Rick Schultz doesn’t hate grass outright. He can see the use for it in some places—kids should be able to play soccer somewhere, sure—but there’s no need for it in road medians or sweeping lawns in arid places, says Schultz, a water conservation specialist at the municipally owned utility in Castle Rock, Colorado.

Located on the southern fringes of the Denver metro area, Castle Rock is one of the fastest growing communities in the country. Its population has skyrocketed from 20,224 in 2000 to nearly 72,000 today. Seventy percent of Castle Rock’s water supply comes from non-renewable groundwater, so as the town grew, officials had to figure out how to stretch that supply. In 2006, the water utility and the planning department started collaborating to address that issue. 

The community created a water master plan that set guidelines—like where it made sense to have grass—to delineate how and where they could conserve water while still accommodating growth. Schultz says they had to think outside of traditional land use regulations and water supply patterns to work toward long-term sustainability, steering disparate parts of the planning process toward smart growth: “We needed to push the boundaries a little if we wanted a better outcome.”

Since then, Castle Rock has introduced financial incentives, regulatory changes, and even behavioral science strategies to ensure that water supply is actively considered as part of every planning and development process. From offering incentives to developers who install water monitoring systems to requiring landscapers to pursue professional certification in water efficiency, Castle Rock has become a leader in this area, recognized by the state of Colorado for its efforts and for sharing best practices with other organizations. 

In communities across the United States, water managers and planners are emerging from the silos they’ve traditionally operated in to find new ways to work together. This is in part because climate change is causing turbulence for the water sector nationwide, in the form of prolonged droughts, damaging floods and wildfires, severe storms, and sea-level rise. The urgency of developing resilience in the face of these threats is becoming increasingly clear. Collaboration is also increasing because, although communities face many different challenges and operate with countless variations on municipal structures, many are rediscovering a singular truth about land and water: when you plan for one, you have to plan for both. 

“Water engineers are beginning to recognize they cannot provide sustainable services without involving those in the development community—including planners, architects, and community activists,” explains the American Planning Association’s Policy Guide on Water (APA 2016). “Leading edge planners are reaching across the aisle to water managers to help advise on their comprehensive plans, not only to meet environmental objectives, but also to add value and livability, rooted in the vision of the community.” 

How We Got Here

Picture the view from an airplane as you fly over rural areas or the outskirts of any major city: the way the right-angled boundaries of agricultural fields and housing plots contrast with the twisting braids of river channels and the irregular shape of lakes and ponds. Land and water are very different resources. They have been managed differently—and separately—as a result.

The divide between water and land planning has deep roots. Although water is connected to all parts of sustainable growth, from ecosystem health to economic viability, planners and water managers have long worked separately. From volunteer planning boards in rural communities to fully staffed departments in major cities, planners focus on land use and the built environment. Water managers, meanwhile, whether they are part of a municipally owned utility, private water company, or regional wholesaler, focus on providing a clean and adequate water supply. 

“I can’t think of a single city where [planning and water management] are contained within a single division,” says Ray Quay, a researcher at Arizona State University’s Global Institute of Sustainability who has served as both assistant director of land planning and assistant director of water services in Phoenix, Arizona. Quay says regional and watershed-wide development choices about growth often don’t line up with water supply.

“A typical divide would be that planners plan for growth while assuming the water utility will be able to supply water, while water utilities don’t participate in decisions about community growth, they just build infrastructure to serve the new growth that comes to them,” adds Jim Holway, director of the Babbitt Center for Land and Water Policy, which was created by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in 2017 to advance the integration of land and water management.

Ivana Kajtezovic, planning program manager at Tampa Bay Water, a regional wholesale drinking water utility in Florida, confirms that lack of alignment. “Tampa Bay Water doesn’t have a say in growth in the counties and cities we serve,” says Kajtezovic. “Our only mission is to provide drinking water, no matter the growth or the speed of growth. Land use decisions are made by the counties and cities we serve.”

In a 2016 APA Water Working Group Water Survey, 75 percent of land use planners felt they were not involved enough in water planning and decisions (Stoker et al, 2018). “We know that land and water are connected, and no one ever argues that they’re separate,” says Philip Stoker, assistant professor of Planning at the University of Arizona, who conducted the APA survey. “It’s only people who have separated them.” 

This divide is partly a result of historical regulatory structures. “Water is very much state law-based, with some federal hooks into various aspects of it,” says Anne Castle, former assistant secretary for Water and Science at the U.S. Department of the Interior. Federal management involves regulations such as the Clean Water Act and agencies such as the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and water rights are allocated at the state level. Meanwhile, although there is federal and state oversight of some public lands, most of the regulation and planning related to private land happens locally or regionally, reflecting individual and community rights and desires. While there are state-level initiatives to “put more emphasis on the consideration of water in developing land,” Castle says—including in Colorado, where she is based—there are still wide gaps in priorities and responsibilities.

Communities across the country are dealing with unique issues, of course, but Stoker’s survey suggests the barriers to solving them are similar: lack of time, lack of resources, fear of a loss of jurisdictional power if they surrender some control, and differences in education, experience, and technical language. It can be hard to surmount those issues. “Logically it should be easy, but when institutions grow up with a single focus, it’s hard to change their mission and expand into other places,” says Bill Cesanek, cochair of the APA Water & Planning Network. Cesanek says things work better when planners share the responsibility for determining where the water to meet future demands will come from.

Land and water planners have to work together, agrees Quay, and need to be realistic about where, how, and whether their communities can grow. “One of the really critical factors is political will,” he says. “We should be thinking about what’s most important for our community, and we should be allocating our water to that.” 

According to Holway of the Babbitt Center, that’s becoming more common. “With growing demand for water in the face of increasing challenges to acquiring new water supplies, utilities and land planners are having to figure out how to work together to maintain a balance between supply and demand.”  

“Too Much, Too Little, Too Dirty”

According to the APA Policy Guide on Water, water-related threats often fall along familiar lines: not enough water, thanks to increased population growth and climatic stress on top of already fully allocated or overallocated water supplies; too much water, due to flooding and rising sea levels; or compromised water quality due to agricultural and urban runoff and other sources of contamination. In every case, the urgency is growing.

Not enough water. In the Southwest—especially the overtapped Colorado River Basin, which serves 41 million people in seven U.S. and two Mexican states—persistent drought means diminishing snowpack, dwindling supplies in natural aquifers, and shrinking reservoirs. Researchers predict that Colorado River flows will decline by 20 to 35 percent by 2050 and 30 to 55 percent by the end of the century (Udall, 2017). 

The drought also has cascading impacts on water systems. For instance, increasingly frequent and large wildfires in dry Western forests are causing watershed contamination in areas that haven’t previously dealt with it, like the headwaters of the Colorado. During fires and for years afterward, according to the EPA, water can be polluted by ash, sediment, and other contaminants, which forces water managers to scramble for solutions. “I do think there’s a much greater trend of land use planning and water management collaboration occurring fastest in places that are facing scarcity,” Stoker says.

Too much water. Over the last 30 years, floods in the United States have caused an average of $8 billion in damages and 82 deaths per year (Cesanek 2017). As climate change fuels more extreme weather events, Quay says, floods are exceeding parameters defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that have traditionally guided planning decisions. Quay says it’s hard to adapt because our stationary planning guidelines and laws aren’t set up for those extremes. 

