Engineering Reloaded:Hydraulic Bureaucracy and Water Crisis in the Western United States

Brian O’Neill, Joan Cortinas-Munoz and Franck PoupeauUMI-iGLOBES

New conflicts over water management are generated by the “mega-drought” affecting the region since the beginning of the 2000’s: not only a natural disaster but also the results of the historical transformations affecting the West since more than a century.

The Hoover Dam, built during the great depression between 1931 & 1936 on the Colorado River

Hydraulic Bureaucracies in the West

September 29th, 2014Meeting of the groundwater advisory users

Council committee of Tucson Active Management Area

The Central Arizona Project is designed by the Federal Bureau of Reclamation to bring about 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water per year to Arizona. CAP carries water from Lake Havasu near Parker dam to the southern boundary of the San Xavier Indian Reservation just southwest of Tucson. It is a 336-mile long system of aqueducts, tunnels, pumping plants and pipelines.

CAP: ongoing disputes over drought management => future shortages and sharing Colorado River between 7 states => multi-level institutions involved •California not ready to reduce or renegotiate its allotment from the Colorado River•Federal government and Department of Interior suspected of favoring California•ADWR, Pima County, cities of the Sun corridor, etc.

White House’s Council on Environmental Quality CEQTo ensure that federal agencies meet their obligations of the ACT

EPA veto power

WHITE HOUSE

House Committee on Natural Resources -Subcommitee on Energy and Mineral Resources

- Subcommittee on FisheriesSubcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs -Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation

-Subcommitte on Water and Power

Army Corps of EngineersBureau of Reclamation

Bureau of Land ManagementUS Forest Service

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Federal Agencies

FEDERAL AUTHORITIES

Federal Courts

Arizona State Agencies (permit delivering)Arizona Department of Water Resources ADWR /Colorado River Mgmt

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Water Banking Authority (AWBA)

Arizona Corporation Commission Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona

Arizona State Courts

TRIBAL NATION

Ak-Chin Indian Community; Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community; Fort McDowell Indian Community; Yavapai Prescott Apache Tribe; Pueblo of Zuni; San Carlos Apache Nation (Salt, Black,

and San Pedro River claims only); Gila River Indian Community; Tohono O'odham (San Xavier, Schuck Toak, and Gila Bend Districts only); and White Mountain Apache Tribe

Senate committee on environment

AdministrativePermit deliveringPublic participation

Judicial

Arizona State LegislatureSenate House of Representatives

Arizona State Authorities

AdministrativePermit deliveringStakeholder group

judicial

Congress US institute for Environmental Conflict resolution, 1998

NEPA 1969-70Signed by Pdt Nixon

National Environmental Policy Act

EIS Environmental Impact Statement-The lead agency as the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project- Cooperating agencies

Indian Water rights settlement

CAP 1968Central Arizona Project

disputes settlement

SUPREME COURT of the US Winters v. United States (1908)/Water rights were reserved for tribes as an implication of the treaties that created the reservations with the intention of allowing American Indian settlements to become self reliant and self sufficient Wyoming v. Colorado1872Prior appropriation water rights

Groundwater Management Act (1980) signed by Gov Babittcreation of ADWR and TAMAs

Prior appropriation doctrine/In the western part of the country, water ownership is controlled by the appropriative systemRights to water belong to the first user who puts the water to beneficial use Public water code 1919

Arizona water settlement act

Water management in the Southwest

Tribal Nation Navajo /hopi Tribe at issueCap settlement approved by Congress

successs

pending

failure Navajo powergenerating station

US bureau of Reclamation 24,3% +Salt River Project 21,7%

Los Angeles Dept of Water and Power 21,2 %

Arizona Public Service 14,0%

NV Energy 11,3%Tucson Electricity Power 7,5%

Tucson Phoenix

CAP

Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (AMWUA)

EPA Bart proposal

1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act, B Reclamation participating interest in the NGS, used to provide power to the CAP

Municipal Water UsersMunicipal Water Providers

Arizona Water Settlement actNon indian Priority CAP water reallocation to the ADWR

Indian grassroots organization

Legal framework

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

senate Congress

Better than Bart

CAWCDE D FundGila RiverNavajo NSRPDOIW. R.A

Farmers, industrial sector

COUNTY DISTRICT

CITYTOWNS

PIMA COUNTYCentral Arizona Water Conservation CAWCD Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment CAGRDMetropolitan Water District

PrIvate Water Providers

Oro Valley Green ValleySahuarita

Action forcing mechanism

ARIZONA

environmentalists

CAP

Getting Into the Field • We Reconstitute 3 historical periods of struggle to

understand the development of the bureaucratic field.

• 1890-1928: Irrigation of small farms in the “New America.” Federal government fuels growth.

• 1929-1970: Interstate struggles and waning challenge to federal hegemony.

• 1970’s to today: Water for the cities and emergence of new professionals

PERIOD STRUCTURAL HISTORY DOMINANT COALITIONS1890s-1920s Federal Level

Water for a New AmericaGovernment Agencies, Local Elites of the Western Economy

1920s-1960s Inter-States LevelLegal issues to share the Colorado River

Governors, Senators, Lawyers, State Commissions & Agencies

1960s-2010s Local LevelsCAP in Tucson: Urban Sprawl, Water Quality and Mega-Drought

Municipal/County Administrations, Developers

• The three periods we focused on by means of coalitions analysis helped us to build our current model networks.

• We propose that a coalitions analysis is not an incompatible way of moving to a field analysis because you can begin to highlight multiple levels of action over time.

