Planning for a Sustainable Future: The Case of the North American Great Plains
(Home | Contents)

Land and Water Resources Focus Group

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

The focus group began its discussions by surveying the disciplinary and organizational perspectives of each of the participants. The group was composed of representatives of 12 government agencies (state and federal), academic or research institutions, and an irrigation district.

The premises for the focus group discussion were:

• The symposium is part of a process to define a sustainable future for the region, not an end in itself;
• Landscape is a "common" denominator for many sustainability issues;
• Land and water resource issues are an important part of the broader sustainability issue;
• Sustainability is a blend of social, environmental, and economic concerns and issues;
• Defining a sustainable future for the region requires a flexible approach rather than a bureaucratic one;
• Trust must be at the foundation of this process.

The chair felt that sustainability was achievable if we improved the use of extensive expertise and knowledge that exists to ensure that land and water resources are available to meet current and future (expected and unexpected) needs.

What are the land and water issues in question?

• Water quality, surface and ground (separate and together)
• Production value of land (i.e., agricultural productivity)
• Soil quality
• Surface and ground water quantity (e.g., seasonality and variability of water availability)
• Water allocation
• Aesthetic value of land
• Biological value of land (i.e., habitat)
• Biological value of water
• Legal liabilities
• Safety hazard (e.g., subsidence)
• Access to land and water
• Soil erosion (wind and water)
• Damage caused by droughts and floods
• Land use conflicts
• Land ownership and property rights in general, including water rights
• Equity among stakeholders
• Biodiversity
• Air resource as it relates to land and water (interconnections)
• Economic resource valuation
• Alternative uses of land and water

These issues were summarized into four categories:

• Environmental quality
• Valuation of land and water resources
• Natural hazards management
• Surface and ground water quantity

Question 1: What are the principal stressors related to water and land affecting the North American Great Plains? Economic, policy, environmental, and social/cultural stressors should be considered. These stressors should be considered on various scales ranging from local to global.

• Climate change and variability
• Extreme climatic events, including a possible change in frequency and severity
• Jurisdictional and institutional boundaries and differences
• Governmental programs, policies, and regulations, including institutional constraints
• Fiscal pressures and constraints
• Global demand for food
• Technology
• Changes in land use
• Social traditions and attitudes
• Special interests
• Consumer demand
• Population changes, shifts, and demographics
• Conflicts and competition for land and water
• Contamination (i.e., nonpoint and point source pollution)
• Engineering structures (e.g., levees, dams, bridges)
• Inadvertent acts (e.g., unforeseen side effects of actions such as the introduction of exotic species)
• Planned disposal of wastes and waste generation
• External forces on the Great Plains (e.g., global population, demand for food and fiber, foreign impositions such as international treaty obligations, etc.)
• Inappropriate and/or outdated resource management practices
• Taxation
• Land use capacity (e.g., fertility)
• Water use trends and conflicts
• Corporate policies
• Neglect of broader global conditions with respect to our "sense of place"
• Resource limitations
• Social conditions (e.g., access to health care, housing for elderly, etc.)

These stressors were then grouped into six categories, as follows:

• Institutional programs and policy stressors, including government and private sector stressors; jurisdictional and institutional boundaries; fiscal constraints
• Resource limitation stressors, including land use change; outdated resource management practices; land use capacity and soil fertility concerns; resource limitations
• Human effects and infrastructure stressors, including inadvertent acts; engineering construction; technology; contamination; waste disposal and generation
• Climate stressors, including variability and change; extreme climatic events
• Economic stressors, including taxation; consumer demand; conflicts and competition for land and water in the marketplace; economics; food demand
• Social and cultural stressors, including consumer demand; population change, shifts, and demographics; special interests; social traditions and attitude

External forces, acts, or changes serve as stressors in multiple categories.

The focus group then developed a 4x6 matrix (Figure 1) between the issues and the stressors to determine which ones the members felt were most important. The intersection of issues and stressors were rated as high, medium, and low by group members and assigned points 3, 2, or 1, respectively.

Focus group participants were asked to comment on the interactions of issues and stressors (i.e., why scores for some cells are high or low). They also recognized that all of the issues are interrelated. Considerable concern was expressed about whether this approach actually captures the true relative weight of these issues and stressors.

The group continued to discuss statements about the importance of the pairs of issues/stressors in the matrix. The group also discussed common threads between the priority cells.

Figure 1. Issues and Stressors

3 = High; 2 = Medium; 1 = Low

Participants noted the following:

• Similarities in the perceptions of participants in the Great Plains region are greater in a north-south direction than they are from east to west in Canada.
• Climate characteristics are shared across the Great Plains and influence perceptions of and cultural attitudes about water resources. Sense of "place" involves societal perceptions and living within limits of the region's resource base (i.e., living near the edge of the region's resource capacities).
• Residents' sense of place is dominated by climatic restrictions on the resource base, but our cultural and societal attitudes tend to extend beyond those restrictions.
• Some farmers live within the bounds, but this is an individual thing, not a regional or cultural ethic.
• Limitations of the region are not recognized in a broader sense, meaning sustainability is difficult to achieve.
• Time is relative. In the short term, everything is fine (e.g., High Plains aquifer). In the much longer term, things are not; we are beyond the limits. Time makes a difference in terms of different functions of land and water. Now that the fundamentals of sustenance and accumulation of wealth have largely been achieved, residents are beginning to think more about the longevity of the Plains as a sustainable resource.
• In the northern parts of the region, surface water dependency makes residents more sensitive to resource abuse. Surface water, if abused, visibly disappears. Ground water to the south is another matter. Effects are invisible (at least initially). What can we learn?
• Natural systems are driven by climate; cultural systems are driven by agriculture.
• As described in Marvin Duncan's paper, too many people and institutions arrived too soon in the Great Plains. Even now, institutions from outside the region still lack an appreciation of the limits of the Great Plains.
• Outsiders are desensitized to the limits of the Great Plains resource base as well as its culture.
• There is a congruency between sustainability and adaptation to the region's limits.
• Farmers think short term, nonfarmers think in a longer term.
• The issue of climate change is even less tangible for the region's residents. Climate change stretches perspectives even for many nonfarmers who already have a time frame longer than that of farmers.
• Most Plains land is owned by small landowners, contributing to cultural resistance to change.
• Are Plains farmers trying to encourage their kids to leave the farm in search of a better future?

The focus group recognized a set of limits to a sustainable future. These included the undervaluation of water, lack of knowledge about factors affecting water availability in the future, and cultural fixation of a short-term commodity-producing economic system. Or, is it economic constraints placed on a cultural system? There was disagreement among discussants about whether cultural fixation or economic constraint dominates.

The traditional view has been that land and water are there to produce commodities. There is now greater recognition that there are limits to the region's ability to produce commodities. A shift is occurring from an emphasis on economic values to greater appreciation of aesthetic, environmental, and ecosystem values and the preservation of landscape. In certain places across the Great Plains, this shift has occurred while the old and new mentalities are in potential conflict in other locations.

In Canada, wildlife is considered to be a Crown resource; therefore, farmers cannot charge hunters for access to their land. If farmers could charge for access, would that result in farmers providing and protecting more habitat as economic incentive?

Question 3: Identify specific actions or programs that would lead to a more sustainable future for the region. Be specific by addressing the following questions: What can be done? How can it be done? Who will implement it? What WE do? [Question 2 was addressed as part of the response to question 3.]

Focus group participants broke into subgroups to address four action areas.

Economic stewardship model for land and water. Treat land and water as a resource, not a commodity. Resources must be properly valued. The marketplace has a role to play in this, but it is limited by fundamental problems of "resource economics." Banks evaluate risk on the basis of the probability of loan recovery; they do not evaluate risk in terms of the sustainability of the resource base (i.e., loss of topsoil). Efficient markets also require knowledgeable consumers, borrowers, and lenders. It must be recognized that this is a long-term process that requires educating the public.

Stewardship means society must bear some of the costs of land protection, not just farmers. Stewardship in part means reducing resource waste (material, financial); for example, eliminate the wide range of subsidies that misdirect resources, or find novel, innovative ways to raise capital to invest in property stewardship.

The economic stewardship model needs to be applied at local levels (i.e., local solutions to local needs).

The government's role should be to rationalize policies and programs; solutions are not imposed. Government should facilitate local initiatives and represent the farm community internationally. International market distortions should be eliminated (e.g., foreign subsidized markets and farms).

Examples of successes: community empowerment activities.

Technology. Improvements in technology can yield new tools for monitoring and implementing programs or policies that promote sustainability in Great Plains agriculture (e.g., global positioning systems to maximize farm field management) and in other sectors (e.g., tourism, recreation). Technological tools should be promoted that allow production to be increased without the depletion of resources (e.g., ground water).

This can be accomplished through better education and research programs with the assistance of universities and the private sector. The private sector can assist if there is a clear economic incentive. Symposium participants can also serve as individual catalysts in their places of work and residence.

Predict future natural conditions, recognizing the global perspective. Climatic characteristics and land production potential must be defined in the context of human activities.

Indicators of sustainability must be defined. This can be achieved by setting sustainability goals, recognizing that there are multiple goals. Linkages must be achieved between sources of information and users and between economics and social needs.

Issues need to be identified from within the community. Defining research problems at the community level will provide a sense of ownership for solutions that are devised. A partnership must be created for research and its application. Solutions need to be communicated from the community scale to the regional scale.

Education plan of action. The purpose of this plan is to create understanding, excitement, and commitment to a common goal of developing a sustainable future for the Great Plains. This can be accomplished through pilot programs, demonstration projects, public sector marketing, career development programs, and festivals and fairs.

The education plan should include all age groups within both the rural and urban audience. It should also include professional and corporate development by providing in-service activities. Timing of educational activities must be tailored to each target group. Partnerships should be established between government, the private sector, NGOs, and volunteer groups.

Educational activities must be defined on the basis of eco-regions or water basins (watersheds), recognizing that there are some commonalities, despite different geographic characteristics.

Successes: Geography for Life program, Project Wild and Project Wet programs, Groundwater Guardian program, the Center for Sustainable Agricultural Systems' program at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, post-secondary programs, Partners for the Saskatchewan Basin project.