Places like low-lying Hoboken, New Jersey—where rising sea levels and superstorms like Hurricane Sandy have inundated sections of the city—are building water system resilience into their planning. The city is incorporating features like manmade urban sand dunes that work as physical barriers and can divert storm surges to newly built flood pumps. “The stormwater system is at the same level as the river—[stormwater] has nowhere to go, so they’ve had to build a really innovative resilience planning program,” Cesanek says.

Contaminated water. During heavy rains, which are increasingly frequent due to climate change, the combined sewer system in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, overflows into neighboring rivers and Lake Michigan, polluting the waterways, compromising the ecosystem, and affecting the water supply. “Stormwater gets into our combined and sanitary systems. Nothing is water-tight,” says Karen Sands, director of Planning, Research, and Sustainability at Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD). Sands says MMSD has had to align at-odds geographic and jurisdictional layers to find solutions that protect the watershed. One of those solutions is the construction of 70-acre Menomonee stormwater park, built in conjunction with city planners, which is expected to treat 100 percent of runoff from industrial and commercial areas nearby. It both ensures a clean supply of water now, and preemptively manages demand for the future. 

Chi Ho Sham, president of the American Water Works Association, a nonprofit international organization for water supply professionals, says one of the group’s biggest concerns is water quality, particularly protecting water at the source, limiting pollutant use, and creating barriers to slow or prevent contamination. “From my point of view, our job is to work very collaboratively with landowners,” he says. “Water managers cannot do it alone.”

Infrastructure and Equity Issues

The U.S. population is projected to reach 517 million by 2050, and the fastest-growing cities are in the South and West (U.S. Census Bureau 2019). You can’t keep people from moving to Tempe or Tampa Bay, but this population growth is occurring in regions where the pressure on both water quality and quantity is already high. In some places, this rapid growth has forced the hand of planners and water managers, who have implemented water conservation and reuse measures to ensure there will be enough water to go around.

To complicate matters, our nation’s water infrastructure hasn’t kept up with changing demographics. Old lead pipes are disintegrating, and water treatment plants are overwhelmed by the amount of water they need to process. In 2017, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation’s drinking water a D grade, estimating a cost of $100 billion for all the necessary infrastructure upgrades (ACES, 2017).

There is also a divide between places that can afford to upgrade their infrastructure and those that cannot. Addressing that inequity is crucial to securing future water supplies for everyone, says Katy Lackey, senior program manager at the nonprofit US Water Alliance, a national coalition of water utilities, businesses, environmental organizations, labor unions, and others which is working to secure a sustainable water future. 

“We believe water equity occurs when all communities have access to clean, safe, and affordable drinking water and wastewater services, infrastructure investments are maximized and benefit all communities, and communities are resilient in the face of a changing climate,” she says. Reaching that goal will require new ways of working.

How to Work Together Well

Integrated planning starts with getting people in the same room to understand the needs of their community, the gaps in current processes, and how they can better work together, says Holway of the Babbitt Center. From there, formalizing goals around planning and water is critical, whether those goals are reflected in a comprehensive or master plan for community development, in a more specific plan based on conservation and resilience, or in zoning and regulatory changes. 

“We are focused on identifying, evaluating, and promoting tools to better integrate land and water, with input from a diverse group of practitioners and researchers,” Holway says, noting that Babbitt Center Research Fellow Erin Rugland has produced several publications for practitioners, including a matrix of available tools for integrating land and water (Rugland 2021) and two manuals focused on best practices (Rugland 2020, Castle and Rugland 2019).

Those focused on the importance of integrating land and water say there are several factors that contribute to successful collaborations, including:

Build relationships. Stoker found that getting people out of their silos is an important first step. “In the places that have been the most successful at integrating land and water planning, the utilities and planners were friends. They knew that if they worked together, they would benefit,” he says. Stoker cites Aiken, South Carolina, where water managers helped build the comprehensive plan, as an example, adding that this kind of collaboration is important at every scale. In Westminster, Colorado, water managers participate in preapplication meetings for any new development. From the beginning, they have a chance to advise on how choices made about things like plumbing and landscaping will impact a project’s water use and fees.

Westminster is one of 33 western communities that have participated in the Growing Water Smart program, a multiday workshop run by the Babbitt Center and the Sonoran Institute with additional funding from the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Gates Family Foundation. Growing Water Smart brings small teams of leaders together to communicate, collaborate, and identify a one-year action plan. 

“The heart of Growing Water Smart is getting land use planners and water managers from the same communities together to talk to each other, sometimes for the very first time,” says Faith Sternlieb of the Babbitt Center, who helps to facilitate the program. “Once they start sharing resources, data, and information, they see how valuable and important collaboration and cooperation are. It isn’t that they didn’t want to work together, it’s that they truly thought they had everything they needed to do their jobs. But they don’t often have the time and space they need to think and plan holistically.”   

“What has worked in my experience is to form relationships with the planners making decisions,” confirms Kajtezovic of Tampa Bay Water. “To the extent possible, I communicate with them and explain the importance of source water protection.”

Be creative and flexible. Once relationships are formed, creativity and flexibility are key. Because every community is facing different planning challenges, “context is incredibly important,” says Quay. This is true not just among different regions, but within regions, and sometimes even from one community to the next. “What works in Phoenix won’t necessarily work in Tempe [a city of nearly 200,000 just east of Phoenix], so we can’t just adapt best management practices, we have to think about best for who.” He recommends identifying a broad, flexible set of tools that can be used and adapted over time.

Be willing to learn. Because of specialization, planners and water managers “don’t speak the same language,” says Sham, who says the AWWA has been working on collaborative education about source water protection for members and landowners. Sometimes it feels like added work on the front end, and he says people can be reluctant to take on work that’s not in their purview, but developing a shared language and understanding is crucial for long-term sustainability. 

John Berggren helps communities coordinate land and water planning as a water policy analyst for Western Resource Advocates. He says one of his first steps is to educate local leaders and get them excited about including water in their comprehensive plans. “We get them interested and concerned about conservation, to create top-down support for planning departments and water utilities,” he says. Once water is codified in a comprehensive plan, he says, that allows planners and utilities to come up with creative, progressive solutions. 

Be comprehensive. The integration of land use and water planning works best when it is included in state-level regulations or in comprehensive plans at the community level. According to the Babbitt Center, 14 states formally incorporate water into planning in some form, and that number is growing. For example, the 2015 Colorado Water Plan set a goal that 75 percent of Coloradans will live in communities that have incorporated water-saving actions into land use planning by 2025; communities across the state are working on that process, and 80 communities would have to take action to hit the 2025 deadline. Colorado also recently passed state legislation that outlines water conservation guidelines for planning and designates a new position in the state government to support the coordination of land and water planning. 

Since 2000, when Arizona passed the Growing Smarter Plus Act, the state has required communities to include a chapter in their comprehensive plans that addresses the link between water supply, demand, and growth projections. It’s happening in less dry places, too. The Manatee County, Florida, comprehensive plan matches water quality with need to make the best use of non-potable water. It includes codes for water reuse and alternative water sources to increase availability, and to make sure that water gets to the most appropriate destination.

