Evolving Water Management Institutions in the Red River Basin ...

Environmental Management (2007) 40:842–852 DOI 10.1007/s00267-007-9026-x

Evolving Water Management Institutions in the Red River Basin Robert R. Hearne

Published online: 3 October 2007 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract Institutions are the rules and norms that guide societal behavior. As societies evolve—with more diverse economies, increased populations and incomes, and more water scarcity—new and more complex water management institutions need to be developed. This evolution of water management institutions may also be observed across different constituencies, with different societal needs, in the same time period. The Red River of the North basin is particularly well suited for research on water management issues. A key feature of water management in the Red River Basin is the presence of three completely different sets of water law. Minnesota’s water law is based upon riparian rights. North Dakota’s water law is based upon prior appropriation. Manitoba has a system of water allocation that features provincial control. Because the basin is fairly homogeneous in terms of land use and geographic features, its institutional diversity makes this an excellent case study for the analysis of local water institutions. This article reviews the local water management institutions in the Red River Basin and assesses the ongoing institutional evolution of local water management. Keywords Watershed management Water policy Public participation Water law Institutional change Watershed districts Introduction There are a variety of formal and informal institutions that are involved with water resources management in rural R. R. Hearne (&) Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, North Dakota State University, P.O. Box 5636, Fargo, ND 58105, USA e-mail: [email protected]

123

areas. These include county and community water resource boards, conservation districts, watershed planning and management institutions, water utilities, environmental and recreational interest groups, private industry, state and local governments, federal government agencies, environmental education groups, and citizen monitoring groups. These organizations meet local needs, such as potable water supply, flood control, and recreation development. They can also meet the needs of basin wide programs to manage water quantity and improve water quality. The interaction of these local water management institutions is more problematic in interstate and international water bodies. Local institutions need to implement regional, national, and international policies to improve water quality and reduce the risk of severe drought and floods. The importance of rural watershed management institutions in water quality protection has increased in the last few years due to new initiatives in the control of nonpoint source pollution. With the current awareness that state and federal water quality standards cannot generally be met without addressing nonpoint source pollution, new efforts at reducing contamination from agricultural inputs, animal waste, and storm water are needed. These local watershed management institutions and organizations can also facilitate the development of point - nonpoint water quality trading programs. Thus, managing water resources requires institutions capable of monitoring and enforcing land-use practices which maintain water quality. Either existing institutions need to adapt to meet new roles, or new institutions need to emerge to evolving requirements. The Red River of the North basin is particularly well suited for research on water management issues. Located near the geographical center of North America, the basin is relatively small with 30,000 square miles in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota and another 15,000 square

Environmental Management (2007) 40:842–852

miles in Manitoba (excluding the large Assiniboine Basin which flows into the Red River south of Lake Winnipeg) (see Fig. 1). The neighboring Devils Lake basin which has a natural outflow to the Red River includes 3800 square miles. The population of the Red River Valley is approximately 1.3 million, with 670,000 in Winnipeg. The land area, much of which is the remains of a giant glacial lake, contains some of the richest farmland in the continent. Major crops include wheat, corn, and sugar beets. The basin is very flat, which accounts for high winds, poor drainage, and frequent floods. Furthermore, because of its relative isolation, the Red River of the North watershed has not yet been severely impacted by invasive aquatic species, such as zebra mussels which are causing significant damages to the Mississippi and Great Lakes basins. A key feature of water management in the Red River Basin is the presence of three completely different sets of water law. Minnesota’s water law is based upon riparian rights. North Dakota’s water law is based upon prior appropriation. Manitoba has a system of water allocation that features provincial control. Since the basin is fairly homogeneous in terms of land use and geographic features, its institutional diversity makes this an excellent case study for the analysis of local water institutions. Indeed, the water institutions in the Red River Basin reflect the dissimilar situations in Manitoba, Minnesota, and North Dakota outside of the Red River Basin as opposed to the homogeneity of the geography within the basin.

843

This article reviews the water management institutions in the Red River Basin. The focus is on local water institutions, and efforts to provide rural areas and communities with the structure to manage and maintain their own water resources. This article relies on published reports, public documents, and information available on numerous internet sites and focuses on formal institutions or organizations. The second part of this article discusses institutional evolution in water institutions and international water management. The third section of this article presents a review of water resource concerns in the basin. The subsequent sections review formal organizations in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Manitoba, including state and provincial water laws, state and provincial agencies, local agencies, regional agencies, and nongovernmental agencies. This article concludes with observations about institutional evolution in the basin.

