you [are] to move up in electoral politics. But I think 2020 may have been a different year where science matters to voters . . . Arizona voters wanted leadership that would take COVID-19 seriously, as well as challenges such as climate change and economic recovery.

For younger voters in particular, climate change was a very important issue. I ran for office as my community faced our hottest summer on record. In some communities, climate change may be a future issue, but in Phoenix, it was an issue facing us right now. Different generations describe it differently. So my dad tells me, if you can just do something about the heat in the summer here, you’ll definitely be reelected. A different lens, but I think the same outcome.

AF: How has the pandemic affected your urban planning efforts? Did it surface any unexpected opportunities?

KG: The pandemic really changed how people interact with their communities. We saw biking and walking more than double . . . what people tell us is they didn’t realize how much they enjoyed that form of moving about our communities, and they intend to keep some of those behavior changes . . . . We’re currently looking at how we can create more public spaces. Can we expand outdoor dining and let people interact more with each other?

Dr. Anthony Fauci has told us that the more time we can be spending outdoors, the better for fighting COVID-19. But that also has other great benefits. I serve as mayor of the city with the most acres of parks of any United States city, and this has been a record year for us enjoying those Phoenix parks . . . You can be in the middle of Phoenix on a hiking trail and some days you don’t see anyone else. So those amenities and the focus of our planning around parks has really improved this year.

We also continue to invest in our transportation system. We’ve decided to speed up investment in transit, which was a decision that we did have real debate over, that I think will allow us to move towards a more urban form. We’ve actually seen increased demand for urban living in Phoenix. We have more cranes in our downtown than ever before and we are regularly seeing applications for taller buildings than we have seen before. I understand there’s a real national dialogue about whether everyone will want to be in a suburban setting, but the market is going in a different direction in our downtown right now.

COVID-19 has also made us look at some of the key challenges facing our community such as affordable housing, the digital divide, and addressing food security, and we’ve made significant investments in those areas as well.

AF: Many might think of Phoenix as a place with abundant space for single-family homes, where a house with a small yard and driveway is relatively affordable. Yet the city has a big problem with homelessness. How did that happen?

KG: Phoenix competes for labor with cities such as San Francisco and San Diego and others, that still have a much more expensive cost of housing than we do. But affordable housing has been a real challenge for our community. Phoenix has been the fastest-growing city in the country. Although we have seen a pretty significant wage growth, it has not kept up with the huge increases in mortgages and rent that our community has faced. It’s good that people are so excited about our city and want to be part of it, but it’s been very difficult for our housing market.

The council just passed a plan on affordable housing including a goal to create or preserve 50,000 units in the next decade. We are looking at a variety of policy tools, and multifamily housing will have to be a big part of the solution if we are going to get the number of units that we need. So again, that may be moving us towards a more urban form of development.

AF: Opponents of the recent light rail expansion argued it would cost too much, but there also seemed to be some cultural backlash against urbanizing in that way. What was going on there?

KG: Our voters have voted time and time again to support our light rail system. The most recent time was a ballot proposition [to ban light rail] in 2019 shortly after I was elected. It failed in every single one of the council districts; it failed in the most Democratic precinct and the most Republican precinct in the city. Voters sent a strong message that they do want that more urban form of development and the opportunity that comes with the light rail system. We’ve seen significant investments in healthcare assets and affordable housing along the light rail. We’ve also seen school districts that can put more money in classrooms and in teacher salaries because they don’t have to pay for busing a significant number of students. We have really been pleased with its impact on our city when we have businesses coming to our community. They often ask for locations along light rail because they know it’s an amenity that their employees appreciate. So I consider it a success, but I know we’re going to keep talking about how and where we want to grow in Phoenix.

AF: We can’t talk about Phoenix and Arizona without talking about water. Where is the conversation currently in terms of innovation, technology, and conservation in the management of that resource?

KG: Speaking of our ambitious voters, they passed a plan for the City of Phoenix setting a goal that we be the most sustainable desert city. Water conservation has been a Phoenix value and will continue to be. The city already reuses nearly all wastewater on crops, wetlands, and energy production. We’ve done strong programs in banking water, repurposing water, and efficiency and conservation practices, many of which have become models for other communities.

We are planning ahead. We have many portions of our city that are dependent on the Colorado River, and that river system faces drought and may have even larger challenges in the future. So we’re trying to plan ahead and invest in infrastructure to address that, but also look at our forest ecosystem and other solutions to make sure that we can continue to deliver water and keep climate change front of mind. We’ve also had good luck with using green and sustainable bonds, which the city recently issued. It was time to invest in our infrastructure . . . partnerships with The Nature Conservancy and others have helped us look at how we manage water in a way that takes advantage of the natural ecosystem, whether stormwater filtration, or how we design our pavement solutions. So we’ve had some neat innovation. We have many companies in this community that are at the forefront of water use, as you would expect from a desert city, and I hope Phoenix will be a leader in helping other communities address water challenges.

AF: Finally, if you’ll indulge us: we will be celebrating our 75th anniversary soon; our founder established the Lincoln Foundation in 1946 in Phoenix, where he was also active in local philanthropy. Would you comment on the ways the stories of Phoenix and the Lincolns and this organization are intertwined?

KG: Absolutely. The Lincoln family has made a huge impact on Phoenix and our economy. One of our fastest-growing areas in terms of job growth has been our healthcare sector, and the HonorHealth network owes its heritage to John C. Lincoln. The John C. Lincoln Medical Center has been investing and helping us get through so many challenges, from COVID-19 to all the challenges facing a quickly growing city.

I want to recognize one Lincoln family member in particular: Joan Lincoln, who was one of the first women to lead an Arizona city as mayor [of Paradise Valley, 1984–1986; Joan was the wife of longtime Lincoln Institute Chair David C. Lincoln and mother of current Chair Katie Lincoln]. When I made my decision to run for mayor, none of the 15 largest cities in the country had a female mayor; many significant cities such as New York and Los Angeles still have not had one. But in Arizona, I’m nothing unusual. I’m not the first [woman to serve as] Phoenix mayor and I’m one of many [female] mayors throughout the valley. That wasn’t true when Joan paved the way. She really was an amazing pioneer and she’s made it more possible for candidates like myself to not be anything unusual. I’m grateful for her leadership.

Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and a contributing editor of Land Lines.

Photograph: Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego has pursued an ambitious sustainability agenda for the city. She was reelected in November 2020. Credit: Mayor Kate Gallego via Twitter.

Related

Land Matters Podcast: Reflections on a Changing Desert Southwest from Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego

The city of Phoenix, America’s fifth-largest metropolis, is going through some major changes—in demographics, voting patterns, and the physical landscape that has long defined the region.

In this episode of the Land Matters podcast, Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego, reelected to a second term in November, reflects on a supercharged political season, the battle against COVID, and how, among other changes, Phoenix is becoming a more sustainable, and more urban, place. Historically known for sprawling suburban development, the city is taking steps to conserve water, moving forward on extensions of its light rail network, and increasing its commitment to providing affordable housing.

Phoenix has long been a fast-growing region, but the pace has picked up recently, Gallego says, as new residents flock there – some simply seeking relief from more expensive cities, others untethered from offices by the pandemic and taking advantage of the flexibility that working remotely provides. “We’ve seen many people voting with their feet and coming to our community,” she says.

Given that influx, maintaining affordability is one of the key drivers of a move towards “a more urban form,” she says. Under her leadership, the city is shifting toward more multifamily housing and greater height and density downtown, all served by the growing light rail network. Residents are increasingly asking for these features, she says—and the added benefit is that kind of growth is more sustainable.

The interview with Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego is available online and will be available in print, as the latest installment of the Mayor’s Desk feature—interviews with chief executives of cities from around the world.

You can listen to the show and subscribe to Land Matters on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and a contributing editor of Land Lines.

Photograph: Courtesy of Anthony Flint.

Further reading:

Making Sense of Place: Phoenix

Water in the West: Finding and Funding Stormwater Capture Solutions

StoryMap: The Hardest-Working River in the West

Mayor’s Desk: Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego on Sustainability and Urban Form

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy today launched a new enterprise to expand the use of advanced technology for land and water conservation—The Center for Geospatial Solutions (CGS). The center will give people and organizations the tools they need to manage land and water resources with precision, at the scale required to confront pressing challenges such as climate change, loss of habitat, and water scarcity.

The center will provide data, conduct analysis, and perform specialized consulting services that enable organizations of all sizes in the nonprofit, public, and private sectors to deploy geographic information systems (GIS), remote sensing, and other geospatial technologies. The center will help practitioners to overcome barriers such as a lack of staffing, resources, or expertise, which have hindered the adoption of geospatial technology, especially in the nonprofit sector.

“If land and water managers, conservationists, and governments are to meet rapidly accelerating social, economic, and environmental challenges, including climate change, they need to work together at larger scales and make use of every possible tool,” said Anne Scott, executive director for the Center for Geospatial Solutions. “The Center for Geospatial Solutions will enhance collective access to better data and analysis, so that practitioners and decisionmakers can act collaboratively on the best information available.”

The center will deliver services directly to nonprofit organizations, foundations, governments, and businesses, and will also work with funders to guide and administer grants. The center will also use the resources and expertise of the Lincoln Institute, which is organized around the achievement of six goals: sustainably managed land and water resources, low-carbon, climate-resilient communities and regions, efficient and equitable tax systems, reduced poverty and spatial inequality, fiscally healthy communities and regions, and functional land markets and reduced informality.

“My wife, Laura, and I developed Esri to help people make better decisions for our world, and that is what the Center for Geospatial Solutions is accomplishing,” said Jack Dangermond, President and CEO of Environmental Systems Research Institute (Esri). “The Center for Geospatial Solutions will move the global environmental field over the next decade to meet goals set forth by scientists to save and restore our planet. The center’s combination of partnerships, shared resources, advanced data science and analysis fills an important niche to bring geospatial technology solutions to environmental organizations worldwide.”

The center will prioritize access to technology for people and communities that have been historically marginalized, governments in the developing world, under-resourced nonprofit organizations, startups, and businesses operating in developing or restricted economies. The center will build customized tools that can be tailored to fit the size and capacity of any organization.

“These are unprecedented times, which require broad vision combined with the practical implementation of innovative solutions,” said Breece Robertson, director of partnerships and strategy for the Center for Geospatial Solutions. “We can’t address global challenges like climate change and inequity without access to data, science and technologies that enable everyone to act effectively.”

The potential for geospatial technology to improve conservation is well demonstrated. In one powerful application, regional planners in Tucson, Arizona, worked with nonprofit partners, including the Lincoln Institute’s Babbitt Center for Land and Water Policy, to map the tree canopy, surface temperatures, and other data to help communities to better-manage stormwater, and to prioritize where to plant trees. In another case, Denver’s regional planning agency is using high-resolution maps to classify land cover into eight categories for a wide range of possible uses, including to understand habitat connectivity and quality to guide investment in green infrastructure.

In addition to advancing land and water conservation, geospatial technology can inform decisions in urban contexts. Its applications include analyzing cities’ carbon footprints, exploring the conservation potential of brownfield sites, revealing local variations in air quality, and mapping parks, open spaces, and urban corridors for wildlife.

“Some organizations are already using geospatial technology to understand what is happening on the ground with greater and greater precision,” said Jeffrey Allenby, director of geospatial technology for the Center for Geospatial Solutions. “The center will bring this capability to organizations of all sizes and scales by building customized tools that are easy to use for all staff, even those with no background or training in technology.”

“The center builds on the Lincoln Institute’s long track record of pioneering ideas that have transformed land policy,” Lincoln Institute President and CEO George W. “Mac” McCarthy wrote in an essay in Land Lines, the magazine of the Lincoln Institute. “The Center for Geospatial Solutions represents another transformational idea—by making land, water, and mapping technology universal, we can enable people and organizations to collaborate and achieve impact that is orders-of-magnitude greater than what they can accomplish today. Like lifting a fog, applying geospatial technology will enable anyone to see what is happening anywhere on the Earth. It will make the planet feel that much smaller, and the solutions to humanity’s toughest problems that much easier to grasp.”

For more information, visit cgs.earth or email cgs@lincolninst.edu.