To incorporate water into comprehensive plans, Quay says, communities need a concrete idea of the type and amount of their available resources. Water managers and planners can then work together to identify new and alternative water sources like treated wastewater and graywater (household water that has been used for things like laundry and can still be used for flushing toilets); to identify projected demand; and to outline how to meet it.

Embrace the power of local action. Even if water-related planning is not mandated by the state or incorporated in a community’s comprehensive plan, water managers and planners can still find ways to collaborate. More specific local plans can include water supply and wastewater infrastructure plans; hazard mitigation and resilience plans, like floodplain and stormwater management; demand management; watershed processes and health; and plans for interagency coordination and collaboration. If those variables feel overwhelming, Berggren suggests that planners look to their peer communities for best practices. Although each community is different, he says, “no one needs to reinvent the wheel.” 

Local policy shifts can also include form-based codes that outline water-related aspects of the built environment. In Milwaukee, Sands says best practices for managing flooding and pollution include “updating municipal codes and ordinances to encourage green infrastructure and more sustainable practices.” That green infrastructure, which mimics natural processes at the site level through things like bioswales and stormwater storage, can make communities more resilient to climate change, while restoring ecosystems and protecting water supply.  

Water-wise policy shifts can also come in the form of zoning ordinances, like smaller lot sizes. Planners can use subdivision and land development regulations to promote on-site capture, infiltration, and slow release of stormwater. Some communities have adopted plumbing codes that require high efficiency fixtures, or building codes that permit water recycling, or submetering to increase efficiency in multifamily residences. Fountain, Colorado, has conservation-oriented tap fees, which incentivize developers to meet water efficiency standards beyond the building code. Developers can pay lower tap fees if they agree to options like native landscaping or including efficient indoor fixtures across a development.

The benefits of integrating land and water planning are myriad, from measurable results like adapting plans for development to ensure an adequate water supply to more indirect, long-term effects like reducing conflict between water users as supplies shrink. Back in Castle Rock, Schultz and his colleagues have observed that water-focused land use ordinances can have a big impact, and can benefit quality of life as a whole. It hasn’t always been easy, Schultz says, but the new way of doing things seems to be paying off: “We’ve shown that we can do better if we provide a good foundation.” 

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

Lead Photograph: In Castle Rock, Colorado, planners and water utility managers have partnered on plans for sustainable growth. Credit: Robert Young via iStock Editorial/Getty Images Plus.

References

APA (American Planning Association). 2016. APA Policy Guide on Water. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/water/.

ACES (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2017. Infrastructure Report Card. Washington, DC: American Society of Civil Engineers. https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/.

Castle, Anne, and Erin Rugland. 2019. “Best Practices for Implementing Water Conservation and Demand Management Through Land Use Planning Efforts: Addendum to 2012 Guidance Document.” Denver, CO: Colorado Water Conservation Board. January. https://dnrweblink.state.co.us/cwcbsearch/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=208193&dbid=0.

Cesanek, William, Vicki Elmer, and Jennifer Graeff. 2017. Planners and Water: PAS Report 588. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. https://www.planning.org/publications/report/9131532/.

Rugland, Erin. 2021. “Integrating Land and Water: Tools, Practices, Processes, and Evaluation Criteria.” Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/working-papers/integrating-land-water. (February).

Rugland, Erin. 2020. Incorporating Water into Comprehensive Planning: A Manual for Land Use Planners in the Colorado River Basin. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/other/incorporating-water-comprehensive-planning.

Stoker, Philip Anthony, Gary Pivo, Alexandra Stoicof, Jacob Kavkewitz, Neil Grigg, and Carol Howe. 2018. Joining-Up Urban Water Management with Urban Planning and Design. Alexandria, VA: The Water Resource Foundation. https://www.waterrf.org/research/projects/joining-urban-water-management-urban-planning-and-design.

Udall, Bradley, and Overpeck, Jonathan. 2017. “The Twenty‐First Century Colorado River Hot Drought and Implications for the Future.” Water Resources Research 53 (3): 1763-2576.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. “Fastest-Growing Cities Primarily in the South and West.” Press release. May 23. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/subcounty-population-estimates.html.

Related

Growing Water Smart: Workshop Helps Western Communities Integrate Water and Land Use Planning

Water Planning: Land Use Decisions Could Make or Break the River that Sustains One in Nine Americans

The Lincoln Institute is celebrating its 75th anniversary in 2021—our origins date to the original Lincoln Foundation, founded in 1946—and throughout the year the Land Matters podcast will examine different aspects of our work, and the people and places that have had an influence on the organization as it has evolved over the years.

The series begins with one of the most urgent issues facing the planet, and a prominent part of the Lincoln Institute’s portfolio: the climate crisis. Author and journalist Bill McKibben breaks down the actions of the Biden administration to confront global warming, from rejoining the Paris accord to halting the Keystone XL pipeline. Land use and land policy, he says, are critical components as the planet readies for inevitable impacts such as rising seas.

“It’s crucial in two ways,” he says. “We need protection and barrier against the forces we have unleashed–the sea is coming up higher, the winds are rising. It’s all simple physics at some point.”

At the same time, “there’s going to be a lot of places we can’t protect, and we simply need to understand that and begin planning for how we move people away from places that are going to be uninhabitable for humans.”

He anticipates an estimated 1 billion “climate refugees,” and cites as an example the destructive wrath of late-season hurricanes last year making landfall in Honduras, destroying 40 percent of that nation’s GDP. By contrast, the toll of the deadly 2005 storm, Katrina, was one percent of America’s GDP.

Climate change has been a priority of the Lincoln Institute for many years, advancing groundbreaking solutions in both mitigation and adaptation, with special attention to the role of land.

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 Credit: Bill McKibben.

Related:

Joe Biden’s Cancellation of the Keystone Pipeline Is a Landmark in the Climate Fight, The New Yorker

Here Are All the Climate Actions Biden Took on Day One, Scientific American

A ‘Nerve Center’ for Climate in the Biden White House, The New York Times

Urban Planning Tools for Climate Change Mitigation, Lincoln Institute

Lessons from Sandy: Federal Policies to Build Climate-Resilient Coastal Regions, Lincoln Institute

Buy-In for Buyouts: The Case for Managed Retreat from Flood Zones, Lincoln Institute

Nature and Cities: The Ecological Imperative in Urban Design and Planning, Lincoln Institute

75th Anniversary website and Land Lines commemorative issue

Land and water policy can shape the built and natural environment to reduce the extent of climate change and help communities and natural systems withstand the impacts of a changing climate. The Lincoln Institute is advancing good planning practices to address these challenges and aspires to foster climate justice as a key element of this work. We reached out to people across our global network to ask them this question: If you could implement one land-based solution during 2021 that would have a meaningful impact on climate change, what would it be?