Institutional Evolution and Water Management Institutions are the rules and norms that guide societal behavior. Institutions can be formal, with written codes and bureaucracies, or informal, such as rules of polite behavior. With low population density and little conflict, rules of polite behavior, such as norms of disposing of waste in a manner that minimizes risk to potable water sources, might provide sufficient control to maintain water resources. With

Fig. 1 Map of the Red River of the North basin (excluding the Assiniboine Basin)

123

844

economic growth and scarcity, resource use becomes characterized by rivalry and competition. This rivalry adds to conflict which provides incentive for the establishment of formalized rules of governance. In some circumstances, especially with well established communities, noncodified common property management norms are sufficient to guide behavior and protect resources. As societies become more heterogeneous, with increased conflict, formal water codes and governmental bureaucracies are needed to manage resources. This institutional evolution becomes more apparent as societies’ water uses evolve. Initial water management efforts involve the establishment of potable water systems with the complementary rules of sanitary use. As societies evolve, institutions are established to finance, construct, and manage transportation and irrigation canals and other sectoral infrastructure. For example, the introduction of the government bond, was needed in order to finance and construct the Erie Canal in the beginning of the 19th century (Bernstein 2005). More complex multipurpose infrastructure projects and institutions were created when irrigation storage and flood control proved to be complementary to the development of valuable hydroelectric generation systems. Many government bureaucracies have been primarily dedicated towards the development of infrastructure to store and move quantities of water. The need for new types of water management institutions emerges as societies place greater importance on water resources for recreation and environmental benefits. As water quality gains importance, new institutions are required to establish ambient water quality standards, regulate and monitor discharges, and support the gradual improvement of surface water quality and aquarian ecology. Initial efforts at water quality control generally involve the regulation of point source discharges. As nonpoint source pollution becomes the predominant concern for water quality maintenance, institutional capacity to address land use, animal waste management, municipal storm water, and agricultural inputs is needed. This capacity can facilitate the establishment of point source – nonpoint source trading in pollution reduction credits (Fang and Easter 2003; Taff and Senjum 1996; Taylor and others 2003). This institutional capacity may be present in established organizations, such as conservation and watershed districts. But, when established institutions do not evolve to meet emerging needs, new organizations and institutional arrangements need to be developed. The evolution of institutions is a gradual process that is often constrained by the very nature of institutions, which is to provide expectations of others’ actions and activities. If institutions change too quickly, then uncertainty about others’ behavior increases. If institutional change does not keep pace with the changing needs of society, then

123


inefficiencies occur (North 1990). A number of features of institutions, highlighted by Saleth and Dinar (2004), contribute to stability. Institutional evolution is constrained by the path dependency, which implies institutions carry the past with them. Many institutions are nested within, and complementary to, other institutions. These institutions can change only when these complementary institutions change (North 1990; Saleth and Dinar 2004). However, when institutions are in political disequilibrium, there is pressure to evolve and change (Livingston 2005). Much of the literature on the management of international rivers shared by the United States and Canada focuses on the International Joint Commission (IJC) and especially upon the management of the crucial Great Lakes. The IJC was established by the 1909 Boundary Waters treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. The United States’ position on boundary waters had been to maintain absolute sovereignty over territorial waters. Thus there were constraints upon the extent of international cooperation (Wolf 2005). The IJC’s role has been described as providing technical support to resolve issues once political decisions have been made or to support the decision making process (Allee 1993). Also, the IJC has been used by politicians to abate public demands for action and postpone action until after a crisis atmosphere has subsided (LeMarquand 1993). LeMarquand (1993) stresses that the IJC is constrained by its mandate and cannot impose itself where it is not invited to do so. Thus, the IJC needs to be politically savvy, as well as technically competent, in order to maintain the confidence of the U.S. and Canadian governments, and to be effective. Caldwell (1993) notes that the decentralization of water management impedes coordinated efforts to improve water quality. He suggests that a general ecosystem approach to water management is impeded by national as well as uncoordinated state and provincial agencies. While accepting that in both Canada and the United States state and provincial governments maintain primary authority over water management, Allee (1993) points out the differences in Canadian and U.S. federalism. Allee agrees with LeMarquand, that boundary water issues are more important to the Ottawa government then the Washington government, simply because population and economic centers of Canada are within boundary water basins. However, the constitutional mandate for water management is stronger among Canadian provinces than U.S. states. And U.S. local governments are more susceptible to interest group politics than are the Canadian counterparts. In Canada, there is a wider acceptance of the legitimacy of authority and the professional civil service (Allee 1993). Allee stresses that partnerships between local and provincial governments are mostly absent in rural Canada, which does not have the counterpart to the U.S.


county level rural administration. However, the author does state that, in general, the devolution of functions to local authorities in the United States has not been accompanied by a corresponding shift in revenue sources. Allee does suggest that cooperation between local authorities and the IJC has occurred in the restriction of toxic contamination of the Great Lakes.

