Back to Summer 2010 Newsletter
A Final Note ...
By Joe Gelt
With the completion of this newsletter I am without a job. This is not a tale of woe, another story of a person terminated due to budget cuts etc., but an event of my own choosing. I am retiring after about 25 years at the Water Resources Research Center. Mine was a fortunate career, undertaking work I enjoyed with people I liked. Who could ask for more?
I hope that in some small way I have served the interests of the Arizona water community
Much to my satisfaction I will continue to be a presence at the WRRC despite my retirement, although in name only. The Undergraduate Writing Contest on Water, a WRRC annual event, has been renamed the Joe Gelt Student Writing Competition. I truly cannot think of a more satisfying award for a person who has spent years writing about water than to name in honor of him a contest intending to encourage better water writing.
Thanks are in order, to University of Arizona’s administrators for the interest and support they showed me over the years. Thanks also to my co-workers at the WRRC and the UA, all those with whom I labored in the water resources field. And thanks, too, to you reading this. If it were not for you, the reader, there would not have been a newsletter to write and edit.
Arizona Project WET Director Scores Two Awards
ANREP (Association of Natural Resource Extension Professionals) presented Arizona Project WET Program Director Kerry Schwartz with the 2010 Individual Program Leadership Gold Award for heroutstanding work. Kerry Schwartz along with Nancy Crocker, Mary Ann Stoll and Candice Rupprecht also received the 2010 Innovative Programs Gold Award for the School Water Audit Program in Arizona.
Arizona Project WET is a Water Resources Research Center program.
2010 Conference Concludes; 2011 Conference Planned
The WRRC 2010 conference is over. Conference organizers may well sigh with relief and feel satisfied that a job was well done. Yet they must now brace themselves for the one-down another-to-go task as plans are afoot for the 2011 conference. This is a propitious time to get started with the experiences and successes of the recent conference fresh in mind.
The topic of the 2011 conference has been identified: salinity and desalination. The location and date are to be determined. The conference theme is the same as the topic to be covered by the 2011 Arroyo. The Arroyo is an annual WRRC newsletter that focuses on a single, critically important water issue.
The annual WRRC conferences are much anticipated occasions; they are special events in the water year, noted for the timeliness of their topics, their wide and varied coverage and the extensive interest and support they attract, both from sponsors and attendees.
At this early date we invite your comments and suggestions regarding the 2011 conference. Your early, ground-floor participation will be an important contribution to the planning of the next WRRC conference. Contact Susanna Eden at seden@cals.arizona.edu
Reflections of a Water Buffalo: Leadership Then and Now
he following exchange is from a recent question-and-answer session between Joe Gelt, editor of the Arizona Water Resource newsletter, and David S. “Sid” Wilson. Mr. Wilson recently retired after 14 years as general manager of the Central Arizona Project. His stature and authority within the Arizona water community well establishes his water buffalo credentials — or rather his pedigree.
JG: Who qualifies as a water buffalo?
SW: When I started my career in 1967, I was hired by the Salt River Project as a Watershed Specialist. My first assignment was as SRP’s representative on the Southwest Phreatophyte Subcommittee. I was 23 or 24 and everybody else had gray hair. I thought they were incredibly old — they might have been about 55 — and much wiser than I could ever be. They were generally recognized as “Water Buffalos”. A Water Buffalo is someone who has studied water issues in a region long enough and thoughtfully enough to be a person that others look to for advice, insight and help in solving water related problems.
Every generation is in the process of developing water buffalos. There are bright young people coming out of college each year and if they are thoughtful, committed to continued learning on the job and stick with it long enough they may one day be considered a Water Buffalo.
JG: Are Water Buffalos a thriving or endangered species?
SW: When I was younger it seemed to me that there were more Water Buffalos than today. They were people who had been with their organizations for a long time and were really committed to water resource management.