Leadership of the Center for Geospatial Solutions

Anne Scott, Executive Director

Anne brings leadership experience in public and community health and international development, and she is particularly passionate about achieving cost-effective outcomes that can be replicated and scaled. She has lived and worked in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East on the implementation and evaluation of large-scale health and environmental programs funded by the U.S. and European governments, and philanthropic foundations. Anne has held executive positions at the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation in London, the Charlottesville (Virginia) Area Community Foundation and, most recently, Boston-based Pathfinder International. She is a prior board chair of the Chesapeake Conservancy. Anne has a Ph.D. in medical anthropology and an MBA in finance, as well as post-doctoral qualifications in science and diplomacy, and health and child survival.

Jeffrey Allenby, Director of Geospatial Technology.

Jeff brings a wealth of experience developing systems-focused solutions at the intersection of technology and the natural world. Prior to joining the Lincoln Institute, Jeff was the director of conservation technology at the Chesapeake Conservancy and cofounder of the Conservancy’s Conservation Innovation Center, building it from scratch into a globally recognized pioneer in the application of technology to improve environmental decision making in the Chesapeake Bay and across the world. Jeff worked previously for the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources on projects to support local climate change adaptation. Jeff has a M.E.M. and a certificate in geospatial analysis from Duke University and a B.S. from the University of Richmond. Jeff also serves as a member of the advisory board for the Internet of Water.

Breece Robertson, Director of Partnerships and Strategy

Breece has more than 18 years of experience leading collaborative and strategic initiatives that leverage data-driven platforms, GIS, research, and planning for the park and conservation fields. Breece combines geospatial technology and storytelling to inspire, activate, educate, and engage. During her career at The Trust for Public Land, she led geospatial innovations that supported the protection of 3,000+ places, over 2+ million acres of land, provided park access to over 9 million people, and achieved $74 billion in voter-approved funding for parks and conservation. She is a skilled leader, collaborator, implementer, and creative visionary with a legacy of building award-winning teams and community-driven GIS approaches for strategic conservation and park creation. Esri, the world’s leader in geographic information system (GIS) technology, twice has honored Robertson for innovation in helping communities meet park and conservation goals. In 2006, she was awarded the Esri Special Achievement in GIS award and in 2012, the “Making a Difference” award – a prestigious presidential award.

About the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy seeks to improve quality of life through the effective use, taxation, and stewardship of land. A nonprofit private operating foundation whose origins date to 1946, the Lincoln Institute researches and recommends creative approaches to land as a solution to economic, social, and environmental challenges. Through education, training, publications, and events, we integrate theory and practice to inform public policy decisions worldwide.

Will Jason is director of communications at the Lincoln Institute.

Image: NOAA Data Enterprise (NDE) VIIRS daily global active fire detections, UMD Geographical Sciences VIIRS Active Fire site, http://viirsfire.geog.umd.edu/pages/mapsData.php.

Related

President’s Message: Center for Geospatial Solutions: Think Globally, Map Locally

City Tech: Precision-Mapping Water in the Desert

In the 1980s, not long after China had opened up to global trade and commerce, the nation’s farmland began succumbing to rapid urbanization. The explosive growth of cities consumed an estimated 7 million to 12 million acres of prime farmland from 1987 to 1995. This pattern led to dramatic changes in the landscape and grave concerns about food security. Aware that no farms meant no food for the country’s growing population—and just a few decades removed from a devastating famine that had cost the lives of 20 million to 50 million people between 1958 and 1961—the central government enacted regulations requiring those who converted farmland for other uses to ensure the protection of the same amount of farmland elsewhere.

China’s Ministry of Land and Resources tried heroically to meet these zero net loss mandates. But it was impossible to monitor land quality and local land exchange decisions, especially with last-generation management systems like limited data, paper records, and low-resolution maps. Urbanization continued apace, swallowing an estimated 82 million acres of farmland between 2001 and 2013. In most cases, the rich farmlands around growing cities were “replaced” with less productive woodlands and grasslands. To get higher yields from less fertile land, farmers had to adopt more intensive cultivation practices, relying on chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and irrigation. These technical solutions maintained food security, but at a high cost, including the depletion of aquifers and contamination of soil.

China is now a net importer of grains and future production hinges on finding new sources of water for irrigation. Concerns are growing about food security once more, but something else is changing in China: the land and resources agency—now called the Ministry of Natural Resources—is modernizing the system it uses to monitor and enforce the farmland preservation policy. This includes adopting geospatial data from satellite imagery and other remote sensing to map and evaluate the quality of reclaimed land. It also includes monitoring urban frontiers to better guide development decisions.

Recent improvements in the quality of satellite imagery and computer analysis methods are making it possible to monitor China’s farmland preservation efforts with increasing precision. These improvements also hold great promise for land and water conservation around the globe. This fall, the Lincoln Institute is taking a major step to expand the accessibility and use of such cutting-edge technology by launching the Center for Geospatial Solutions (CGS).

CGS is a new hub of data, expertise, and services for people and organizations across the public, private, and nonprofit sectors working to conserve land and water resources. It will expand access to geographic information systems (GIS), remote sensing, and other tools that can inform decisions about land and water management. Although these tools have existed for decades, many organizations lack the data, equipment, staff, or expertise to implement them, limiting their ability to achieve their goals and to collaborate with others at large scales. The center will focus on opening access to cutting-edge technology for historically oppressed or marginalized people and communities; governments in low- to middle-income countries, regions, or states; nonprofit organizations with limited resources; and startup businesses, or businesses operating in developing or restricted economies.

We’re launching this effort because we know that sweeping reforms like those China implemented to preserve farmland are just the first step toward an intended outcome. To succeed, such policies must be followed by the less glamorous work of persistent enforcement and monitoring, with adjustments to the rules in response to lessons learned. In addition, if policy makers hope to manage land policy at the national or international level, they need access to the best possible data and precision tools to track and respond to what is happening locally. CGS, led by staff members with deep expertise in mapping technologies, organizational development, public health, and conservation, will provide data, conduct analysis, and build customized tools to respond to increasing demand from organizations of all sizes, with all levels of technical capacity.