Water Resources Concerns in the Red River Valley About 84% of the Red River Basin’s land area is dedicated to agricultural production and rangeland. The land is noted for its productive soils and its flat slope. The river flows from 943 feet above sea level (fasl) to 714 fasl at Lake Winnipeg with an average slope of one-half foot per mile (Fritz 2003). Because of its flat topography, seasonal snowmelt, and northerly flow, the Red River is prone to frequent flooding. The simple fact that ice in upstream areas generally melts before ice in downstream areas increases the risk of seasonal flooding. When flooding does occur it spreads across a wide area, causing widespread damage to communities and farms. Drought is also a concern in the valley. Historical droughts include the 1930s dustbowl and a 1988–1992 drought. Much of the valley’s economy is based upon agricultural production and the lack of soil moisture can lead to significant crop and income loss. In some communities, such as Fargo-Moorhead, a drought can threaten potable water sources. The region’s flat topography makes surface water storage impractical. One issue of particular concern in the Red River Basin is the rising water level in Devils Lake. Devils Lake has been a dry basin for most of the last 4000 years. However the water level in the lake varies widely, and has spilled out into the Sheyenne River, a major tributary of the Red River, at least twice in the last 4000 years. From 1993 to 2004, the Lake has risen 24.5 feet and quadrupled in volume. This has caused $450 million in flood damages. In order to reduce flood damages, the State of North Dakota has constructed an emergency water diversion project to pump Devils Lake water into a canal that drains into the Sheyenne River. This state project was initiated after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) released a study of a similar diversion which demonstrated a 75% probability that the project would not be economically viable. This same document showed that a diversion project would have adverse environmental impacts on downstream water bodies including increased sedimentation, reduced water quality, and reduced aquatic habitat value (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2002). Despite Manitoba’s and Minnesota’s concerns about Devils Lake’s water quality and the transfer of invasive species, the IJC has remained

845

uninvolved. The Canadian and United States governments have not agreed to refer this issue for IJC study and mediation. In 2002 the United States’ State Department requested a joint referral from Canada to assess the USACE outlet proposal. Canada refused stating that the EIS was still under review and requesting a broader reference to consider other interbasin transfers such as the transfer of Missouri River water to the Red River Basin. After construction of the ND outlet was initiated, Canada requested a joint referral from the US on the ND State outlet. The US refused, claiming that damage must occur first before the treaty is violated (Great Lakes Commission 2005). In August 2005, upon completion of the diversion project, an agreement was reached between the U.S. and Canadian governments. This agreement, also signed by North Dakota, Minnesota, and Manitoba, established a protocol for joint monitoring and mitigation efforts as well as the construction of a rock and gravel filter for the outlet. The protocol will initiate a joint rapid bio-assessment of the lake and further cooperation to reduce the risk of invasive species entering the Red River (U.S. Department of State 2005). Another controversial interbasin transfer project is the proposed Garrison Diversion. This proposed project would bring Missouri River water to the Red River. It would be a continuation of the 1944 Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, and is seen as a way to compensate North Dakota for its contribution to the Missouri River dam system. The Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 dedicated federal funds to maintain already completed infrastructure and to conduct comprehensive studies of water quantity and quality needs in the Red River Valley in North Dakota. This diversion project is being considered, among other alternatives, to augment potable water supplies for the growing population of the Fargo-Moorhead area (Bureau of Reclamation 2005). These alternatives include: (i) another transfer from The Lake of the Woods, on the MinnesotaOntario-Manitoba Border, (ii) recycling water from downstream of Grand Forks back to the headwaters of the Sheyenne River, and (iii) the development of further groundwater sources. Efforts to implement an interbasin transfer of water from either the Missouri River or Lake of the Woods will be vigorously opposed by other riparian states and provinces. Water quality in the Red River Basin has traditionally been very good. Water quality assessments in the United States have concluded that pesticide and nitrate concentrations are low, groundwater is potable, and wastewater has a minimal effect on water quality. There are high suspended sediment concentrations due to rapid runoff from agricultural land. And although mercury and PCBs were widely detected, concentrations in fish tissue were below standards for fish consumption (Stoner and others

123

846


1998). The Red River Valley is noted for being relatively free of invasive aquatic species, such as the zebra mussel and Eurasian milfoil which has caused widespread damage in the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins. Despite traditional water quality in the Red River and the basin’s relatively low population density, recent algae blooms in Lake Winnipeg have led to increased growing concern about phosphate and nitrogen levels in the Red River (Lake Winnipeg Implementation Committee 2005; Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board 2005). Among other services, Lake Winnipeg has a large commercial fishery which has employed over 1000 licensed fishers and produced an average annual catch of nearly $20,000,000 (Canadian) from 1998–2003. However, environmental quality has been impacted by eutrofication which threatens both the commercial fishery and Lake Winnipeg’s tourism sector.

Formal Water Management Institutions in the Red River Basin The three principle political units in the Red River Basin: Minnesota, North Dakota, and Manitoba, all have substantial areas and large populations outside of the basin. Thus, many formal water management institutions and organizations in the Red River Basin have been designed to serve the needs of constituencies outside of the basin (see Table 1). Since these political units include a diversity of economic activity, physical geography, and land use, these water management institutions should reflect diverse needs as opposed to the homogenous needs within the basin. Of the three principal political units in the basin, Minnesota has the largest population and most diverse economy. Minnesota has land in the Mississippi and Great Lakes Basins as well as the Red River Valley. Minnesota has a major port at Duluth as well as significant Mississippi River barge traffic. As the ‘‘land of 10,000 lakes,’’ Minnesota provides ample freshwater fishing, boating, and waterfront recreation opportunities, including the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Initial water