I don’t see as much of that today. I don’t feel that we are retaining as many capable people over the long haul. For example, look at the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Due to budget reductions and retirements they have lost the core of folks that could be viewed as Water Buffalos and with the associated pay and employment uncertainties, it will be hard to attract and retain folks for that long-term commitment that is needed. Same thing for the Bureau of Reclamation, various cities, etc. Even the Central Arizona Project is losing those folks to retirement.
I’m also concerned that the political environment agencies are faced with today tends to impede Water Buffalo development. Continuing political “heat” creates a “fox hole mentality” so that folks tend to keep their heads down and avoid risk taking. If they become at all controversial, some special interest group, politician or bureaucrat may go after them. A job well done is no guarantee against demotions, transfers or dismissals (voluntary or otherwise).
JG: What are some changes confronting new leaders today?
SW: The technology and associated real-time availability of large amounts of information has had a huge impact on how we deal with water issues. Back when I started, the data we had was more limited. Even so, I think folks were often closer to understanding what was happening. It was both science and art in the best sense. Today the amount of information is incredibly voluminous. It requires the use of computers to sort, assess and interpret the data. This technology and data availability is a tremendous advantage but we have to be careful. Remember the old adage “garbage in; garbage out”. As data collection becomes less hands on and more voluminous it can cause us to lose that ‘gut’ feeling old timers talk about. We can’t rely solely on the computer print out for answers while losing the very real benefits of human qualification. If that happens, we can’t tell a bad answer from a good one.
JG: What is the greatest single change over the course of your career?
SW: In 1967 there were relatively few agencies that possessed significant technical water knowledge. At that time the Arizona Department of Water Resources was just emerging from the old Arizona Water Commission. The cities had very few water professionals working for them. The agricultural districts had farmers very knowledgeable about onfield application of water but little about overall planning and management of a water district. The Salt River Project was the major water player in the state, even though its water service area was limited to the Salt River valley. Water knowledge was limited and a relatively few people/organizations had a lot of control over what was done in this state...and in the West for that matter.
That has changed dramatically! The competition in the late 50s and early 60s was largely between — I am speaking of Arizona but it was fairly typical throughout the West — agricultural water users and developing municipalities. The competition today is much more diverse and intense. There are more interests involved and virtually all of them have more capacity and knowledge than the “old guard”. You still have competition between agriculture and cities, but you also have competition between one big city and another big city; between big cities and small cities; cities and rural areas; nonIndians and Indians; people needs and environmental needs; between states and even countries (U.S. a Mexico).
It is now tougher — maybe impossible — for one entity or interest to dominate. If that domination occurs, it can not be sustained. Autocratic decision making is no longer effective. It takes collaborative leadership and shared decision making to develop sustainable water management strategies and solutions.
In this change area, another significant difference exists today in Arizona and I suspect throughout the West. When I began my career, you had a political system with people who really understood the importance of a sustainable water supply. Frankly without water and air conditioners, Phoenix would not exist. Politicians understood that. I don’t believe you have that today. There are very few elected officials who really understand water. Unfortunately, it is too often “form over substance”. There is not a lot of foresight given to considering the long-term future of Arizona and water. There is a lot of talk but no real commitment in my view.
JG: What are the qualities that define good leadership?
SW: I think leadership is a timeless thing. I think the most effective leaders are people who are good, thoughtful listeners. It is so important to be a good listener, to look at issues from other folks’ perspectives and then look for a problem solution that addresses the major needs of everyone involved.
An effective leader is an interactive person who works with the various stakeholders to find the best solution. There is always, ALWAYS more than one solution to a problem.
JG: What is the best preparation for emerging water leaders?
SW: A good basic education is important in water. My background was hydrology. It could have been engineering or some other science oriented field. You do not need an advanced degree. Secondly, the formal education is only the beginning. The foundation. You should proactively continue your learning through experience. There is a difference between the classroom and — I hate to use the trite expression — “the real world”. In the classroom you learn basic principles (and I include communication here). In the “real world” you find more complexity and less structure. The basic principles still apply but differences have to be considered. Even “on the face of it” common situations differ. You can only learn about differences and how to apply principles through actual practice.