Kongjian Yu
Founder and President, Turenscape
Contributor, Nature and Cities

The most effective and holistic solution to climate change is “sponge lands.” Expanding on the concept of “sponge cities,” which uses green infrastructure to absorb stormwater and combat pollution in urban areas, this land-based solution can retain rainwater at the source, slow the water in the course of its flow, and be used adaptively at its outlets (rivers, lakes, and oceans). This is completely opposite to the conventional engineering solutions widely used across the globe, particularly in developing countries in the monsoon climate: damming rivers to create big reservoirs, channelizing water using concrete flood walls, building concrete drainage in the city, and pumping water out. Gray infrastructure consumes huge amounts of cement, creating a significant amount of carbon emissions, suffocating the most productive ecosystems with the highest biodiversity, and making land less resilient. Sponge lands means the creation of porosity in vast, hilly landscapes that are suffering from erosion; the creation of “sponge fields” in the form of small ponds in farmland where runoff pollutes nearby rivers and lakes; and the creation of sponge cities. Sponge lands means the prudent use of cement in hydrological engineering and pavement in urban areas. It also means the removal of concrete flood walls and dams along waterways to restore habitat, replenish groundwater, nurture lush vegetation, and create other benefits. Sponge lands are an efficient, inexpensive solution that will empower the resiliency of the land against climate change.

Linda Shi
Assistant Professor of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University
C. Lowell Harriss Dissertation Fellow, 2015–2016

The United States needs a national climate adaptation plan that includes a land use and development strategy. Efforts related to carbon dioxide removal and renewable energy, such as biofuels and solar arrays, will significantly impact rural land use. Failure to decarbonize means escalating climate impacts, climate-induced migration, and new landscapes of injustices in the form of climate oases and climate slums. Growing urban–rural political conflict already reflects spatial and socioeconomic inequality, rooted in rural resource and human extraction for processes of urbanization, dynamics that the climate crisis can exacerbate. Market responses will not be sufficient in scale, target geographies that can sustainably accommodate growth, or enable a just climate transition. The magnitude of needed actions to tackle the climate crisis therefore requires a new national architecture of land policy. This includes (1) science- and equity-informed identification of geographies where future growth and investment should go; (2) fiscal, investment, and grant policies that enable local governments to respond to climate impacts rather than burden them with unfunded mandates or punitive measures; and (3) legal reforms to banking and organizational regulations that would expand cooperative ownership models that help build community control of housing and land for local wealth retention and creation.

Alan Mallach
Senior Fellow, Center for Community Progress
Coauthor, Regenerating America’s Legacy Cities

The zoning of America’s suburbs, resulting in a suburban landscape dominated by large single-family houses on large lots and by vast areas—often largely vacant—zoned for industrial and office use, has fostered an auto-dependent pattern of widely dispersed population and employment centers which in turn has led to increased emissions from vehicular travel, as well as from energy use for lighting, heating, and cooling. It has also curtailed housing production, exacerbated housing affordability problems, and led to millions of lower-income workers making long daily treks from urban centers to suburban jobs. Solutions are straightforward, and do not require undoing single-family zoning. State zoning statutes should require municipalities to allow accessory apartments and structures in single-family zones wherever feasible from a health and safety standpoint, permit multifamily housing along commercial corridors and in industrial or office zones, and rezone bypassed vacant parcels, of which dozens exist in nearly every American suburb, for multifamily housing. Higher residential densities along corridors and in mixed-use clusters will, in turn, vastly increase the opportunities for cost-effective, efficient transit solutions. Increased and diversified housing options in already largely developed suburbs will address unmet housing needs and reduce the pressure for further outward expansion of metros, making the suburbs themselves more sustainable in the face of demographic shifts, changing housing demands, and future climate shocks.

Sivan Kartha
Senior Scientist, Stockholm Environment Institute
Advisor, Lincoln Institute Climate Program

A survey across 64 countries estimated that forests held collectively by indigenous peoples and forest communities contain approximately one trillion tons worth of carbon dioxide, equal to more than three decades’ worth of global emissions from fossil fuel use. These lands are also among the world’s richest in biodiversity and home to vital freshwater resources. However, those living in these forests often lack formally recognized land rights. Forest-rich countries generally have colonial legacies, in which land and resources were seized at the expense of local communities. Centuries-old property rights and land tenure regimes originally set up for taxation and extraction persist, contributing to the continued degradation of forest resources. A growing body of research shows that when land rights are formally recognized and legally safeguarded, indigenous peoples and local communities can protect common resources through informal practices and collective action that prevent deforestation, preserve biodiversity, and protect ecosystem services such as soil enrichment and watershed health. Imposing conventional private property regimes, on the other hand, can cause new problems, triggering land speculation and clashing with local cultural norms. Establishing secure land tenure rights for indigenous peoples and rural communities can help preserve the world’s declining forest resources, while safeguarding the livelihoods on which their hundreds of millions of residents depend.

Tamika Butler
Built Environment and Equity Consultant, TLB Consulting
Guest Speaker, Big City Planning Directors Institute

My hope for 2021 is that the increased attention, conversation, and resource allocation directed toward fighting racism, white supremacy, and anti-Blackness will not disappear with the flip of a calendar page as people push toward “getting back to normal.” Just being better than it is now shouldn’t be enough. As a Black person, I could look at the statistics and know that the old normal meant my life was expendable. As a Black person, I also know that in this new normal, I can look at any statistic about COVID-19, hate crimes, or environmental racism and see that my life is still expendable. Beyond not being good enough, “getting back to normal” will not meaningfully impact climate change. Instead, I hope that those in power examine who they are listening to and funding when it comes to land-based solutions. The ideas, solutions, and pursuits of fighting climate change with land-based solutions should focus on ensuring that we listen to Black people, Indigenous people, and other racialized people and members of historically oppressed groups who have long been leaders in climate change, sustainability, and serving as protectors of humanity. All climate change solutions should center the idea that in 2021 we must stop the killing of Black people, Indigenous people, and other people of color.

Melinda Lis Maldonado
Lawyer, Matanza-Riachuelo River Basin Authority, Argentina
Instructor, Lincoln Institute, Latin America and the Caribbean

The implementation of development charges with environmental components would have a meaningful impact on climate change. These are building or urban permits that consider water and vegetation aspects as requirements to exercise basic or additional building rights. To illustrate the last case, in exchange for increasing density, adding land for green urban spaces could be an additional charge. These urban planning tools could finance climate change adaptation and mitigation, because they could generate, at the local level, resources to finance conservation or the implementation of green and blue infrastructure in private or public spaces. Nature-based solutions would be prioritized. Nature can provide more affordable long-term solutions and more benefits to humans and cities than solutions that only use gray infrastructure. At the same time, such solutions can function as mitigation and adaptation measures. These requirements would typically be fulfilled in the same place where the building occurs, in the form of sustainable drainage, reforestation, or green space. In some exceptions, they would involve financing green infrastructure in another place. Attaching environmental conditions to building rights would take different forms according to local climate change effects and the magnitude of the urban development project. Urban planning, law, and private property regulation have an important role to play in facing climate change.