management efforts in Minnesota promoted the draining of wetlands and the expansion of crop land. During the 1930s dustbowl era, emphasis switched toward conserving surface and groundwater resources. Later emphasis switched to environmental conservation and recreation, with considerable efforts towards maintaining lake and river water quality. North Dakota is sparsely populated, very flat, and much dryer than Minnesota. Even within the Red River Basin, Minnesota has more lakes and forests. Eastern North Dakota, which contains the western half of the Red River Basin contains the state’s largest city, Fargo, and many of the states other largest cities. The western part of the state includes part of the Missouri River Basin and part of the Assiniboine River Basin. Manitoba is less densely populated than North Dakota, and over half of its population lives in the city of Winnipeg. Manitoba is located within the Hudson Bay drainage area and contains three of Canada’s largest lakes, including Lake Winnipeg, the tenth largest freshwater body in the world (by surface area). The Red River and the Assiniboine Rivers converge at Winnipeg and then proceed north into Lake Winnipeg, which is used for commercial transportation, commercial fishing, recreation, and hydroelectric generation. The Red River accounts for only a small percentage of inflows into Lake Winnipeg, with less than five percent of inflows originating in the U.S. The principal concerns for water management in Manitoba are flood control and drainage, as well as water quality in Lake Winnipeg. In contrast to other cities in the Red River Basin, Winnipeg has a 28.5-mile river bypass, built in 1965, which diverts flood waters around the city and allows for substantial waterfront construction.

Water Law Minnesota’s water law is based upon riparian rights, and water law still protects the rights of riparian landowners to reasonable and beneficial use of water ‘‘providing the right to use water for domestic, agriculture and other purposes

Table 1 Governmental water management organizations in the Red River Basin Basin and international level

International Joint Commission International Red River Board

State and provincial level

Local level

123

Red River Basin Commission Minnesota

North Dakota

Manitoba

Department of Natural Resources

State Water Commission

Water Stewardship

Pollution Control Agency

Department of Health

Watershed Districts

Water Districts

Soil and Water Conservation Districts

Soil Conservation Districts

Conservation Districts


while preserving the status quo of nature’’ (Red River Basin Commission 2006, pp. 2 ). However the state has declared its authority over ‘‘public waters.’’ The state’s definition of public waters has gradually expanded to include any lake or river serving a beneficial public purpose, including recreation and wildlife habitat. Any water body with a drainage area greater than two square miles is public water. Currently, the definition of public waters also includes wetlands, which provide significant wildlife habitat. In cases where the state declared private wetlands, which were potentially convertible to valuable cropland, to be public waters, a fund was established to compensate landowners for this ‘‘taking’’ of property rights (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2005). Water law in North Dakota is based upon prior appropriation. The North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) states that all surface and groundwater, with minor exceptions, are considered to be ‘‘public waters subject to appropriation for beneficial use.’’ A water permit from the North Dakota State Water Commission (NDSWC) is required for beneficial use, as defined by the law, with the superior water right determined by the date of the permit or the initial claim or appropriation (North Dakota State Water Commission 1997). Water policy in North Dakota has focused on planning, constructing, and regulating water supply, drainage, and water management projects. Water law in Manitoba is based upon provincial control and section 2 of the Water Rights Act of 1988 states, ‘‘all property in, and all rights to the use, diversion or control of, all water in the province, ... are vested in the Crown in right of Manitoba’’ (Legislative Assembly of Manitoba 1987). Manitoba’s policy is to allocate water rights ‘‘to maximize social, economic, and environmental values while sustaining it for use by future generations’’ (Manitoba Government 1990, pp. 2). This 1990s policy is based upon the paradigm of sustainable development, and has been critically reassessed, but not rejected, in a more recent policy initiative, presented in ‘‘Manitoba’s Water Strategy’’ which focuses upon watershed planning, new legislative needs, and improved financing (Manitoba Conservation 2003). Another feature of Manitoba’s water policy, perhaps as a direct response to North Dakota’s initiatives, is a rejection of interbasin transfers. A 2000 review of water legislation has concluded that ‘‘issues which may impact the Red River Basin are addressed in a similar manner’’ (Red River Basin Board 2000, pp.48). Federal legislation in both the United States and Canada addresses water quality. All three jurisdictions allocate water-use permits or licenses, regulate dam construction, establish drinking water standards, and have established procedures to preserve wetlands. However, an additional 2006 review has suggested that in times of water shortages, the constituencies’ different water laws might

847

lead to unequal protections for certain water users. For instance Minnesota’s riparian system protects instream flows, while North Dakota’s appropriation system does not (Red River Basin Commission 2006).