CGS builds on the Lincoln Institute’s long track record of pioneering ideas that have transformed land policy at national and global levels. Beginning in the 1970s, the Lincoln Institute played a leading role in developing computerized property assessment. This revolutionized how local governments around the world administered the property tax—the most important component of local public revenues in most places. In the early 1980s, the Lincoln Institute convened some 40 land trusts to mobilize efforts to conserve private land in the United States to complement public land conservation. By expanding the scope and use of conservation easements and advocating successfully for state and federal tax breaks for private land conservation, the coalition, which became the Land Trust Alliance, has since helped to protect more than 56 million acres of private land—equal to the land area of Minnesota. And in 2014, we launched the International Land Conservation Network, which connects civic and private land conservation organizations and people around the globe, and has spawned major conservation initiatives on several continents.

With the launch of CGS, we are prepared to apply our expertise to the work of supporting and amplifying today’s bold land-based initiatives. Earlier this year, for example, the Campaign for Nature launched an effort to protect 30 percent of the planet’s land and oceans by 2030. The “30 by 30 Campaign” seeks to address climate change, support a growing global population, and prevent mass extinctions by protecting critical natural resources and ecosystems, and monitoring and managing their protection in perpetuity. This colossal effort can learn from farmland protection efforts in China and other bold efforts to manage land and resources at national or global levels, and it will benefit from the kind of tools and analysis CGS brings to the table.

An important first question is whether we can leverage the traumas of 2020—a pandemic, devastating wildfires in Australia and the United States, the increasing frequency and severity of weather-related calamities—to forge the political will to take meaningful global action. Can we convince global politicians and voters that the climate crisis or mass extinctions threaten human survival and require the type of coordinated global action sparked by the pandemic? Second, can we sharpen the global goal of 30 by 30 to motivate more specific (and practical) actions at lower levels of geography to avoid unintended consequences? While 30 by 30 is a handy slogan, the 30 percent of lands and oceans the campaign chooses to protect will have direct bearing on whether we can reverse the climate crisis or avert mass extinctions.

We will need to determine which land and other resources to protect, which to protect first, and how to do it. We will need to monitor local actors to make sure their actions are consistent with global goals and strategies. And we’ll need to find ways to hold key actors accountable for meeting critical benchmarks. Finally, once we’ve identified the specific ecosystems we want to protect, we will need legal mechanisms to protect them and means to monitor protection and stewardship in perpetuity. It will require thousands of people equipped with the tools and training to monitor and enforce legal agreements and the authority to do so.

The Lincoln Institute can contribute to this bold global effort by helping the Campaign determine which land and other resources to protect first, how to monitor and manage that protection, and, with the help of ILCN, how to navigate the relevant legal mechanisms across different countries with different legal systems. In parallel efforts, the Lincoln Institute is building distance learning curricula to train local government officials and practitioners to use new land and water management tools and approaches more effectively. CGS can decentralize decision making by providing tools and training that can be deployed locally to support global goals. By making mapping technology universally available, we can enable people and organizations to collaborate and achieve impact in land and water conservation that is orders of magnitude greater than what they can accomplish alone.

The Center for Geospatial Solutions exists to bring new clarity and insight to the business of global land conservation, increasing access to data in the name of building a more sustainable future. Like lifting a fog, applying geospatial technology will enable anyone to see what is happening anywhere on the Earth. It will make the planet feel that much smaller, and the solutions to humanity’s toughest problems that much easier to grasp.

Image: The Center for Geospatial Solutions (CGS) will expand access to geographic information systems (GIS), remote sensing, and other tools that can inform decisions about land and water management. This CGS map combines social and environmental data to highlight landscapes that are relied on by  at-risk species, facing development pressures, and adjacent to existing protected areas (shown in green). Credit: CGS.

Luego de varias horas de lluvia ligera en Tucson, el agua tapa las calles del modesto vecindario Palo Verde. El tráfico obstaculiza un cruce importante, donde un vehículo de emergencia proyecta una señal de luces rojas y azules para que los autos esquiven una sección anegada de la calle. Junto a las aceras de las calles laterales corren riachuelos, que crean piscinas de agua que rebalsan cuando los autos se abren paso por allí.

A menos de dos kilómetros, en el Laboratorio Vivo y Centro de Aprendizaje de Watershed Management Group, la historia es otra. Allí, una serie de colectores escalonados con vegetación (depresiones poco profundas con árboles de mezquite, encelia farinosa y otras plantas nativas) actúan como esponjas, y desvían y absorben el agua de lluvia que corre por la calle. El estacionamiento permeable del centro absorbe con facilidad la precipitación ligera del invierno, y los tubos de bajada pluvial canalizan la lluvia que repiquetea en el techo del centro hacia un tanque de almacenamiento subterráneo de 45.000 litros.

Lisa Shipek, directora ejecutiva de Watershed Management Group (WMG), se inclina para controlar el medidor en la tapa del tanque y parece satisfecha. “2.200 litros más y se llena. Luego, desborda por allí”, dice, y señala una serie adyacente de jardines pluviales que palpitan vida desértica. Cactus nopales y zacatones gigantes se entremezclan con celtis reticulata, chilopsis y prosopis velutina, todos árboles nativos que dan sombra. También pueblan los jardines algunas plantas polinizadoras como gobernadoras, con sus flores amarillas y su aroma a pino, chapulixtles y chuparosas, con su rojo intenso.

Shipek se endereza para inspeccionar el centro y su jardín bien cuidado (que sirve como sitio de demostración para las soluciones sustentables que WMG promueve en todo el sudoeste desértico) y dice con orgullo: “El agua de lluvia que cosechamos cubre todas nuestras necesidades, incluso las de uso doméstico”. En esta ciudad desértica, que recibe un promedio de 305 centímetros de lluvia al año, resulta cada vez más importante hallar formas de capturar y reutilizar el agua.

Al igual que otras ciudades en el oeste de los Estados Unidos, Tucson siente la presión doble del cambio climático y el crecimiento veloz. Hoy, la población en el área metropolitana se acerca al millón, y se espera que para 2050 se expanda en un 30 por ciento. Esto implica un aumento en la demanda de agua, y además las temperaturas elevadas y las sequías disminuyen el suministro. Cuando vienen las tormentas, son cada vez más fuertes, y conllevan riesgos graves de inundación. La respuesta de Tucson y otras ciudades es invertir en desarrollo de bajo impacto y trabajar con la naturaleza para gestionar el agua pluvial lo más cerca posible de la fuente.