Frederick Steiner
Dean, University of Pennsylvania Stuart Weitzman School of Design
Coeditor, Design with Nature Now

While we work on enacting effective policy, we need to change our hearts and minds about climate change and adjust how we live accordingly. Everyone reading this would make a list of 365 personal activities that contribute to climate change and make a commitment to replace them, one each day, with an action to mitigate or adapt to climate change. By sharing their pledge on social media, they could encourage their family, friends, and followers to do the same. Each of these actions ties back to land, water, and energy. For example: 

using a copier planting a tree
building a patio digging a garden
driving a car taking a walk
complaining about politicians calling and emailing representatives
ordering a book online visiting a local bookstore
buying imported produce growing a tomato
dropping off dry cleaning learning to iron
grilling beef eating a cricket
flying to a conference organizing a Zoom
turning on the air conditioner opening a window
cutting the grass planting native flowers
upgrading your cable watching birds

and so on for another 353 days.

Astrid R. N. Haas
Policy Director, International Growth Centre

From a governmental perspective, implementing land-based solutions in my own country, Uganda, is inherently challenging. In part this is because our Constitution, and all subsequent legislative instruments pertaining to land, unequivocally vest land in the people. In addition, Uganda has multiple coexisting tenure systems, yet limited administrative capacity to delineate each of them or document ownership. This situation means the government’s ability to implement land-based solutions, which unlock public value, is extremely limited. It is within this context that in 2021 I would therefore pursue land readjustment as an entirely practical approach and the most viable land-based solution. Particularly within urban areas, this tool [a model in which landowners pool their properties to accomplish a redevelopment project] has enormous potential. For example, working at a local level, it would be possible to determine land tenure and ownership and elicit community buy-in to pool parcels for more densified development. There is growing evidence that denser cities are greener and more climate efficient. Therefore, this solution would not only have a significant impact on the efficiency of how Ugandan cities could be managed, particularly with regards to public service provision, it would have a meaningful impact on climate change as well.

Larry Clark
Director of Strategic Initiatives, International Association of Assessing Officers

I am an appraiser with 40 years of experience working in three local jurisdictions, writing articles, lecturing, and teaching mass appraisal in many parts of the United States and the world. My association with people from many parts of the world has given me an appreciation for the issues surrounding climate change. One of the realities of climate change is that water resources are poorly distributed among our 50 states. Climate change exacerbates that situation by causing droughts in one part of the country while the warmer atmosphere brings soaking rains and floods to another. Therefore, my wish would be for the development of a nationwide network of reservoirs and distribution systems to collect and redistribute precipitation nationally. It would require an effort similar in scope to the federal highway system begun under President Eisenhower, and should be governed by a regulatory body that prioritizes humanitarian needs above those of agriculture and commerce. Collection systems should be sited in areas of current and anticipated future flooding, as well as natural runoff, to feed into reservoirs for later distribution into municipal water systems where it is needed.

Forster Ndubisi
Professor of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University
Author, Ecology in Urban Design and Planning

Climate solutions require us to fundamentally rethink our ethical relations to the land. I propose that we initiate the process of critical reflection on our ethical obligations to the land and adopt a place-based ecocentric ethic (PBEE) as one climate solution in 2021. The adoption of PBEE via lifelong immersive education stipulates the ethical behavior and moral obligations that designers and planners should adhere to in addressing climate challenges. PBEE is based on the interdependency between people and biophysical [nature] processes, in which each depends on the other for continued existence. Human interactions with natural processes will necessarily result in the degradation of natural resources and processes [natural capital] to a certain degree, including landscapes that provide vital ecosystem services. By implication, PBEE confers the moral imperative for preserving natural capital when feasible; conserving natural capital when a justifiable degree of use is demonstrated; replenishing natural capital through active restoration of degraded ecosystems; minimizing the extent of human footprint; reducing carbon usage; and actively embracing environmental stewardship. To combat climate change effectively, PBEE employs ecological knowing as a process for understanding the interdependency between human and natural ecosystems. In turn, ecological knowing works best by using a coupled system-design thinking process and participatory collaboration in creating climate mitigation and adaptation solutions.

Robin Bronen
Executive Director, Alaska Institute for Justice
Steering Committee, Climigration Network

Return stolen lands to Indigenous Peoples and erase the borders and boundaries that divide and separate the ecosystems upon which we depend. Indigenous Peoples have conserved the biodiversity of this planet for millennia. The one-fourth of the Earth’s land occupied by Indigenous Peoples coincides with 40 percent of the natural areas protected and territories that remain undamaged. According to studies undertaken by the World Bank, these territories hold 80 percent of the planet’s biodiversity. In the United States, settler colonialism created the legal and institutional structures that forcibly removed and relocated Indigenous populations from their traditional lands and recast Indigenous Peoples’ land as property and as a resource. Repatriating land to Indigenous Peoples, as the original stewards of these lands now known as the United States, helps to rectify this injustice. Removing the social construction of boundaries and borders that artificially divides land and erasing these invisible lines ensures that the ecosystems and biodiversity upon which humanity depends can thrive as the climate crisis transforms the web of life.

Cintia Fernandes
Lawyer for the Municipality of Curitiba, Brazil
Instructor, Lincoln Institute, Latin America and the Caribbean

Considering the socioeconomic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, both local and metropolitan solutions are necessary to prevent unwanted impacts on the environment, such as pollution, garbage accumulation, and reduction of green areas. Cities must have connectivity, systemic thinking, and metropolitan sustainability. Cities must implement both a circular economy and circular taxation, strengthening real estate and environmental taxes in order to permit swifter, more effective and efficient local responses. These systems may also result in less corruption, a better quality of life, and the mitigation of climate changes. Aiming to achieve this, we propose a circular tax, an intelligent fiscal tool for the construction and development of cities and metropolitan regions. This entails the strengthening of real estate taxation (property tax, taxation differentiated by use and location, betterment tax) and of environmental taxes (garbage collection and recycling fees, tax on metropolitan environmental threats, application of the polluter pays principle). A circular tax would strengthen planning and sustainable urban management and is a land policy that can help preserve the environment.

Photograph: Aerial view of a solar power station in Germany. Credit: Bim/Getty Images.

Related

Land Matters Podcast: In First of 75th Anniversary Shows, An Interview with Bill McKibben

Muriel Bowser alcanzó un protagonismo nacional este año por ser una voz destacada en la pandemia del coronavirus y el movimiento por la justicia racial. Bowser fue electa alcaldesa de Washington, DC, en 2014 y reelecta en 2018. Es una gran defensora del movimiento por otorgar categoría de estado a DC y ocupa un cargo único: es gobernadora y directora ejecutiva de condado, y también alcaldesa. Desde que asumió su cargo, ha buscado acelerar la producción de viviendas asequibles en el Distrito, que alberga a 706.000 personas en 176 kilómetros cuadrados y cuenta con un presupuesto de US$ 16.000 millones. Además, trabajó para diversificar la economía local, aumentar la satisfacción con los servicios de la ciudad e invertir en programas y políticas que apoyen a las familias. Bowser nació y creció en DC, inició su carrera política en 2004 como comisionada asesora de vecindarios para el barrio Riggs Park y en 2007 entró en el concejo del Distrito Electoral 4. Hace poco, nos cedió un tiempo de su agenda de alcaldesa de la capital de la nación para conectarse por correo electrónico con Anthony Flint, miembro sénior del Instituto Lincoln.

Anthony Flint: Asumió su cargo a principios de 2015. ¿Hubo algo que la pudo haber preparado para el 2020? ¿Cómo ve que se desarrollará lo que queda de este año turbulento? ¿Confía en la gestión ante el coronavirus?