State and Provincial Agencies The primary state agency responsible for water management in Minnesota is the Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). The MDNR gathers and maintains hydrological data, grants permits for use of public waters and for public works projects involving public waters, and administers programs for lake management, floodplain and shoreline management, and wetland conservation. It also maintains public water access sites and state fishing piers and shoreline fishing sites and recreation areas. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is the lead agency in Minnesota’s effort to monitor surface and groundwater quality, establish local water quality standards with stakeholder input, update lists of impaired waters, and implement plans to meet total maximum daily load (TMDL) limits of criteria pollutants in order to meet ambient standards. The State Department of Health regulates drinking water quality and the State Department of Agriculture regulates the use of farm chemicals. Minnesota’s Board of Water and Soil Resources (MBWSR) is dedicated to supporting local water management efforts. These local efforts include soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs), watershed districts, county water management organizations, and metropolitan watershed management organizations. The MBWSR has supported the development of local water management plans in nonmetropolitan counties with block grants. The principal state water management organization in North Dakota is the NDSWC. Headed by the State Engineer, the NDSWC allocates water rights, collects and maintains atmospheric and hydrological data, develops and implements the State Water Plan, regulates the development of infrastructure projects, monitors dam and dike safety, and provides technical support to local water managers. The maintenance of surface, groundwater, and drinking water quality is the responsibility of the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH). The Division of Water Quality (i) monitors water quality, (ii) administers programs to identify impaired waters, establish TMDLs, and preserve surface and groundwater quality, (iii) regulates point source discharges of wastewater, (iv) promotes incentive-based, voluntary programs to reduce nonpoint source pollution, and (v) grants permits for stormwater discharge projects. The NDDH also has programs in solid waste management and regulates drinking water quality. Both in North Dakota and in Minnesota, programs to maintain water quality are administered by state agencies.

123

848

But these agencies follow the protocols established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act. Both states have initiated protocols for establishing TMDLs as specified under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act. However, Minnesota’s efforts have been more advanced with an ongoing public participation process. Both states utilize funding from Section 319 of the Clean Water Act as amended in 1987 in order to implement projects to reduce nonpoint source pollutants. Minnesota’s nonpoint water pollution program also includes a state funded Clean Water Partnership programs to support local government efforts to protect water quality through watershed management. The resources dedicated to the MPCA and the MDNR demonstrate the efforts made toward maintaining water quality and recreation based water uses. In contrast, North Dakota’s continued emphasis on the development of water infrastructure shows that it is still more interested in regulating water quantities. The dynamic nature of evolving water policy in Manitoba is demonstrated by an entirely new agency dedicated to water resources management, Manitoba Water Stewardship (MWS) which was formed in late 2003. This agency comprises a number of water related departments from Manitoba Conservation, the Water Services Board (MWSB), and the Conservation District Program from the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs. The purpose of this rearrangement was to combine expertise in water management and to demonstrate commitment to sustainable and integrated water management (Fitzgibbon and others 2006). MWS conducts research, planning, and policy development activities, monitors water quantity and quality, conducts programs to insure water quality, coordinates regulatory compliance, allocates licenses for water use, apportions water for sustainable ecosystems and fisheries, and plans, builds, operates, and maintains water control infrastructure. Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation, part of MWS leads a Riparian Stewardship Program which promotes best management practices (BMPs) to improve fish and wildlife habitat. The MWSB, also part of MWS provides technical and financial assistance to community water supply and sanitations services outside of Winnipeg. MWS is also responsible for implementing the Manitoba Water Protection Act of 2005. This law designed to reduce nonpoint source pollutants and protect surface water from excess nutrients. The law provides the province with the authority to designate water quality management zones where particular regulations on nutrient use and land management would be enforced. Thus the MWS is given much greater authority than its United States counterparts. This conforms to Allee’s (1993) assertion that there is a greater acceptance of the authority of a professional civil service in Canada.

123


Local Agencies Both North Dakota and Minnesota have overlapping local agencies that support water management and conservation efforts. In Minnesota, county governments are responsible for developing local water management plans and they can receive additional funding to implement certain projects. Many counties have delegated this planning activity to the county SWCD. Soil and water conservation districts date back to the 1930s dustbowl era. They are governmental subdivisions of the state, which generally coincide with county boundaries. They are established by state legislation, but are supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) with technical staff. They implement projects and are financially supported by the counties in which the district is located. They may, with the consent of the counties, make special assessments. Soil and water conservation districts are governed by a local elected board and generally have a professional staff of two to eight technicians, administrators, and specialists. In addition to water planning activities these districts focus on supporting BMPs for agriculture and other land uses, agricultural drainage, and solid waste disposal. A number of institutional arrangements have been made in Minnesota to facilitate economies of scale and allow for water management in areas larger than a county. In order to provide more specialized technical support to the county level SWCDs, the state has provided additional funds to 11 joint power organizations of combined SWCDs. These organizations provide a mechanism to employ specialized engineers and technicians to work over a wide area to provide technical assistance to landowners for soil and water conservation practices. Similar to the Minnesota SWCDs, North Dakota has 58 Soil Conservation Districts, mostly corresponding to county lines that cover 100% of the state. These districts are local units of government which conduct education and planning activities, with a focus on wind erosion. They may have programs to support soil and water conservation, such as tree planting, seed distribution, equipment loans, well capping, and demonstration projects. New initiatives by the NRCS have placed a number of federally funded watershed coordinators in North Dakota Soil Conservation Districts. These specialists focus on promoting the federally supported conservation easement programs. Supervisors are both elected and appointed. These supervisors can levy a tax. Local management of water resources in North Dakota is through Water Resource Districts. These districts were formed in the 19th century to support the drainage of agricultural lands. Later, in response to the 1930s dustbowl era, these districts shifted emphasis to water conservation.