Este tipo de enfoque trae aparejados múltiples beneficios, como una mejor calidad del agua y la mitigación de las inundaciones, la creación de espacios verdes que ofrecen hábitats y dan sombra (una necesidad urgente), y la mejora del suministro local de agua. El departamento hídrico de Tucson invirtió US$ 2,4 millones en reembolsos para unos 2.000 clientes que instalaron cisternas de recolección de lluvia o “explanaciones” (es decir, colectores con vegetación y jardines pluviales) desde 2013. El programa de reembolsos financió la mitad del costo del tanque de almacenamiento subterráneo de WMG por US$ 30.000, y es una de las muchas iniciativas que la ciudad adoptó en los últimos años para promover la infraestructura verde.

A unos 800 kilómetros, en la costa de Los Ángeles, hay mecanismos similares de financiación que están cambiando el aspecto de una ciudad mucho más grande. Los Ángeles tiene más de cuatro millones de habitantes, y ostenta uno de los sistemas hídricos públicos más grandes del país; al igual que muchas otras ciudades de la región, depende en parte del río Colorado para obtener agua potable. Dado que este recurso es cada vez más vulnerable a la escasez, la ciudad está buscando fuentes de agua más confiables y cerca de casa.

Ambas ciudades fueron pioneras en infraestructura verde en el oeste, con sus enfoques e inversiones cabales. Cuando las ciudades invierten en proyectos con resultados locales mensurables, sus acciones pueden ayudar a que toda la región sea más resiliente, dice Paula Randolph, directora adjunta del Centro Babbitt para Políticas de Suelo y Agua, del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo.

“La infraestructura verde en el oeste ofrece un doble beneficio”, observa. “Uno es capturar agua e intentar mantenerla en el lugar, que se vuelva a filtrar en los acuíferos [para uso local]. El otro es mantener el caudal de los ríos de la región. Si en el acuífero hay agua suficiente, si se mantiene lo suficientemente alta, se puede mantener el flujo de un río”.

Tucson: cambiar la ecuación de suministro de agua

Hasta la década de 1990, el suministro de agua de Tucson dependía por completo del agua subterránea. Luego de décadas de bombeo excesivo, la ciudad tuvo que acudir al suministro del río Colorado mediante el Proyecto de Arizona Central (CAP, por su sigla en inglés), un sistema de acueductos que canaliza agua del río Colorado desde la entrada, en el lago Havasu, a municipios y distritos hídricos que abarcan unos 500 kilómetros de todo el estado.

Hoy, la ciudad depende del agua del CAP para recargar los acuíferos subterráneos, y el CAP provee el 85 por ciento del agua de Tucson. El agua subterránea provee solo el seis por ciento. El resto proviene de aguas residuales recuperadas para usos no potables, como irrigación, o para recargar los efímeros ríos que atraviesan la ciudad y corren más que nada durante la temporada estival de monzones, o luego de importantes lluvias.

Pero el río Colorado es un recurso al que se le exige cada vez más. Brinda agua a 40 millones de personas y a un millón y medio de hectáreas de irrigación agrícola en todo el oeste. Los científicos del Servicio Geológico de los Estados Unidos predicen que el río podría perder un cuarto de su caudal en los próximos 30 años, a medida que el cambio climático reduce la carga nival en su nacimiento y el aumento de las temperaturas disminuye los caudales aun más (USGS 2020).

“Estamos en una encrucijada con el río Colorado, y Arizona está en la mira porque hemos realizado recortes importantes y lo seguiremos haciendo”, advierte Randolph. Esto se debe a que el centro de Arizona posee los derechos hídricos más recientes sobre la cuenca del río Colorado. Mientras que Arizona planifica un futuro más seco y recortes en su asignación, según lo acordado en el Plan de Contingencia ante Sequías de 2019 entre siete estados de la cuenca y México, los funcionarios de Tucson buscan aumentar los suministros locales (USBR 2019).

James MacAdam, superintendente de Tucson Water Public Information & Conservation, dice que hoy la ciudad considera al agua pluvial como un recurso importante para su futuro. “Uno de los cambios de paradigma de Tucson Water es que ahora la consideramos [al agua pluvial] como fuente hídrica en las planificaciones. Eso cambió en los últimos cinco años”.

De hecho, el Distrito Regional de Control de Inundaciones del condado de Pima estima que el potencial de captura de agua pluvial de Tucson es de unos 43 millones de metros cúbicos al año, un tercio del volumen que Tucson Water entrega hoy a sus 730.000 clientes.

Evan Canfield, gerente de ingeniería civil del Distrito de Control de Inundaciones, dice que la ciudad ha priorizado los beneficios que puede traer la captura de agua pluvial. “Para la región de Tucson, el análisis de la escasez de agua y la mejora de la resiliencia (plantar árboles en cuencas para cosechar agua, que ayuda con la sombra y reduce las temperaturas) son los principales beneficios que buscamos”, dice. “Las inquietudes sobre la calidad del agua son un relleno”.

También entran en juego verdaderos beneficios económicos: el software basado en la nube Autocase, desarrollado por la Asociación de Gobiernos de Pima, muestra que el retorno de cada dólar invertido en infraestructura verde para agua pluvial es de entre dos y cuatro dólares en beneficios, como reducción de riesgos de inundación, aumento del valor de propiedades y disminución del riesgo de mortalidad por calor (Parker 2018).

En la última década, el Distrito de Control de Inundaciones instaló y conserva más de doce proyectos grandes en la ciudad, como el proyecto Kino Environmental Restoration Project, de US$ 11 millones, que captura agua pluvial de 45,8 kilómetros cuadrados de cuenca urbana y la dirige a más de 40 hectáreas de humedales y zonas recreativas, además de brindar hasta 518 millones de litros al año para irrigación de parques y para un complejo deportivo adyacente.

Ahora, Tucson está a punto de profundizar más en su potencial de agua pluvial. Aprobó una serie de medidas relacionadas, como la Política de Calles Verdes de 2013, que exige la incorporación de infraestructura verde en todos los proyectos de calles de financiación pública; el Decreto para el Desarrollo de Bajo Impacto de 2013, que exige a los nuevos desarrollos comerciales capturar el primer centímetro y medio de agua de lluvia; y el Decreto para la Cosecha de Agua Comercial de 2008, primero en el país, que exige a los desarrollos comerciales suplir el 50 por ciento de sus necesidades hídricas para parques con agua de lluvia cosechada.