Muriel Bowser: Como ciudad global, nos preparamos constantemente para un abanico de impactos y tensiones. Sin embargo, está claro que este es un evento inaudito que exigió una respuesta inaudita. Los residentes y las empresas hicieron sacrificios tremendos por la salud y la seguridad de la comunidad. Como Distrito, tenemos la suerte de que encaramos la crisis desde una posición de fortaleza. Eso nos permitió empezar a implementar muchos recursos de inmediato para proteger y apoyar a los residentes, como entregar alimentos para personas mayores, crear sitios de distribución gratuita de productos de almacén para quienes los necesitaran o establecer sitios de pruebas gratuitas en toda la ciudad y contratar enseguida cientos de rastreadores de contacto. Desde que comenzó la emergencia, nos hemos centrado mucho en seguir a la ciencia, oír a los expertos y mantener informada a la comunidad. Ojalá eso continúe hasta que podamos superar esto. Pero en general, estoy muy orgullosa de cómo respondió la población de Washington al desafío.

AF: ¿Qué expresa el mural de “Las vidas negras importan” sobre la calle 16th Street frente a la Casa Blanca (replicado en muchas otras ciudades) sobre la dinámica del dominio público y el cambio social?

MB: Decidí crear el Paseo “Las vidas negras importan” cuando las protestas pacíficas contra el racismo sistémico se encontraron con gas lacrimógeno, helicópteros federales y soldados camuflados ocupando nuestras calles locales. Y lo que hicimos fue crear un lugar donde la población estadounidense pudiera unirse para protestar y reparar, para crear estrategias y sanar. La población de todo el país se volcó a la calle para exigir un cambio. Ya sea mediante protestas o arte, o una combinación de protestas y arte, la gente está usando el dominio público para enviar un mensaje claro: que las vidas negras importan, que la humanidad negra importa, y que debemos saldar esta cuenta y reparar los sistemas rotos que perpetúan el racismo y la injusticia desde hace demasiado tiempo.

AF: En 2019, estableció un objetivo para 2025, de crear 36.000 unidades de vivienda nuevas (12.000 de ellas asequibles). ¿Cuáles son las cosas esenciales que deben ocurrir para crear más opciones de vivienda en Washington?

MB: Cuando asumí el cargo, llevamos a más del doble la inversión anual en el Fideicomiso para la Producción de Viviendas de DC, a US$ 100 millones al año. Es el mayor valor per cápita de todas las jurisdicciones. Y no solo estamos invirtiendo: estuvimos sacando ese dinero y poniéndolo en proyectos que producen y conservan miles de viviendas asequibles en toda nuestra ciudad. Pero debemos hacer más. Como usted destacó, en DC tenemos un objetivo grande: construir 36.000 viviendas nuevas para 2025, y que al menos un tercio de ellas sea asequible. El año pasado, nos convertimos en la primera ciudad de la nación en establecer metas de vivienda asequible por vecindario. Cuando anunciamos esas metas, también organizamos conversaciones comunitarias en vecindarios de toda la ciudad para debatir con los residentes sobre el legado persistente de las diversas prácticas discriminatorias y sobre cómo podemos trabajar en conjunto para mejorar. Algunas de las medidas que estamos tomando para lograrlo son: una reducción impositiva en zonas de alta necesidad, cambios en el programa de zonificación inclusiva y continuar con esas inversiones grandes (y estratégicas) del Fideicomiso para la Producción de Viviendas.

AF: Si la economía de la ciudad se recupera de la pandemia, es probable que Washington continúe con su historia de logros con relación al renacimiento urbano. ¿Qué políticas implementó para abordar el aburguesamiento y el desplazamiento, tanto residencial como comercial?

MB: Sé que Washington se podrá recuperar de esta pandemia. Aún tenemos más de 700.000 habitantes que tienen capacidad de recuperación y creatividad, y se centran en ayudar a sus pares a superar la situación; sobre esa base, sé que superaremos esto.

Cuando entramos en emergencia sanitaria pública, ya nos centramos mucho en construir una ciudad más inclusiva y procurar que los beneficios de nuestra prosperidad llegaran a más habitantes. Esta pandemia no hizo más que amplificar la importancia de nuestras labores por la igualdad. Y al avanzar con la respuesta y la recuperación, aún nos centramos en cómo nos acercamos a nuestras metas de vivienda, empleo, atención médica y más. Seguimos invirtiendo más de US$ 100 millones en viviendas asequibles. Estamos avanzando con nuestro plan estratégico para lograr que no haya más personas sin hogar, y abrimos refugios nuevos y más dignos en toda la ciudad. Los programas para adquirir una vivienda continúan. Observamos los números reales de las viviendas para ver cómo podemos ayudar a más residentes a quedarse y construir su futuro en DC.

Y también apoyamos a las pequeñas empresas y los emprendedores locales. Por ejemplo, hace poco anunciamos una nueva estrategia de inclusión equitativa que aumentará el acceso a oportunidades de desarrollo para organizaciones que pertenecen de forma total o mayoritaria a individuos de la población en desventaja social.

AF: ¿Qué tipo de importancia atribuye a la oficina de planificación de su ciudad, y por extensión, quién se está desempeñando bien en la práctica de planificación en otras ciudades?

MB: Es esencial no solo que planifiquemos para el crecimiento a largo plazo de DC, sino también que procuremos que el crecimiento refleje los valores de una ciudad inclusiva y dinámica. Mi Oficina de Planificación tiene un papel crucial en la promoción de nuestras metas de viviendas, y nos ayuda a construir una ciudad que trabaja para la población de todos los entornos y niveles de ingresos. Dado que la oficina de planificación puede ofrecer análisis de políticas, hacer consideraciones a largo plazo y tener un alcance comunitario, además de encargarse de las necesidades de implementación en cuanto a la zonificación y el uso territorial, para mí es uno de los organismos de la vivienda. Trabajan junto con el departamento de vivienda tradicional, la autoridad de viviendas sociales y el organismo de financiamiento de viviendas para analizar las viviendas y la capacidad de pago.

Respecto de otras ciudades, lo que es interesante es que en todo el país también están pasando muchas cosas fantásticas a nivel local, y las ciudades y los pueblos están creando soluciones innovadoras que están a la altura de sus necesidades únicas, desde Los Ángeles hasta Gary, Indiana, y Boston. Las ciudades son incubadoras de innovación, y si bien no siempre tenemos los mismos desafíos (por ejemplo, algunas ciudades tienen muchas personas y pocas viviendas, y otras tienen muchas viviendas y pocas personas), siempre estamos aprendiendo unas de otras.

AF: ¿Qué pueden hacer las ciudades ahora para enfrentar la crisis climática, que sigue avanzando, aunque en este momento esté eclipsada por las otras emergencias que estuvieron ocupando lugares más protagónicos?