Water Resource Districts are units of local government that ideally emphasize hydrological boundaries, but in practice follow county boundaries. These districts are governed by Water Resource Boards that are appointed by county commissioners. These boards have the authority to develop and operate water infrastructure, borrow funds and finance projects through special assessments, invoke the power of eminent domain, and regulate sewage discharges. Although local resource boards are generally drawn along county lines, North Dakota law does allow for multijurisdictional Joint Water Resource Boards to be formed. Some of these, including the Red River Joint Resource District, have been formed along watershed lines and provide planning and programs for watershed areas. Since watersheds do not conform to political boundaries, effective water resources management often requires institutions which unite a watershed in planning and management. Minnesota has fostered the development of watershed districts as special purpose units of local government designed to conserve natural resources through land use planning, flood control, lake management, and other conservation projects. They have the power to tax, acquire property, construct and operate infrastructure, and adopt rules with the power of law. They are responsible for developing and directing the implementation of Watershed Management Plans, which should incorporate the individual county water management plans. These Watershed Districts are governed by a Board of Managers appointed by the commissioners of the counties which form the watershed, and are assisted by Advisory Committees representing assorted stakeholder groups. Nearly one third of Minnesota’s land area is in an established watershed district, including nearly all of the Red River Basin and the Twin Cities Metropolitan area (Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 2000). The Red River Watershed Management Board (RRWMB) encompasses eight of the nine watershed districts in the Minnesota part of the basin and supports their activities by coordinating and facilitating flood control and watershed management projects. Part of the levy assessed by the individual watershed districts is passed on to the RRWMB which shares in the cost of certain projects. In both Minnesota and North Dakota, tribal governments have established departments of natural resources or environmental protection offices which are dedicated to planning, water quality protection, and fisheries management. These offices have professional staff. The Department of Natural Resources of the Red Lake Band of the Chippewa is responsible for sustainably managing what was once a very valuable commercial fishery. Local water and natural resource stewardship in Manitoba is conducted through Conservation Districts, which is a collaboration of rural municipalities and the Manitoba

849

Government. Conservation Districts raise funds through municipal levies and through provincial grants. Projects include bank stabilization, drainage improvement, public education, and small dam construction. Provincial water policy encourages input from local authorities, interest groups, and individuals into planning. Local authorities are encouraged to use land-use planning to support water quality, drainage, and conservation goals. The 2005 Manitoba Water Protection Act provides for watershed management planning though a local agency, but it does not specify how planning should occur when local jurisdictions do not follow watershed boundaries. Given the absence of county level jurisdictions in Manitoba, conservation districts may be expected to take the lead in these planning efforts.

International and Multilateral Basin Organizations The 1909 International Boundaries Water Treaty provides for international cooperation in water management between the United States and Canada. This treaty stipulates the creation of an International Joint Commission (IJC) with jurisdiction over all boundary waters. The treaty stipulates that no further water diversion or control infrastructure that would modify the natural flow of water would be permitted without the authorization of the IJC. The IJC acts in two principle ways: (i) IJC approval is needed for work that impacts water levels (quantity and quality) on either side of the boundary and (ii) the IJC reports on matters of dispute or difference between the two nations, when a reference is brought by both nations. Although one nation can submit a reference for dispute resolution this is very rare. The IJC has a number of local boards to advise and assist the commissioners. The International Red River Board (IRRB), consisting mostly of governmental water professionals in Manitoba, North Dakota, and Minnesota assists IJC in preventing and resolving international water disputes for the Red River Basin. The IRRB was established in 2001 encompassing the former International Souris-Red Rivers Engineering Board and the International Red River Pollution Board. This merger was seen as a way of improving efficiency and moving towards an ecosystem approach to transboundary water management (International Joint Commission 2001). The fact that the IJC and the IRRB were not invited to study and mediate the Devils Lake outlet project demonstrates the constraints that are placed upon these organizations in dispute resolution. A cooperative stakeholder institution working throughout the Red River Basin is the Red River Basin Commission (RRBC). This international, nonprofit organization promotes a basin-wide approach to integrated

123

850

watershed stewardship and management. Its efforts have focused on developing a framework plan for watershed management. Its Board of Directors includes representatives of city, county, municipality, and state governments as well as from watershed districts, tribal authorities, water boards, and conservation districts. But the Board members are not constrained to represent only the official opinions of the state governments. This allows for certain flexibility and continued cooperation despite official disagreements, such as over the Devils Lake outlet project. The RRBC involves itself with a wide range of promotional and educational activity and sponsors a well attended annual conference of interested stakeholders. An important characteristic of the RRBC is that the institutional arrangement was crafted locally for local needs. Local autonomy in institutional arrangement is considered to be a key to success and sustainability in water management (Dinar and others 2006). The RRBC has allowed itself to ‘‘agree to disagree’’ on certain conflictive issues and to cooperate on issues of agreement. Recently the RRBC has agreed upon a goal of reducing nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations on the mainstream Red River flowing into Canada by 10%. This RRBC goal does not have any legal authority, but by providing a framework that enables the constituent government agencies to commit to a common goal, water quality improvement efforts can be perceived as being balanced with reciprocal benefits. Thus the RRBC is demonstrating basin wide leadership in water quality improvement. The RRBC has addressed a variety of issues. It has maintained interest in flood control, water quality, and water scarcity in times of drought. It has attempted to anticipate legislative constraints towards future efforts to resolve conflicts. Its 2007 Red River Basin Conference included a discussion on a potential river compact.

