Complete Issue - Shippensburg University

Gail Cowie, Leigh Askew and Courtney Tobin: Georgia’s Water Future 23Figure 2. Water planning regions defined pursuant toGeorgia’s 2008 State Water PlanWater planning regions are outlined in black; the state’smajor river basins are shown in colortherefore adoptable), it also served the purpose ofbuilding longer-term engagement with water users.This objective was accomplished by provision ofmultiple forums for input, by significant revisionto the draft plan in response to public comment,and by specification of the regional planningframework.Creation of regional water planning councils,in turn, institutionalizes a set of new seatsat the water management table. Stakeholderrepresentatives can bring local knowledge intodecision making. Interests with new seats at thetable range from those in the large and mediumurban areas in the northern and central part of thestate, to those in the extensive agricultural areasin south Georgia, to those in the rapidly-growingcounties along the coast.regional Water Planning Councils. It is expected thefirst set of regional plans developed under the StateWater Plan will be adopted in 2011.Conclusions: Managing water for current andfuture generationsIncreasing and competing demands for resourcesmean the water management challenges of Georgia’sfuture are likely to be much more complex than thoseof today. Meeting these challenges will require moresophisticated management and use of multiple watersources, not just the cleanest, easiest, or cheapest.The 2008 State Water Plan provides a blueprintthat may, when fully implemented, help the state meetthose challenges. It is designed to provide a flexibleframework for regional water planning and to movetoward sustainable management of water resources overa large area with diverse resources and widely variedinterests.The State Plan, and the process that produced it,have three fundamental characteristics that have beenprescribed for more effective, long-term managementof natural resources: 12• Greater participation by resource users. While publicinvolvement during plan development had animmediate purpose (ensuring the plan submittedto the General Assembly was supported and• Expanded communication and coordination in use ofshared resources. The plan structures interactionsbetween regions and communities that share waterresources and provides a framework for identifyingregional solutions to water managementchallenges. In theory, at least, this framework willincrease the recognition of water sources as sharedresources: upstream, downstream, across state lines,and within and between regions.• Improved information on resource conditions andresource use. The plan explicitly recognizes wecannot effectively manage what we do notmeasure, underscoring the importance of resourceassessments and increased investment ininformation regarding resource capacity andconditions. Results of assessments, with on-goingmonitoring as regional plans are implemented, willenhance the information base available for futurerevisions of plans and the management practicesthey specify.Together, these characteristics build toward adaptivemanagement, a cyclical learning process based onmonitoring and improved understanding of resourceconditions and review and revision of managementapproaches. 13 And, they also build toward adaptivegovernance: governmental decision making aboutresources that involves affected parties in order to findan informed and stable consensus. 14 Accomplishingboth, however, will require a long-term commitmentand significant investment of public resources. 15Furthermore, the approach to regional planningcurrently being implemented in Georgia faces twofundamental challenges, which other states undertakingsuch efforts also face. The first is the ongoing challengeof involving the broad spectrum of water users and therepresentativeness of those at the table. 16 Participantssaw the advisory committees that created the State Planas reasonably representative, but questions have been