I also think there are some inherent qualities in leadership that you cannot mechanically teach “from the ground up”. A sense of humor and humility are absolutes in my book. A sense of humor can save you when life gets really grim...and a sense of humility guards against insufferable arrogance. Also, we all need to realize that we are not perfect. We will make mistakes. It’s how we handle the mistakes that really provide a measure of our leadership ability.
Finally, I think leadership is that ability to identify and attract capable people; give them a vision and then let them help you paint the final picture. Don’t be threatened by people smarter than you because they are really what will make you successful.
JG: Any final thoughts?
SW: Throughout my career I always looked to the generation ahead of me...the folks a generation older than me; I looked at the ones I admired, that I thought did things really well and used them as my mentors. Sometimes formally and sometimes they never knew. I wanted to be that person in the way that I performed. They were people, usually further along in their careers and a little older. They were my role models — my mentors.
Finally, leadership (like life) is a never ending journey. It is a continuum of learning and observing and putting what you learn and observe to work in an effective way.
Brains, Imagination, Enthusiasm, the Redoubtable Resources That Fueled Conference Discussions
The 2010 Annual Conference, “Creating New Leadership For Arizona’s Water and Environment In a Time of Change,” was organized to allow full opportunity for participants to interact. The intent was to encourage dialogue and an exchange of information. All participants — politicians, scientists, educators, business owners, writers, artists, students, and others — would have their say. The conference held two types of forums. The two-hour-long roundtable sessions conducted during the first day were small in scale, while the workshops offered the second morning were larger gatherings. Information from the various sessions is provided below; this, however is merely a sampling of the total output of the conference. Additional information is available at the Water Resources Research Center’s web page: http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/
Roundtable discussions — close-up, across-the table deliberations
Roundtable discussions were the order of business during the afternoon of the first day of the conference. Participants were distributed among 17 concurrent roundtable sessions to discuss a broad range of topics. Topics ranged from state planning and policy to grassroot organizing to the arts. Two sets of sessions were scheduled, A and B, enabling each participant to be involved in two roundtable discussion groups.
Participants labored and identified a list of needs followed by a rather lengthy and detailed listing of strategies or recommendations for addressing those needs. Following is a list of the seven identified needs followed by a brief and selective summary of some of the strategies identified for meeting the needs.
1) Our rationale for valuing the environment in Arizona needs to be articulated Strategies for meeting this need include educating policymakers about the environmental values of individual communities and making the protection of these values a priority; creating leadership connected to the needs of the people and the land; revitalizing perceptions of neighbors and neighborhoods to encourage communication and the development of shared values; and creating ways to experience a sense of place — our rootedness in the desert landscape.
2) Long term statewide water planning in Arizona is a critical need Progress toward meeting this need depends upon articulating a long term vision of water resource management for Arizona; defining what sustainability means and determining how it fits with regulations already in place; requiring environmentally sustainable practices to accelerate change and promote an environmental ethic; addressing the policy disconnect between groundwater and surface water; matching quality of water to use; encouraging the use of graywater and rainwater; making use of city/county regulations and regional planning to conserve water; developing a clear direction on the future of agriculture in Arizona; promoting a dialogue between agricultural and urban stakeholders; and developing economic analyses that reflect the full cost of water.
3) A water agency is needed to take leadership and articulate a vision for Arizona’s future Progress in meeting this need involves recognizing that the Arizona Department of Water Resources’ loss of funding has left the state without leadership in the water area. Needed to fill the gap is a credible, separately funded agency to provide independent oversight for enforcing rules already in place, provide a technical function separate from policy and regulation and frame a vision for Arizona with continuous and credible water quality and quantity data.
4) We need to encourage the development of environmental leaders in Arizona To meet this need means recognizing the value of a pipeline of future leaders and creating a centralized organization to manage a student mentoring network; creating mentoring opportunities for emerging leaders within agencies, grassroots organizations, businesses, and universities; setting up mentoring partnerships between successful, environmentally conscious businesses and new businesses; opening career pathways for emerging leaders with outside-the-box training; and developing economic incentives to keep emerging leaders and mentors in the environmental field in Arizona.
5) Communicating complex environmental issues to public and elected officials is a need Strategies to accomplish this include educating the public in an engaging, personal and emotive way; communicating data, and uncertainty of the data, to policy leadership; creating communications teams trained in a variety of venues—print, social media, face to face and oral communication; creating “citizen’s guides” to water and environmental resources; identifying trusted advocates who can act as conduits for information, especially with the intent of closing the urban rural digital divide; making use of well regarded community voices and grassroots organizations that rise above the political fray to spread the message in an increasingly diffuse media landscape; and developing advisory councils, workshops and training sessions to involve and educate the community about how water works.
6) There is a need to create networking and data sharing opportunities among diverse groups involved with environmental issues Strategies include creating a stable, centralized clearinghouse with trustworthy data and a consistent funding mechanism; creating networks that leadership across local, state and federal levels; creating a venue for grassroots organizations to connect to each other and collaborate, so they can develop a broader, unified voice; organizing and standardizing water quality and quantity data to facilitate consensus building; publicizing successful innovations and creating a method for sharing innovative ideas between communities; and fostering transparency in information, particularly regarding the uncertainty of numbers and predictions.
7) Creating better K-12 environmental education is needed Progress depends upon promoting authentic, hands on, minds on experiences for students with the environment; encouraging collaboration, professional connections and “two way” communication between students and the community (including scientists and policy makers); encouraging students to seek out credible sources of information and to exploring different viewpoints; tracking students after graduation and creating career pathways; building a database of information for teachers, students and community to use; creating a way for scientists, teachers and artists to collaborate; and tapping the community’s volunteer potential.
Workshops — large group gatherings to address issues in depth
The second day of the conference was taken up with four workshops, each devoted to a different topic. The workshops are listed below along with a sampling of the information from each session. Workshop assignments included considering the strategies offered by the roundtable sessions.
Identifying Key Issues in Statewide Water Planning
This workshop was led by Ken Seasholes (Central Arizona Project), Madeline Kiser (Inside/ Out Poetry Program) and Kelly Mott Lacroix (Arizona Department of Water Resources). A creative approach was taken with participants asked to write a chapter title in a proposed Arizona Water Plan. Participants were later asked to rank the results by indicating which chapter they would most likely read and which they considered the most clever.
The following chapter title won on both accounts: “No more studying the issue. This chapter identifies the top fifteen steps that must be taken in the state to achieve a sustainable water supply for the environment, urban, and rural communities, agriculture, and industry. Importantly, this chapter also sets forth how these steps with be accomplished.”
Other ideas expressed as chapters included stakeholder input and public engagement; secure water management and regulatory funding; developing market pricing for Arizona water; value of water for energy; tools to fund watersheds and their protection; and conservation and water reuse.
Workshop leaders again challenged the creativity of participants by assigning them to write a press release. They were told it is 2015, and “The Statewide Water Plan” is complete and a press release is needed that answers the questions: What is in your Plan? How is it different from previous efforts? What would change as a result? Priorities emerging from this assignment include conservation, economics/ funding, environmental water needs, public outreach, water reuse, and achieving sustainability in water supply and demand. A central question arising from the discussions was: Will a crisis have to occur before Arizona acts on statewide water planning?
Creating an Arizona Environmental Leadership Institute
Workshop 2, led by Melaney Seacat (Pima County), Andrea Gerlak (Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy) and Tom Murray (Sonoran Institute for Leadership Development), focused on crafting an outline for an Arizona Environmental Leadership Institute. Participants were asked to develop a needs assessment by each submitting five needs they believe the institute could meet. Eighty-six needs were identified, covering a wide range of issues. They were organized within 12 categories.
Participants were then asked to consider the effects of establishing such an institute. They were asked: In ten years, what would be different in our lives and community if an Environmental Leadership Institute were successful?” Responses include: healthy economy because of commitment to sustainability; balanced needs with resources for healthy quality of life; citizens have ready access to information, experts, policymakers; everyone would know an environmental leader personally; less black and white and more grey—better informed citizenry; decision makers have nuanced knowledge and tools; decisions made with 25 plus year outlook, focused on future generations; long term assessment; better education of elected officials; young leaders are more empowered; pipeline of environmental leaders into politics; enlightened electorate with environmental values; young people actively engaged in real projects (development and research); resources for young leaders; 50 year water/environmental state plan that is adapted to local policy; more collaboration and the skills to collaborate; and Arizona viewed as enlightened state in environmental issues.
The above provided the groundwork for an institute mission statement: Foster development of current and future leaders by empowering them with resources and skills to make a positive difference for people and the environment.
Creating an Information Clearinghouse and Communications Network
Workshop 3, led by Betsy Woodhouse (Institute of the Environment) and Jan Holder (Gila Watershed Partnership), discussed issues central to every environmental effort: how to network with one another and communicate effectively to the public. In taking on the issue participants identified major and supporting ideas.
The workhop’s major ideas were: 1) re tool the essential public message of population sustainability; 2) create an online resource that organizes information from various technical sources and provides a platform for information exchange; 3) use art to communicate to the community via all effective mediums, networking with schools and organizations; 4) educate policy makers through hands on immersion and relevant science; 5) reach and influence the public through educational advertising; 6) create a face, voice, or image for the environmental message; 7) create a one stop shop to connect those who know with those who want to know.
Supporting ideas were identified for each major idea. For example, supporting ideas for major idea number 5 were: high quality video public service announcements; water flash ads; weekly “Main Street” message with e links; point of purchase info snippets; and educate the public using advertorial messages.
Workshop 4: Fostering Environmental Leadership in K 12 Students
Workshop 4 was led by Kerry Schwartz (Arizona Project WET) and Margaret Wilch (Tucson High Magnet School). To stimulate their thoughts workshop participants were presented with three questions to consider. The intent was to encourage the development of recommendations, strategies and best practices for fostering environmental leadership in K-12 students. The three questions were: What experiences are critical for students to have to become environmental leaders? What resources are needed to make these critical experiences happen? If we are able to create experiences critical for students to become environmental leaders and we had the resources to create those experiences, would we have everything we needed?
The workshop then focused on a four-pronged approach to revitalize environmental education in K-12 schools. The four approaches were: 1) empower youth 2) student development 3) community, agency, and business involvement 4) engaging teachers through development and ongoing support.
Humanities, an Unlikely but Apt Topic at a Water Leadership Conference
In several ways, the WRRC conference took a nontraditional route. For one, there were noPowerPoint presentations. The meeting hall was a PowerPointfree zone. Also, the event was planned to attract a wider and more varied group of participants than usually shows up at water conferences. Policymakers, water experts and researchers mingled with writers, artists and teachers; experienced professionals rubbed shoulders with high school and college students.
Another singular innovation, one qualifying as a notable landmark along the nontraditional road, had to do with conference content: the humanities were on the agenda. Do the humanities have a role in managing water resources? Can poetry, music and literature take their place along side of hydrology, engineering, sociology and political science as disciplines to prepare future water and environmental leaders?
Alison Hawthorne Deming, poet, essayist and University of Arizona Creative Writing professor believes the humanities can play a role in natural resource management. She began her presentation by stating: “I am very excited at the potential for the arts and humanities to work together with the sciences on the issue of sustainability and environmental protection.”
She described what she believes is the ideal “... with artists and scientists working together as equal partners to find a new language.” She looks forward to art being respected as a deeply authentic way to see the world that will encourage “experimenting with putting what is a less influential discipline, an art culture, beside the incredibly important and powerful discipline of science to discover new ways of seeing.”
She said, “Poems speak to what we feel. ... One of the things missing in motivating people to develop good policies and actions is a sense of passion. Art in one way brings love and beauty into the equation. ...We don’t only treasure economic growth and fun on golf courses, we also treasure beauty and the wealth the of the natural world surrounding us, and that we are part of.”
She mentioned several efforts to include the arts to encourage a broader environmental sensitivity and understanding. She noted National Science Foundation funded projects at ecological sites throughout the country that bring together scientists, philosophers, artists and writers to develop new ways of working together. She also mentioned a K-12 student watershed environmental poetry contest started by Robert Hass, former U.S. poet laureate.
She also described a project at a zoo that inserted poetry as part of the interpretive materials in an effort to increase zoo visitors’ conservation values. Pre-and post-visit interviews showed a 47 percent increase in such values after poetry was worked into the interpretive materials.
She says people were able to better understand their feelings for the animals. “They now had words for the things they felt.” (The results of this project obviously impressed participants at one of the 17 concurrent roundtables sessions conducted during the afternoon of the first day of the conference. Among the recommendations proposed by those at the roundtable discussing the use of art was that utilities include poetry in their water bills.)
Deming looks to an expanded use of the arts in the natural resource area. She says, “I feel the arts and humanities should be included into as many kinds of environmentally focused projects as possible. I would like to see writers in residence assigned to the Central Arizona Project.”
New Course of Study for Water Leaders Entering a Broader, More Varied Field
Any effort to understand the workings of effective leadership would fall sadly short if education were not given its due consideration. As John F. Kennedy said, “Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.” Much earlier and along the same line Wendell Wilkie stated “Education is the mother of leadership.”
In its focus on the essentials of water and environmental leadership, the Water Resources Research Center conference did not neglect education. The big education question was: What kind of education creates new leadership for Arizona’s water and environment in a time of change?”
In response, many propose that water education and training be interdisciplinary to better prepare students to deal with an issue that has become broader and more complex in the face of recent developments.
Water resource managers need to understand the political, social and cultural significance of water and know the principles of water sustainability. In academic terms, an interdisciplinary understanding of water is called for, one going beyond a traditional curriculum relying solely on hydrology and engineering. A new University of Arizona master’s degree program is taking such an approach. (See sidebar for program description.)
Christopher Scott, a faculty member in the new UA program, says “For many years water resources decision making was thought to revolve entirely within the water sector. It has become evident that there are other nonwater considerations that exert a strong influence on decision making in the water sector. ... Objectives from outside the water sector impinge on water management and start to bring in cross disciplinary, nonsectorial considerations that require alternative approaches.”
He noted two critical contemporary issues that demonstrate water resource boundaries are not fixed: the water energy nexus and the environmental demands for water.
He says “I think the water energy nexus is going to very fundamentally drive the way water is managed. ... We have to look across a whole set of activities, in the transportation and construction sectors but also the water sector to deal effectively with carbon emissions and climate change. Water management will have to get more carbon conscious and will have to get more energy conscious from a conservation perspective.”
With regards to the environmental demand for water, Scott says, “The issue was highlighted at the global level at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. A whole set of issues was put on the table including biodiversity, rainforest conservation, and environmental quality issues. The gauntlet was thrown down to water managers to manage water for [such issues].”
Scott focuses on geography as a discipline providing a wide perspective on water. He says, “Geography looks at physical resources dynamics. For example, geography considers climate change in terms of temperatures, precipitation rates and models but at the same time it considers the human element. An emerging area in geography is ‘coupled natural and human systems.’ Its intent is to consider physical processes along with human processes to determine the most effective management of water and other resources.”
Scott says anthropology also is important because it enables us to interpret cultural values arising in contemporary water affairs. For example, community values are an issue when plans are considered to take effluent out of the Santa Cruz River and make it available for human uses, for example, to water new golf courses. Effluent released into the river supports a riparian habitat that provides bird watching opportunities and other recreational and aesthetic amenities to the public. Access to the golf course benefitting from the effluent is limited to members who can pay club membership or greens fees.
Scott says at issue is not just public access but social or cultural values. “There are these culturally constructed, culturally mediated values that are central to some water issues. Anthropologists would play an important role to help shed light on that.”