Observations about Water Institutions in the Red River Basin Water management in the Red River of the North basin has been evolving to meet the needs of the local and basin wide constituencies. Local water management districts have evolved from their traditional roles of drainage and soil conservation promoters and accepted a broader water management perspective. They have accepted new roles in providing stewardship over both water quantity and quality. In Minnesota, watershed districts have been formed, demonstrating a certain commitment to basin level management. In both Minnesota and North Dakota, state agencies have evolved to implement the water quality provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act. Joint powers

123


agreements have provided a framework to allow for smaller local organizations to collaborate with other organizations on issues of mutual importance. In Manitoba, new roles have been stipulated for conservation districts and other local water management planning agencies. The three principle constituencies, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Manitoba, have different water management concerns based upon issues that are outside of the Red River Basin. They also have different water laws based upon different traditions. North Dakota has a relatively small state government, which is designed to meet the needs of a low population and low population density state. Minnesota is a much larger state with a diverse economy and a traditional affinity to waterborne recreation. It has a relatively large bureaucracy dedicated to water quality and state programs that complement federal water quality initiatives and stress the recreational and ecological services provided by water. Manitoba, as the downstream province, remains principally concerned with maintaining water quality, and preventing interbasin transfers of water. Its water policy and water management institutions appear to be very dynamic, with some noteworthy changes in recent years. There are a number of basin wide collaborative institutions, with a noted effort to communicate, collaborate, and consider basin wide issues. The International Joint Commission does have jurisdiction over the basin and may be required to intervene on issues of major importance, such as interbasin transfers of water. However, it has not been eager to impose itself as a final arbiter. Conflicts have existed, and Manitoba had officially suspended cooperation with North Dakota in 2004 and 2005 due to the continued construction of the Devils Lake outlet (International Red River Board 2004). But collaboration continued and the riparian states and nations have agreed upon a protocol to operate the diversion while monitoring biota transfer and water quality. Further cooperation on water quality improvement and water allocation in times of drought is needed. This review of formal water institutions does show some institutional evolution in the Red River Valley. Water laws have evolved from different traditions to address many issues in a similar manner. State and provincial agencies have been developed to meet water quality needs. And local government institutions, with financial autonomy, have been formed for land and water stewardship in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Manitoba. Minnesota, with its diversified economy and affinity to waterborne recreation, has supported the creation of watershed districts and lake associations to meet new challenges of water management. And outside to the Red River Basin, there are market trades in point – nonpoint pollution credits in Minnesota. North Dakota, a smaller and dryer state, has maintained a simpler


set of county level districts. Both states have modified their surface water quality programs to conform to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines. Manitoba’s water institutions have also evolved with new agencies being formed and new strategies developed. This evolution of water institutions should not be considered to be complete. Watershed districts, drawn on hydrological boundaries, have not fully replaced county level water districts and planning efforts. The reliance on county level agencies may imply that there are too many small and inactive agencies with overlapping agendas. The Red River Basin does demonstrate the continued challenge in managing an international river. The authority of the IJC to impose itself and resolve conflicts has not been utilized. Therefore, the main constituent governments in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Manitoba should continue to cooperate for improved management at a regional level. This cooperation is needed in both water quantity and quality management. Accepting the combined challenge of improving water quality and reduce nitrogen and phosphorus levels in the Red River would be an important step in basin-wide cooperation. A river compact that allocates scarce water among the constituencies in times of drought would provide security for municipal water supplies. Basin management organizations, such as the Red River Basin Commission, should continue to address a broad range of issues and to promote cooperative management. Acknowledgments This effort was partially supported by USGSNIWR grant ‘‘Assessing the Effectiveness of Local Water Institutions in Water Management.’’ The author thanks Jay Leitch, Craig Kritsky, and two anonymous reviewers of this journal for their helpful comments.