• Snowball sampling: from Tucson & Pima County (promotion of water conservation policy) to Arizona policy makers and inter-state struggles (sharing Colorado River)

Methodology

Presentation• First, we will explain some key points of history

• Providing Prosopography or “relational biography”(Garth and Dezalay 2002) to supplement and inform what we know from observation.

• Network Analysis

• Concluding Remarks on the Field of Water Policy in the West

Guiding Hypothesis:

growing water scarcity reveals not only a transformation in the models of water management and of the networks associated with the utilities, but also a shift in the bureaucratic powers of state engineering that has defined the model of water management (mega-projects for economic growth).

The Frontier

1899-1930: Water for a New America• No megaproject had yet been completed. Many small and often

failed attempts.

• There was a fragmented group of young engineers, many spawned from the Mexican-American and Civil War.

• They began to band together in tow factions: (1) Army Corps of Engineers and (2) The Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation would eventually claim the West as federal dollars poured into projects and it’s budget was taken over by Congress in the 1923.

• The reformist ideals that were the original foundation of Reclamation that involved irrigated small tracts of land gave way to a broader vision. By 1923, engineers had become specialists in the construction of small dams for a Reclamation initiative that was going nowhere, and while Reclamation and the Corps were fiercely opposed to cooperating with each other.

Frederick Newell and the New EngineersFrederick H. Newell, head of the Reclamation Service from 1902 to 1915, was one of the New Engineers who emerged during the boom in the profession. Between 1880 and 1920, a substantial number of engineering schools were founded, leading to a dramatic rise in graduates. Trained in the belief that technology, of which they regarded themselves as the masters par excellence, would enable them to apply natural laws to governing the world more effectively, they thought of themselves as being above politics. Their professional ethic was based on the notions of organization, efficiency, rationality and expertise. Their technical knowledge earned them recognition from their peers and the professional prestige required for brilliant careers in public service.

Building Consensus

Great Depression (30’s) to 1970’s• With the depression, the ideal of small family farms came to an end.

• In overcoming the economic and social consequences of the Depression the federal government was obliged to act at the level of individual states.

• Only the Salt River Project, in Arizona was truly successful until now.

• However, as the ability for the federal government to finance new projects became apparent, so do a host of new claims.

• Arizona and California would wage the longest legal battle in U.S. history move their right to the Colorado River.

• The only way that the federal government could more money effectively through the system was to place it in the interests of the states

1930’s to 1970’s cont.• We can see that this relationship has the effect of producing

social consensus between professionals of water management and the public.

• The Consensus agenda has its roots in these long and protracted struggles between states, but it has also led to greater emphasis in recent years on avoiding historical problems and reframing them in terms of policy initiatives, consensus documents and more general agreements between states.

• An additional effect was that, as the bureaucracy proliferated and agenda’s changed, the old engineers of “New America” were struggling to maintain relevant as they were forced to deal with lawyers, economists, ecologists, etc. who became vital to bureaucratic life.

The New Gaurd

Bruce Babbitt and a New VisionBruce Babbitt is one of the foremost figures in Western environmental politics. Born into a ranching family in Flagstaff, Arizona in 1938, he rose to prominence with his election as Governor of Arizona in 1978, after serving as Attorney General of Arizona since 1975. He continued on as Governor until 1987 when he ran on the Democratic ballot for President. Babbitt also served as SOI under President Clinton from 1993 to 2001. As SOI, he left his most lasting impression on American politics, and he is considered to be one of the most successful to hold that position, because of his extensive conservation efforts through use of the Endangered Species and Antiquities Acts. Additionally, he became known for his ability to “reach bipartisan compromises on issues whenever possible” (Leshy, 2001: 199). Babbitt maintained a strong commitment to the environment throughout his political career. His father was one of the founders of the Arizona Wildlife Federation, as well as the Arizona Game Protective Association. Following interests in the natural world, he received a degree in geology from the University of Notre Dame, and then moved on to the University of Newcastle, England, where he received an M.S. in geophysics, and finally to Harvard Law School before entering his political career. About the time that he became the SOI, Babbitt was twice considered for a position on the U.S. Supreme Court by President Clinton (Terrain.org 2006; Washington Post 1998). Throughout his career, he exhibited an uncanny ability to see the big picture. As Leshy (2001 p.201) states: “Babbitt has been the most nationally focused of them all,” (referring to the legacy of various SOI’s). From the Flagstaff of his youth, his worldview was leavened by years at Notre Dame and Harvard, by graduate school in England, by much travel around the country and abroad, and by an inquisitive mind and voracious reading on many subjects.”

Back to the Hydraulic Bureaucracy

• What we see is that as the bureaucracy proliferated by means of new regulations, new laws and new instruments (e.g. Groundwater Management Act in Arizona) new professionals challenged the old model of scientific management.

• Conservation and ecological concerns embedded themselves in the culture of water management and policy to the extent that any initiatives that resembled the past were challenged even at local levels.

• This can be seen in our conception of a network based on preferences towards management strategies.

centrality

Hydraulic Bureaucracy cont.• Preference by management strategy network

Private sector

Public Sector

TechnicalCapital

PoliticalCapital

SYSTEMS OF POSITIONS AND POSITION TAKINGS

CAP

ADWRPima County

ConservationismNo Mines

Risks of Shortages

Tucson Water

No Drought

PhoenixCity

Az Governor

FICO

Bureau of ReclamationUoA

Salt River Project

Stakeholders Participation

Sustainable WaterDeveloppers

Thank you for your attention !