MacAdam, de Tucson Water, dice que la suma de estas medidas significa que “cada vez que construimos una calle o un estacionamiento, o reconstruimos la infraestructura pública y privada, ahora lo diseñamos de forma que se tenga en cuenta el agua. Cuando el departamento de Parques rehace un parque, incorpora gestión inteligente del agua pluvial; cuando el departamento de Calles hace una calle, lo hace de forma de incorporar y gestionar el agua pluvial con criterio, entre otros ejemplos”.

Hace poco, la ciudad aprobó una financiación novedosa para infraestructura verde de agua pluvial que ayudará a expandir y mantener proyectos públicos de alta prioridad. La inversión recaudará unos US$ 3 millones al año mediante un pequeño cargo en la factura de agua de los residentes, con un costo mensual promedio estimado en US$ 1,04 para los propietarios, afirma MacAdam. La ciudad identificó 86 sitios potenciales para estos proyectos (muchos en vecindarios de bajos ingresos propensos a inundarse y a sufrir temperaturas ardientes de hasta 47 grados en verano), con un costo de US$ 31 millones.

Catlow Shipek, uno de los motores del movimiento local de infraestructura verde que cofundó Watershed Management Group junto con Lisa, su esposa, y del cual hoy es director técnico y de políticas, dice que la fundación “nos ayuda a empezar”. “Está muy centrada en el mantenimiento porque hoy no hay financiación destinada a eso”. Dice que la fundación también ayudará a “capitalizar nuevos proyectos y apuntalar a otros departamentos y organismos para que hagan más”.

MacAdam dice que la fundación se centra en añadir elementos a proyectos de trabajo principales que se están construyendo mediante el bono de Parques y conexiones, aprobado en 2018, que asignó US$ 225 millones para la construcción de bulevares para bicicletas y senderos verdes, y para la reforma de parques. Cuando se desmantele y se reemplace un viejo estacionamiento, por ejemplo, la ciudad creará nuevos colectores y rampas para canalizar el agua hacia jardines pluviales en los que plantará árboles y arbustos nativos. La fundación también intentará sumarse a proyectos de control de inundaciones.

“Cuando Control de Inundaciones compra un baldío para alejar el agua de una calle que se inunda en un vecindario, podemos usar nuestros fondos”, explicó MacAdam. “Ellos pagan para adquirir el suelo y cavar el colector profundo, y nosotros pagamos colectores más pequeños para agregar vegetación y crear un paisaje más funcional para el vecindario, y mantener ese paisaje en el tiempo”.

No se puede sobreestimar la importancia de añadir superficie cubierta de árboles, dice Randolph. “Es un tema de salud y de desigualdad”, porque las partes más calurosas de Tucson suelen estar en vecindarios con desventajas sociales y económicas.

“Tucson hizo cosas muy innovadoras que no son la norma en el oeste, ni en Arizona”, agrega. “En esencia, se creó un plan de ordenamiento territorial en el que el agua toca todas las vidas y los ecosistemas. Todo lo que se está haciendo con la cosecha de agua pluvial, los reembolsos, la fundación, implica menos bombeo subterráneo, lo cual permite a los sistemas naturales prosperar y crecer”.

Los Ángeles: considerar al agua pluvial como un recurso

En promedio, Los Ángeles es entre 10 y 15 grados más fresca que Tucson en verano, aunque las temperaturas pueden variar hasta en 20 grados en los distintos microclimas, como la playa, las colinas y el interior llano y caluroso. En algunas comunidades costeras más acaudaladas y frescas, la vegetación frondosa puede dar la impresión de que el agua no es un problema, pero no es así.

Al igual que Tucson, Los Ángeles recibe apenas 30 centímetros de lluvia al año. Y al igual que Arizona, California se enfrenta a grandes desafíos hídricos, ya que el cambio climático está intensificando las sequías y el crecimiento demográfico ejerce presión sobre los recursos limitados. Algunas comunidades de California todavía se están recuperando de la última sequía, que asoló al estado entre 2012 y 2016. Mientras tanto, la histórica contaminación agraria del valle Central dejó a un millón de residentes sin acceso fiable a agua potable, y el estado recién empieza a refrenar décadas de uso subterráneo excesivo mediante la Ley de Gestión Subterránea Sostenible de 2014, que apunta a cuencas demasiado sobreutilizadas.

En Los Ángeles, el Departamento de Agua y Energía (LADWP, por su sigla en inglés) atiende a cuatro millones de residentes en una zona de 1.222 kilómetros cuadrados, y brinda más de 641 millones de metros cúbicos de agua al año. La mayor parte de este suministro se importa mediante tres sistemas de acueductos. El acueducto de California entrega agua del delta Sacramento-San Joaquín, 714 kilómetros al norte; se bombea agua por sobre la sierra de Tehachapi y se almacena para su distribución en los lagos Pyramid y Castaic, al norte de la ciudad. El acueducto del río Colorado lleva agua a lo largo de 392 kilómetros desde su nacimiento, en el lago Havasu, la misma fuente que alimenta el Proyecto de Arizona Central, y cruza el desierto Mojave y el valle Imperial. El agua se almacena en el lago Mathews, unos 96 kilómetros al sudeste de la ciudad. El último acueducto, Los Ángeles, entrega agua del valle del río Owens, en las montañas de Sierra Nevada, al este. Ese sistema incluye una serie de ocho represas y embalses en su ruta, de 480 kilómetros. Dentro de los límites de la ciudad, otros nueve embalses y 110 tanques de almacenamiento permiten liberar agua de forma controlada cuando se la necesita.

Apenas el 14 por ciento del agua de Los Ángeles proviene de suministros locales. Bajo el Green New Deal, el plan de sostenibilidad de la ciudad para 2019, los dirigentes locales prevén dar vuelta esa balanza, cambiar el aporte de los suministros locales (subterráneo, aguas residuales recicladas, agua pluvial y conservación del agua) a un gran 71 por ciento del suministro total para 2035 (Ciudad de Los Ángeles 2019). Mientras en algunas ciudades del sur de california, como Huntington Beach y San Diego, se está recurriendo a la desalinización (es decir, convertir agua marina en agua potable), en Los Ángeles prefieren no usar este enfoque costoso que requiere mucha energía y además daña la vida marina.

“Queremos ser más fiables y sustentables a nivel local, y no depender tanto del suministro importado de agua”, dice Art Castro, gerente de gestión de aguas residuales en el LADWP. “Los estudios climáticos evidencian que habrá mucha menos nieve y mucha más lluvia. Eso significa que tendremos menos tiempo para capturar el deshielo . . . y con menos nieve y más agua pluvial, no tendremos el lujo de poder almacenar agua”. Es uno de los motivos por los que la ciudad quiere ser más autosuficiente, dice Castro, y añade: “el sistema se construyó para almacenar”.

Los Ángeles ya está recargando o capturando 91 millones de metros cúbicos de agua pluvial al año, principalmente de proyectos centralizados como terrenos de inundación superficial del tamaño de estadios de fútbol y cuencas de captura. Los terrenos de inundación superficial, similares a un barril sin fondo, son amplias cuencas arenosas sobre un acuífero que permiten una filtración veloz. El agua capturada en estos terrenos de Los Ángeles se termina filtrando unos 60 o 120 metros hasta los acuíferos de la cuenca de San Fernando, indica Castro.

Un plan de ordenamiento territorial para captura de agua pluvial, publicado en 2015, establece cómo la ciudad puede duplicar la cantidad de agua pluvial que captura mediante proyectos grandes y pequeños (LADWP 2015). Los proyectos descentralizados en calles, callejones y propiedades residenciales son un componente esencial de los planes de gestión de agua pluvial de la ciudad, que analizan la cantidad y la calidad del agua. El agua pluvial que corre por las calles termina llegando al océano Pacífico mediante el río Los Ángeles, y contamina algunas playas del sur de California.

“Debemos capturar, limpiar y filtrar el agua, si es posible, mediante un sistema de calles verdes”, dice Eileen Alduenda, directora de Council for Watershed Health, una organización sin fines de lucro que tuvo un papel fundamental en el movimiento de infraestructura verde de Los Ángeles. Alduenda concibe una proliferación de funciones para retener agua pluvial (como estacionamientos y entradas de coches permeables, rampas y paisajismo tolerante a las sequías) en todas las calles y callejones de la ciudad, un trabajo en conjunto para reducir el flujo de agua pluvial que llega al mar.

Un decreto de desarrollo de bajo impacto, que exige a los desarrolladores capturar una cierta cantidad de lluvia (en este caso, los primeros dos centímetros) para reducir la escorrentía de agua pluvial, entró en vigencia en 2012 y ayuda a estimular dichos proyectos de infraestructura verde descentralizados en toda la ciudad. El condado de Los Ángeles financió decenas de proyectos bajo Proposition O, un mecanismo de financiamiento aprobado en 2004. Los proyectos varían entre instalaciones para la retención de agua pluvial en parques públicos y áreas recreativas, hasta galerías filtrantes, colectores de fango, jardines de biofiltración y otras estructuras construidas en vados de calles residenciales.

Este año, habrá nuevos fondos disponibles para capturar y tratar agua pluvial mediante Measure W, la Ley de Agua Limpia y Segura de 2018, un impuesto parcelario que se estima recaudará US$ 300 millones al año. La medida permite que los fondos cubran costos de operación y mantenimiento (OyM). Es de vital importancia contar con estos fondos, según indica Daniel Berger, director de ecología comunitaria en TreePeople, una organización local sin fines de lucro que promueve la plantación de árboles, la cosecha de agua pluvial y los desarrollos de bajo impacto.

“Una de las mayores objeciones [a implementar infraestructura verde] desde el punto de vista gubernamental fueron los costos de OyM a largo plazo, que por cierto son más elevados que los de la infraestructura gris y para los cuales suele ser difícil obtener fondos”, dice Berger. “Measure W cambia el juego por completo, es una oportunidad para escalar las cosas de verdad”.

El valor de la participación de los organismos sin fines de lucro

En Los Ángeles, algunas organizaciones sin fines de lucro como TreePeople, Council for Watershed Health y Heal the Bay fueron fundamentales para incorporar alternativas verdes al programa de gestión de agua pluvial de la ciudad. Council for Watershed Health y TreePeople colaboraron con el LADWP y la Oficina de Recuperación de los Estados Unidos en un estudio de tres partes sobre el potencial de recarga subterránea con filtración de agua pluvial. Además, TreePeople se asoció con el LADWP en el Plan de Gestión para la Captura de Agua Pluvial de 2015.

Council for Watershed Health desarrolló un programa de capacitación para el programa Native Green Gardener de la ciudad, una labor para el desarrollo de mano de obra centrada en la capacitación de jornaleros sobre cómo gestionar paisajes con plantas nativas desconocidas y cómo mantener y limpiar ciertas instalaciones, como las rampas. Además, el Concejo gestionó el primer proyecto a gran escala en un vecindario que usó infraestructura verde para gestionar agua pluvial, Elmer Avenue en Sun Valley, un vecindario de bajos ingresos que se inundaba con frecuencia.

“Elmer Ave se convirtió en una muestra no solo de cómo se puede llevar a cabo la implementación a nivel técnico, sino también de cómo colaborar entre organismos para procurar que todo proyecto ofrezca múltiples beneficios”, dice Alduenda. El Comité de Calles Verdes de Los Ángeles, instaurado por Paula Daniels, excomisionada de obras públicas, para coordinar las labores de todos los organismos involucrados, fue vital para el proceso, añadió. “Era un lugar donde la gente que trabajaba en proyectos de Calles Verdes podía hablar de los problemas que tenía. Se podían resolver incoherencias entre los departamentos u obstáculos de procesos”.

Daniels creó el comité en 2007 cuando notó la necesidad de que hubiera un cambio de cultura en las oficinas de Ingeniería, Saneamiento, Parques y Entretenimiento, y Servicios Viales, encargadas de desarrollar proyectos de infraestructura verde. En las oficinas trabajaban ingenieros, no arquitectos paisajistas, dijo Daniels, entonces los conocimientos que aplicaban al trabajo eran sobre soluciones mecánicas. Daniels invitó a gerentes medios, más que a directores de oficinas, y le brindó al personal la oportunidad de “poner a prueba una idea”, de hablar entre ellos e intercambiar conocimientos. Invitó a pares de otras ciudades con programas sólidos de infraestructura verde, como Santa Mónica y Portland, para demostrar que era posible.

Daniels dice que las organizaciones sin fines de lucro fueron una parte esencial de esa combinación. “Estas organizaciones recopilan datos muy bien, extraen los análisis necesarios”, dice. Su participación en el primer proyecto de calle verde dirigido por la ciudad, sobre Riverdale Avenue, ayudó a “demostrar el supuesto de que mejoraría la calidad del agua, y que se gestionaría [como era debido] todo el caudal de agua”.

Las organizaciones sin fines de lucro también tuvieron un papel fundamental en Tucson; allí, ellas y los ciudadanos involucrados marcaron el camino. Los expertos hídricos de Tucson reconocen que Brad Lancaster, escritor y entusiasta de la permacultura, fue quien inició el movimiento de cosecha de lluvia en los 90, cuando creó la primera rampa intencional, que en ese momento era ilegal. Lancaster cortó una parte de la acera y colocó un colector con vegetación detrás para capturar el agua que corría por su calle en Tucson.

Por su parte, WMG creó el primer manual para planificar infraestructura verde en ciudades desérticas (WMG 2017). Catlow Shipek dice que el grupo identificó la necesidad de un manual de uso con prácticas, esquemas e información de mantenimiento cuando descubrió que los interesados principales (ingenieros, departamentos de la ciudad y vecindarios) no estaban hablando el mismo idioma. El manual ayudó a crear ese idioma común y facilitó la colaboración.

MacAdams confirma que los ciudadanos, los grupos de vecindarios y las organizaciones sin fines de lucro llevaron a la ciudad donde está hoy en cuanto al desarrollo de bajo impacto. “Fueron décadas de acción continua y concertada de la gente, la raíz”, dice. “Como ciudad, queremos tomar eso y construir a partir de ello, mejorarlo y profesionalizarlo, y hacerlo parte de nuestra infraestructura”.

Una solución con múltiples beneficios

Uno de los desafíos a los que se enfrentó Tucson Water al fomentar el desarrollo de bajo impacto es que este no calcula únicamente desde una perspectiva de ahorro de agua o control de inundaciones. Si se ven estos elementos aislados, los costos exceden a los beneficios, según MacAdam. Tucson continuará invirtiendo en infraestructura gris tradicional para controlar inundaciones, pero MacAdams destaca que el enfoque de bajo impacto “puede mejorar muchas cosas: cómo controlamos las inundaciones, cómo gestionamos los suministros de agua, cómo construimos las calles para ofrecer múltiples beneficios públicos, calidad del aire y del agua, sombra y resiliencia”.

Berger, de TreePeople, concuerda. “Nadie puede argumentar sin inmutarse que las soluciones basadas en la naturaleza serán las más efectivas solo desde una perspectiva de control de las inundaciones”, dijo. Pero, al igual que MacAdam, él cree que si se consideran los múltiples beneficios, “las soluciones basadas en la naturaleza se convertirán en la solución preferida para muchos casos”.

Tanto Tucson como Los Ángeles pueden mostrar como prueba que las inversiones en desarrollo de bajo impacto valen la pena en muchos sentidos. Pero es probable que la economía de la gestión hídrica urbana se torne más compleja, y no al revés, a medida que el desarrollo y el cambio climático se sigan acelerando. “El agua será cada vez más costosa”, dice Randolph. “Cada ciudad debe invertir en soluciones que la mantengan dinámica en los años siguientes, y que no enfrenten a las personas cuando los precios empiecen a aumentar. Tucson y Los Ángeles están tomando buenas decisiones para su comunidad. Están enfrentando el problema sin rodeos”.

Meg Wilcox es periodista ambiental; escribe sobre cambio climático y agua, salud ambiental y sistemas de alimentación sostenible. Su trabajo se ha publicado en The Boston Globe, Scientific American, Next City, PRI y otros medios.

Fotografía: Tormenta eléctrica sobre Tucson, Arizona. Crédito: John Sirlin vía Getty Images.

Referencias

Ciudad de Los Ángeles. 2019. “LA’s Green New Deal: Sustainable City pLAn”. https://plan.lamayor.org/sites/default/files/pLAn_2019_final.pdf.

LADWP (Departamento de Agua y Energía de Los Ángeles). 2015. “Stormwater Capture Master Plan”. Los Ángeles, CA: Geosyntec Consultants. Agosto. https://www.treepeople.org/sites/default/files/pdf/publications/%2BLADWPStormwaterCaptureMasterPlan_MainReport_101615.pdf.

OEO (Oficina de Oportunidad Económica de Arizona). “Population Projections”. Phoenix, AZ: Autoridad de Comercio de Arizona. https://www.azcommerce.com/oeo/population/population-projections.

Parker, John. 2018. “Triple Bottom Line Cost Benefit Analysis Makes the Case for Green Infrastructure in Pima County”. Nueva York, NY: Autocase. 24 de octubre. https://autocase.com/triple-bottom-line-cost-benefit-analysis-make-the-case-for-green-infrastructure-in-pima-county.

USBR (Oficina de Recuperación de los Estados Unidos). 2019. “Colorado River Basin Drought Contingency Plans”. Washington, DC: Departamento del Interior de los Estados Unidos, Oficina de Recuperación. https://www.usbr.gov/dcp/finaldocs.html.

USGS (Servicio Geológico de los Estados Unidos). 2020. “Atmospheric Warming, Loss of Snow Cover, and Declining Colorado River Flow”. Recursos Hídricos. https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/atmospheric-warming-loss-snow-cover-and-declining-colorado.

WMG (Watershed Management Group). 2017. “Green Infrastructure for Desert Cities”. Tucson, Arizona: Watershed Management Group. Primera publicación 2016. https://www.vibrantcitieslab.com/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2019/08/green-infrastructure-manual-for-desert-communities-2016.pdf.