References Allee D (1993) Subnational Governance and the International Joint Commission: Local Management of United States and Canadian Boundary Water. Natural Resources Journal 33:133–151 Bureau of Reclamation (2005) ‘‘Draft Report on Red River Valley Water Needs and Options’’. Available at http://www.usbr. gov/gp/dkao/. Accessed in September, 2005 Bernstein P (2005) Wedding of the Waters: The Erie Canal and the Making of a Great Nation. Norton, New York. pp 448 Caldwell LK (1993) Emerging Boundary Environmental Challenges and Institutional Issues: Canada and the United States. Natural Resources Journal. 33:9–31 Dinar A, Kemper K, Blomquist W, Kurukulasuriya P (2006) The Process and Performance of Decentralization of River Basin Resource Management: A Global Analysis. Selected Paper for Presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach, Ca. July, 2006 Fang F, Easter KW (2003) Pollution Trading to Offset New Pollutant Loadings: A Case Study in the Minnesota River Basin. Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association. Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada, July 27–30, 2003

851 Fitzgibbon J, Mitchell B, Veale B (2006) Sustainable Water Management: State of Practice in Canada and Beyond. Canadian Water Resources Association. Available at http://www.cwra. org/Publications/CWRA_-_Bookstore/cwra_-_bookstore.html Accessed July 2007 Fritz C (2003) Watershed Information Network: A Watershed Report and Suggested Framework for Integrating Water Quality Monitoring Efforts, Red River Basin Commission. Unpublished Great Lakes Commission (2005) Devils Lake Outlet. Available at http://www.geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/washington/pdf/factglc.pdf Accessed October 2006 International Joint Commission (2001) Mandate of Red River Basin Board. Available at http://www.ijc.org/conseil_board/red_river/ en/irrb_mandate_mandat.htm. Accessed November 2006 International Red River Board (2004) Status Report On The Activities Of The International Red River Board. Available at http://www. ijc.org/php/publications/pdf/ID1551.pdf. Accessed in January 2005 Lake Winnipeg Implementation Committee (2005) ‘‘Restoring the Health of Lake Winnipeg.’’ Available at http://www.redriverba sincommission.org/Reports/lakewpg_dec12.pdf Accessed September 2006 Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board (2005) Our Collective Responsibility: Reducing nutrient loading to Lake Winnipeg. An Interim Report to the Minister of Water Stewardship for Manitoba. 66 pages. Available at http://www.lakewinnipeg.org. Accessed October 2006 Legislative Assembly of Manitoba (1987) Water Rights Act. C.C.S.M. c. W80. Available at http://www.web2.gov.mb. ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/w080e.php. Accessed in September, 2005 LeMarquand D (1993) The International Joint Commission and changing Canada-United States boundary relations. Natural Resources Journal 33:59–91 Livingston M (2005) Evaluationg Changes in Water Institutions. Water Policy. 7:21–34 Manitoba Conservation (2001) Building a Sustainable Future, Water: A Proposed Strategic Plan for Manitoba, A Discussion Paper. Available at http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/watres/ water%20strategy%20plan.pdf. Accessed in January, 2005 Manitoba Conservation (2003) The Manitoba Water Strategy. Available at http://www.gov.mb.ca/waterstewardship//pdf/waterstrategy.pdf. Accessed in January 2005 Manitoba Government (1990) Sustainable Development, Applying Manitoba’s Water Policies. Available at http://www.gov.mb.ca/ conservation/watres/mb_water_policies.pdf. Accessed in September, 2005 Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (2000) What is a Watershed District? Available at http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/ outreach/factsheets/whatiswd.pdf. Accessed in January, 2005 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (2005) History of water protection. Available at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/ watermgmt_section/pwpermits/history.html. Accessed in January, 2005 North Dakota State Water Commission (1997) Waterguide: Water Permitting Process. Available at http://www.swc.state.nd.us/ Education/watperm.pdf. Accessed in January, 2005 North D (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Red River Basin Board (2000) Inventory Team Report: Water Law. Available at http://www.redriverbasincommission.org/ WaterLawFinal.PDF. Accessed in September 2005 Red River Basin Board (2001) Water Management Goals and Objectives. Available at http://www.redriverbasincommission. org/Goals/goals.html. Accessed in January, 2005

123

852 Red River Basin Commission (2006) Red River: Water Law Study. Available at http://www.redriverbasincommission.org/Reports/ reports.html. Accessed July 2007 Saleth RM, Dinar A (2004) The Institutional Economics of Water: A Cross-Country Analysis of Institutions and Performance. Edward Elgar. Cheltenham Stoner J, Lorenz D, Goldstein R, Brigham M, Cowdery T (1998) Water Quality in the Red River of the North Basin, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota, 1992–95. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1169 Taff SJ, Senjem N (1996) Increasing Regulators’ Confidence in Pointnonpoint Pollution Trading Schemes. Water Resources Bulletin 32:1187–1193 Taylor M, Randall A, Sohngen B (2003) A Collective Performancebased Contract for Point-Nonpoint Source Pollution Trading.

123

Environmental Management (2007) 40:842–852 Selected Paper American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting Montreal, Quebec June 27–30, 2003 U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers (2002) Draft Integrated Planning Report And Environmental Impact Statement For Devils Lake, North Dakota. Available at http://www.swc.state.nd.us/projects/ devilslake/corpsrep.html. Accessed in January 2005 U.S. Department of State (2005) Joint Press Statement on Devils Lake Flooding and Ecological Protection by the United States and Canada, North Dakota, Minnesota and Manitoba. Available at http://www.governor.state.nd.us/media/news-releases/2005/08/ 050806.html. Accessed in September, 2005 Wolf A (2005) Transboundary Water Conflicts and Cooperation. In Kenney D ed. In Search of Sustainable Water Management. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar