Talking Water Investments – Western water & climate change
Confluence West is a consortium of preeminent western water leaders. Learn more
Friends -
How do western water agencies and cities make the financial leap to invest in the health of their water supply upstream? What information and analysis does a governing body use to make these investment decisions?
We talked with Maggie Hart Stebbins, former Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Water Authority Board member and Bernalillo County Commissioner, about the Water Agency's historic investment in forest restoration in the upper Rio Grande.
In the coming months, we'll interview other governing board members from western communities large and small about the information they used to make their decisions.
Our recent survey found that more than 60 western communities rely on water sourced from upstream forests for part or all of their water supply - all of these forests are at risk for catastrophic wildfire.
If your organization wants to know more on how to make these investment decisions, please contact us.
"If you wait for a disaster, you're already behind. If you've got clean, abundant water, thank a forest — and do what you can to protect it." - Maggie Hart Stebbins
The challenge
Upstream forests are the primary source of water in the middle Rio Grande for Albuquerque, farms in the region, and many cities and pueblos. Over the past decade, catastrophic wildfires have sent huge pulses of ash and sediment downstream into the river.
The response
In 2018, the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority made a one-million-dollar investment in northern New Mexico forests. These funds are being used for forest restoration to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires, thereby making the region's water supply more secure.
Key takeaways
This was a non-partisan decision
Community support and input was essential
The agency's 100-year water supply and climate change plan provided the decision framework
Kimery Wiltshire: For this investment decision, what information was the most helpful for you and the other Board members? Was it analysis just from staff or also from stakeholders outside of the agency?
Maggie Hart Stebbins: As a member of the Water Utility Authority board, I had seen several reports indicating that climate change was going to have a significant negative impact on New Mexico's water supply. In 2013, a report from the Bureau of Reclamation, Sandia National Labs, and the Army Corps of Engineers gave a pretty dire prediction of what the water situation would be in the Rio Grande in the coming decades.
As a result, most of us on the Water Authority board were aware of this pending shortage. But the most striking motivator was the Las Conchas fire in 2011 when that devastating forest wildfire fire pumped ash and sediment into the Rio Grande to the degree that the Water Authority had to shut down its surface water source for a period of time.
We recognized that there were threats to the water supply all of us had considered secure – and that we had to think about water supply in new ways. So the Water Utility Authority staff embarked on putting together a hundred-year water supply plan. That plan committed not to acquiring new water sources but to protecting and conserving the resources that the Water Utility already had. Conservation was a big part of that, reuse, and ways of storing water that reduced evaporation, but there was also this critical element of watershed protection.
The Rio Grande Water Fund had already been working in the community to build support, both public and private, for its work. I had met with representatives of the Rio Grande Water Fund and had seen presentations out in the community. So, I was aware of the need for and the benefits of watershed protection and watershed restoration.
Kimery: It sounds as if community support was key for your decision-making.
Maggie: The Rio Grande Water Fund is a collaboration of both public and private partners. So, the fact that there was private investment was a significant argument in the presentations to the Water Utility Authority board. And there were many community and business leaders who were advocating for the Water Fund, and that presented very compelling arguments for board members.
Kimery: What were some of the other factors?
Maggie: The Water Utility Authority board is very diverse, with city and county government representatives and politically conservative and politically progressive members. But, we all had great confidence in the Water Utility Authority staff. When they made a recommendation, we knew it was well-researched, fiscally responsible, and grounded in evidence.
Kimery: All water agencies have to navigate their way through competing costs - at what point did this specific investment become a spending priority?
Maggie: In our case, it wasn't presented as an either/or. It was presented as part of a package, all of which were worthy investments. The Water Authority staff did an outstanding job.
Kimery: What are one or two things you'd recommend to other agencies or municipal decision-makers in considering investments in source water protection?
Maggie: Think long-term. I recognize this is a very difficult thing to do as an elected official, but absolutely essential when talking about water supply. There is always sensitivity to raising rates when one is responsive to the taxpayers, so it takes some courage to say "this is essential" and point out that the community isn't going to exist if there's no water supply in the future. Drought will impact every aspect of life if the water supply is curtailed, so we have to invest to protect the future of our communities
In our case, the investment decision was bipartisan and non-political because we had such broad and strong community support.