MB: La justicia medioambiental debe ser parte de la conversación más amplia que tenemos a nivel nacional en este momento. Por ejemplo, sabemos que el daño causado por el cambio climático antropogénico tiene un impacto desproporcionado en las comunidades de color. Además, cuando observamos el impacto desproporcionado que la COVID-19 tiene en las personas negras estadounidenses, vemos el vínculo directo con el trabajo que debemos hacer para construir comunidades más saludables y con mayor capacidad de resistencia. Es toda una conversación sobre igualdad y justicia. En DC tenemos varios programas, como Solar for All, que se centran en combatir el cambio climático y a la vez responder a la desigualdad y otras disparidades. No debemos aislar estas problemáticas; podemos y debemos centrarnos en todo.

Fotografía: La alcaldesa Bowser observa el mural de “Las vidas negras importan” que encargó para la calle 16th Street, que lleva directo a la Casa Blanca. Crédito: Khalid Naji-Allah.

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

El debate nacional sobre las crecidas del agua tiende a centrarse en estados costeros, como Florida y Nueva York, y se deja de lado a los estados tierra adentro. Pero los residentes de Míchigan, uno de los estados continentales con más litoral, también luchan con cambios que llevan a los funcionarios locales a reexaminar sus políticas de gestión costera. El cambio climático amplifica las fluctuaciones naturales del lago Míchigan e intensifica las tormentas, y las comunidades empiezan a planificar para un futuro incierto.

Históricamente, por cada década que los residentes soportaron crecidas del agua, la siguiente les trajo una disminución en el nivel y una ola de nuevos desarrollos junto a la orilla. Según indica Richard Norton, profesor de planificación urbana y regional de la Universidad de Míchigan, este sistema de subibaja, que puede tener diferencias de hasta dos metros en el nivel del agua en el transcurso de varios años, está ocultando un patrón más paulatino de erosión costera. El enfoque en los extremos, dice, ha dejado de lado las acciones en la gestión de la costa.

En 2014, Norton y un equipo de investigadores empezaron a trabajar con la ciudad y el municipio estatutario de Grand Haven, comunidades vecinas en el perímetro sudeste del lago, para pensar más allá del estado actual y debatir las mejores prácticas de gestión costera a largo plazo. Su enfoque gira en torno a un método llamado planificación de escenarios.

Este método permite a las comunidades planificar un futuro impredecible al explorar múltiples posibilidades de lo que podría ocurrir. El marco (que el Consorcio para la Planificación de Escenarios, una iniciativa del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de suelo, promueve mediante asistencia técnica, recursos educativos y una red de profesionales) ha demostrado potencial en estas jurisdicciones, ubicadas en los condados más conservadores del estado a nivel político y que albergan a residentes que tienen distintos puntos de vista sobre los riesgos del cambio climático.

La función de la planificación local

Los gobiernos locales tienen una oportunidad única para ayudar a dar forma al futuro de las zonas costeras. Si bien el Programa Nacional de Seguro contra Inundaciones influye en el desarrollo privado, los gobiernos locales toman la mayoría de las “decisiones públicas que dan forma al desarrollo privado en las zonas costeras de alto riesgo”, según escribieron Norton y sus coautores en el artículo publicado en Journal of the American Planning Association (Norton et al. 2019).

Sin embargo, son pocas las jurisdicciones que cumplen esa función en su totalidad. Según la investigación de Norton de mediados de la década de 2000, de las 60 comunidades estudiadas en los Grandes Lagos de Míchigan, cerca del 40 por ciento de los planes de ordenamiento territorial no incluyeron debates sobre problemas de gestión en la zona costera. En ese momento, tres cuartas partes de los planes no habían adoptado ninguna política significativa de gestión de zona costera.

Las inquietudes sobre la gestión costera suelen ser desplazadas por factores como otros problemas de planificación, el aporte de las propiedades costeras en renta inmobiliaria, apego emocional a las propiedades y resistencia a las regulaciones gubernamentales, dijo Norton.

Un equipo multidisciplinario y multiuniversitario de investigadores, dirigido por Norton, quiso considerar si la planificación de escenarios, conocida como proceso técnico, podría simplificarse y adaptarse al contexto de los municipios que no cuentan con la tecnología y la capacidad de realizar análisis extensos. La financiación del proyecto provino del Programa de Gestión Costera en Míchigan, del Departamento de Medioambiente, Grandes Lagos y Energía, y tuvo el respaldo de un subsidio bajo la Ley Nacional de Gestión Costera de 1972. El proyecto también tuvo el apoyo del estudio de planificación sin fines de lucro Land Information Access Association, que ofrece asistencia técnica a dirigentes locales mediante el programa Resilient Michigan.

Hace unos años, el equipo se comunicó con varias ciudades, entre ellas la ciudad de Grand Haven y el municipio estatutario de Grand Haven, para debatir la posibilidad de iniciar un proceso de planificación de escenarios dirigido por asesores. En ese momento, ambas comunidades estaban en plena actualización de sus planes de ordenamiento territorial. Como casi todas las jurisdicciones del estado sobre el lago Míchigan (122), ambas comunidades tienen poca población y escaso personal.

Las comunidades se sumaron, y se inició un extenso proceso de planificación. Entre 2014 y 2016, los funcionarios locales, las comisiones de planificación, el concejo de la ciudad, la junta del municipio y los residentes de ambos lugares participaron en más de 20 reuniones de trabajo y presentaciones.

Sopesar escenarios

Para el proceso, fue central identificar tres “futuros climáticos”. Los investigadores crearon los escenarios según un horizonte de 20 a 50 años con el uso de datos de fácil acceso, como niveles históricos del agua, mapas de la FEMA y análisis básicos de GIS. En el futuro “afortunado”, los niveles de agua siguen siendo bajos y la comunidad experimenta una sola tormenta en 50 años (según clasificación de la FEMA). El futuro “esperado” supone niveles promedio de agua y una sola tormenta en 100 años. El escenario “tormenta perfecta” se caracteriza por niveles altos de agua y una sola tormenta en 500 años.

“El proceso ayudó a las personas a comprender que no estábamos pensando en el peor escenario únicamente”, dijo Jennifer Howland, gerenta de desarrollo comunitario en la ciudad de Grand Haven.

Para el siguiente paso, el equipo multisectorial tomó varios datos listos para usar relacionados con planificación y desarrollo, y esbozó tres opciones de cómo podrían responder los gobiernos locales en cada futuro climático. En un escenario, los gobiernos mantenían las estructuras existentes. En el segundo, los residentes podían construir según los permisos actuales de zonificación. La tercera opción incorporó una serie de Mejores Prácticas de Gestión (MPG), desde obstáculos en zonas cercanas a la costa hasta restricciones de construcción en humedales. Los investigadores combinaron los futuros climáticos y las opciones de gestión y presentaron nueve escenarios para que analizaran los funcionarios locales y los residentes. Compartieron los efectos fiscales, ambientales y de uso del suelo de cada uno de ellos.

En el futuro “afortunado” de la ciudad de Grand Haven, por ejemplo, si los residentes siguen construyendo bajo las regulaciones actuales de zonificación, se dañarán 207 estructuras. Si los residentes adoptan las MPG, la cifra baja a 59.

Un futuro “afortunado” en que el municipio construye bajo las regulaciones actuales de zonificación provoca posibles daños por el valor de US$ 11,6 millones en zonas que hoy albergan propiedades con renta inmobiliaria neta anual por US$ 194.015. En el escenario de “tormenta perfecta”, construir bajo las regulaciones actuales de zonificación provoca posibles daños por el valor de US$ 89 millones en zonas que albergan propiedades con renta inmobiliaria anual por US$ 358.000.

