Water planning law and government.

Water planning efforts typically identify problems and needs. But simply calling attention to issues is usually not enough to spur action; the end result of many well-intentioned planning efforts is a report that ends up gathering dust on a shelf. Vague recommendations like “Water conservation measures should be implemented” usually accomplish little by themselves as they don’t assign responsibility to anyone. Success is more likely when an implementation strategy — who can and should do what — is developed as part of the planning process. The more detailed and specific the implementation strategy, the greater the chance that something will actually be done. The question then becomes who has the legal authority or responsibility to do what? Are new laws and programs needed or can existing ones be used to implement the recommendations? ... This document is divided into four main parts. The first, “Carrots and Sticks” looks at two basic approaches — regulatory and non-regulatory — that can be, and are, used to carry out water policy. Both have advantages and disadvantages that need to be considered. The second, “The powers of federal, state and local governments…,” looks at the constitutional powers the federal government and state and local governments have to carry out water policy. An initial look at the U. S. Constitution might suggest the federal government’s regulatory authority over water is limited but, in fact, its powers are very substantial. States have considerable authority to do a number of things but have to be mindful of any federal efforts that might conflict with those state efforts. And local governments can only do those things the state constitution or state legislature says they can do and must conform to any requirements or limitations on those powers that are contained in the enabling acts. Parts three and four examine in more detail the main programs and agencies at the federal level as well as Iowa’s state and local levels and the roles they play in national and state water policy.

Floods of June 17, 1990 and July 9, 1993, Along Squaw Creek and the South Skunk River in Ames, Iowa, and Vicinity, HR-140, 1996

Water-surface-elevation profiles and peak discharges for the floods of June 17, 1990, and July 9, 1993, along Squaw Creek and the South Skunk River, in Ames, Iowa, are presented in this report. The maximum flood-peak discharge of 24,300 cubic feet per second for the streamflow-gaging station on Squaw Creek at Ames, Iowa (station number 05470500) occurred on July 9, 1993. This discharge was 80 percent larger than the 100-year recurrence-interval discharge and exceeded the previous record flood-peak discharge of June 17, 1990, by 94 percent. The July 9, 1993, flood-peak discharge of 26,500 cubic feet per second on the South Skunk River below Squaw Creek (station number 05471000) was also a peak of record, exceeding the previous record flood-peak discharge of June 27,1975, by 80 percent, and the 100-year recurrence-interval discharge by 60 percent. A flood history describes rainfall conditions for floods that occurred during 1990 and 1993.

Water Planning Law and Government, November 2008

Water planning efforts typically identify problems and needs. But simply calling attention to issues is usually not enough to spur action; the end result of many well-intentioned planning efforts is a report that ends up gathering dust on a shelf. Vague recommendations like “Water conservation measures should be implemented” usually accomplish little by themselves as they don’t assign responsibility to anyone. Success is more likely when an implementation strategy — who can and should do what — is developed as part of the planning process. The more detailed and specific the implementation strategy, the greater the chance that something will actually be done.