Exploring an innovative watershed management approach: From feasibility to sustainability

Watershed management is dedicated to solving watershed problems on a sustainable basis. Managing watershed development on a sustainable basis usually entails a balance between the needs of humans and nature, both in the present and in the future. From a watershed or water resources development basis, these problems can be classified into five general categories: lack of water quantity, deterioration in water quality, ecological impacts, weak public participation, and weak economic value. The first three categories can be combined to make up physical sustainability while the last two categories can be defined as social and economic sustainability. Therefore, integrated watershed management should be designed to achieve physical sustainability utilizing, to the greatest extent possible, public participation in an economically viable manner. This study demonstrates an innovative approach using scientific, social, and motivational feasibilities that can be used to improve watershed management. Scientific feasibility is tied to the nature of environmental problems and the scientific means to solve them. Social feasibility is associated with public participation. Motivational feasibility is related to economic stimulation for the stakeholders to take actions. The ecological impacts, lack of water quantity and deterioration in water quality are problems that need scientific means in order to improve watershed health. However, the implementation of these means is typically not achievable without the right public participation. In addition, public participation is typically accelerated by economic motivation for the stakeholders to use the resources in a manner that improves watershed health. The Big Lost River in south-central Idaho has been used as an illustration for implementing scientific, social and motivational feasibilities and in a manner that can achieve sustainability relative to water resources management. However, the same approach can be used elsewhere after appropriate modifications.

[1]  R. C. Bartholomay.  Mineralogical correlation of surficial sediment from area drainages with selected sedimentary interbeds at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho , 1990 .

[2]  Neil S. Grigg.  Integrated Water Resources Management who Should Lead, who Should Pay? , 1999 .

[3]  John Cobourn.  INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ON THE TRUCKEE RWER IN NEVADA1 , 1999 .

[4]  D. J. Parliman.  Ground-water quality in east-central Idaho valleys , 1982 .

[5]  G. J. Stiltner,et al.  Probable hydrologic effects of a hypothetical failure of Mackay Dam on the Big Lost River valley from Mackay, Idaho, to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory , 1979 .

[6]  Sarah Ewing,et al.  LANDCARE AND COMMUNITY‐LED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA 1 , 1999 .

[7]  L. C. Kjelstrom,et al.  Simulation of water-surface elevations for a hypothetical 100-year peak flow in Birch Creek at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho , 1997 .

[8]  Richard Gray.  Economic Measures of Sustainability , 1991 .

[9]  C. M. Bennett.  Streamflow losses and ground-water level changes along the Big Lost River at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho , 1990 .

[10]  G. Johns,et al.  INTEGRATING SOCIAL BENEFIT COST ACCOUNTING INTO WATERSHED RESTORATION AND PROTECTION PROGRAMS 1 , 1999 .

[11]  C. Chess,et al.  WATERSHEDS ARE NOT EQUAL: EXPLORING THE FEASIBILITY OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 1 , 2001 .

[12]  Kristian G. Olesen,et al.  HUGIN - A Shell for Building Bayesian Belief Universes for Expert Systems , 1989, IJCAI.

[13]  Mark E. Borsuk,et al.  A Bayesian network of eutrophication models for synthesis, prediction, and uncertainty analysis , 2004 .

[14]  Division on Earth.  New Strategies for America's Watersheds , 1999 .