Además, los investigadores calcularon la discrepancia entre las zonas que el estado designó como de alto riesgo de erosión y las que, según sus cálculos, se inundarían en los tres futuros climáticos. La zona identificada por el estado era mucho más pequeña que la identificada por los investigadores, lo cual destaca la importancia del papel que pueden tener los gobiernos locales en sortear esa brecha.

“Cuando presentamos los materiales, hubo miradas de sorpresa y conmoción, pero cuando la gente procesó la información y comprendió que estos son futuros razonables en los que deberíamos pensar, hubo menos oposición”, dijo Norton. “Si hubiéramos anunciado los obstáculos directamente, habría sido muy controversial”.

Los funcionarios locales también usaron otras estrategias para fomentar las conversaciones. Howland hizo hincapié en que los mapas con base científica y las imágenes aéreas de las orillas históricas lograron que el análisis resultara más turbador para los residentes. Stacey Fedewa, directora de desarrollo comunitario en el municipio estatutario de Grand Haven, dijo que centrarse en los impactos que el cambio climático puede tener sobre el tiempo atmosférico fue una forma efectiva de llevar un asunto global a nivel local.

“Si una tormenta grande provoca una inundación, no tendremos electricidad, las calles se inundarán, los comercios cerrarán”, dijo. “Los camiones no podrán entrar. Si podemos recuperarnos más rápido porque tenemos resiliencia, cerrarán menos comercios [y] los empleados volverán a trabajar antes”.

Las sesiones también fueron importantes para demostrar que construir cerca de la costa y usar medidas de refuerzo como rompeolas y escolleras puede causar daños a largo plazo en las playas naturales. Esta tendencia a “detener la naturaleza”, como la llama Norton, está exacerbando la erosión de las playas adyacentes y aumenta los metros de erosión anual de costa en las zonas con alto riesgo de erosión.

En los planes de ordenamiento territorial resultantes, ambas jurisdicciones incorporaron sugerencias para el proceso en distintos grados. El cuerpo del plan de ordenamiento territorial de la ciudad de Grand Haven incluye políticas de regulación e infraestructura que recomendaron los investigadores. Además, la ciudad actualizó el distrito superpuesto con zonas susceptibles y agregó uno a la playa sobre la base de imágenes aéreas presentadas por los investigadores en las que se muestra cómo cambia la marca de agua con el tiempo. Estableció reglas nuevas para medidas de protección de la costa en la zona del distrito superpuesto, y limitó dichas medidas con la excepción de tipos específicos de vallado por temporada (Ciudad de Grand Haven 2016). Una guía para propietarios los ayuda a comprender qué pueden hacer y ofrece alternativas (LIAA 2018).

En el municipio, el director de planificación y la comisión incluyeron resúmenes conceptuales y sugerencias de políticas en el cuerpo de su plan, pero decidieron relegar los análisis más detallados al apéndice porque les preocupaba que la comunidad políticamente conservadora ofreciera resistencia (municipio estatutario de Grand Haven 2016). El municipio también consideró nuevas propuestas para prohibir los rompeolas (que pueden interrumpir los procesos naturales de transporte de sedimentos, y crear olas más altas y mayor erosión que corroería los muros con el tiempo) y aumentar las restricciones para construir a 60 metros de la usual marca alta del agua; esto es un cambio importante respecto de la restricción actual, de 15 metros. Las propuestas llegaron a los votantes a fin del año pasado, pero no se aprobaron (en parte porque los funcionarios se centraron en tomar acciones para proteger las viviendas de un récord en la crecida del nivel de agua) y las decisiones reglamentarias siguen estando en manos de la autoridad local, el Departamento de Medioambiente, Grandes Lagos y Energía de Míchigan.

“Los niveles del agua volverán a bajar”, dijo Norton. “Siempre lo hicieron. ¿Cómo podemos ayudar a los funcionarios de la ciudad a mantener este tema en el cronograma cuando no hay una crisis?”.

Escalar el enfoque

Norton cree que la planificación de escenarios es una herramienta prometedora para la toma de decisiones a nivel local, y piensa que el hecho de que estos gobiernos hayan incorporado políticas de gestión costera en sus planes de ordenamiento territorial es un paso importante. “La simplicidad de los métodos es útil”, dijo. “Se centran en las decisiones: ¿deberían adoptar restricciones o no?”. Norton reconoce que incluso este método simplificado suele requerir cierto conocimiento interno, como la capacidad de manipular ArcGIS.

Espera que algunas de las lecciones aprendidas, sobre planificación de escenarios y sobre gestión costera, se puedan aplicar en otras comunidades, idealmente con la ayuda de asesores externos que ofrezcan el análisis necesario a un costo razonable o sin siquiera la necesidad de asesores externos. Y parece que la voz está corriendo en la región: Howland compartió el trabajo de la ciudad con las comunidades vecinas del lago e hizo una presentación en un simposio sobre dunas en East Lansing. Fedewa alentó al municipio de Spring Lake, al norte de Grand Haven, a usar los recursos del programa Resilient Michigan.

Norton, quien planea expandir su trabajo al lago Hurón, que está cerca, dijo que la planificación de escenarios es una herramienta ideal para prepararse para la incertidumbre inherente de una era definida por la crecida del agua, cualquiera sea el tipo. “Lo que hacemos también se puede aplicar muy bien en entornos de costas marítimas”.

Para obtener más información sobre cómo la planificación de escenarios puede ayudar a las comunidades a prepararse para el futuro, lea “Planificación de escenarios en pandemia: cómo aceptar y transitar la incertidumbre”.

Emma Zehner es editora de comunicaciones y publicaciones en el Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo.

Fotografía: Una casa en el municipio estatutario de Grand Haven ubicada peligrosamente cerca de la orilla en diciembre de 2019, luego de varios meses de tormentas intensas. Crédito: Cortesía del municipio estatutario de Grand Haven.

Referencias

Ciudad de Grand Haven. 2016. Plan de ordenamiento territorial de la ciudad de Grand Haven para 2016. Grand Haven, MI. https://grandhaven.org/residents/grand-haven-master-plan.

Municipio estatutario de Grand Haven. 2016. Plan de ordenamiento territorial del municipio estatutario de Grand Haven para 2016: resumen ejecutivo. Municipio de Grand Haven, MI. http://www.ght.org/wp-content/uploads/master-plan/ExecutiveSummary.pdf.

LIAA (Asociación para el Acceso de la Información sobre el Suelo). 2018. Living in Sensitive Areas: A Homeowners Guide for Residents of Grand Haven. Grand Haven, MI: Ciudad de Grand Haven. Mayo. https://grandhaven.org/living-in-sensitive-areas-homeowners-guide/.

Norton, Richard K., Stephen Buckman, Guy A. Meadows y Zachary Rable. 2019. “Using Simple, Decision-Centered, Scenario-Based Planning to Improve Local Coastal Management”. Periódico de la Asociación Americana de Planificación. 85 (4): 405-423. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01944363.2019.1627237.