There’s a powerpoint and a couple research briefs for those interested. This was the presentation to the council prior to the council meeting.
Heather Allen introduces them. Jenny Seifert and Eric Booth are the presenters. About 10 members of the public and Alders Ledell Zellers, Barbara McKinney, Denise DeMarb, Samba Baldeh and Rebecca Kemble are here to hear the presentation.
Siefert says this is a $5M, 5 year project. This is a portion of that project. They are not just interested in water, but in ecosystems services – the benefits we get from natures (crop production, water quality, flood management). There is lots of changes that effect the ecosystems. They want to know how changes in land use, climate and human demand effect the eco-systems. There is lots of uncertainty and this is a complex problem. The solutions will take generations and there will be multiple and differing solutions. They show how environmental change is slow and long term on the timelines. There are different pathways to different futures. We have to start somewhere and they propose that we start by talking about it. Time and spaces to have those conversations are hard to find and its hard to think about 60 years from now. She says that they can talk about it through scenarios, “what if”, they help with thinking about the future and change. It helps people think through uncertainty and alternatives. Their scenarios are Yahara 2070. They picked 2070 because it is 2 generations from now, but not that far away that we can’t have a connection with it. They developed the scenarios by looking at stories that connect us with future generations. These stories are about what people think, lots of perspectives. They took samples through interviews and work shops. They talked to foarmers, businesses, non-profits. They talked to 80 people. They each (the “atoms”) have contrasting sets of choices, the point is to compare them. They each have a “force of change” – Government, Abandonment (Inaction), Technology and Values. These forces of change all influence the future. They looked at computer models that simulate the stories and those are still in the works, they are analyzing the issues. The stories and “atoms” show the implications for future well-being. These are predictions, just plausible possibilities.
Booth says that says that he looked at various aspects, the model results are in the works, and they will have more info in the next few months. He shows the watershed on the map, red is urbanization, dairy agriculture is corn and light blue, north of Madison. South is corn and soybean. Its three different watersheds – Dairy, Urban and Agriculture. He talks about the main drivers of change – intensification of dairy agriculture – trend towards fewer farms with more animals. Biofuel is the second one, growing corn and soy. Energy needs to be part of it. Third is urban growth, which is more flooding and takes away land from agriculture. Finally is the change in climate, what we see is increase in annual participation – 1 inch more per decade on average with heavy rainfall events. That is expected to continue. He says there are 4 climate scenarios. Annual precipitation and temperature are graphed out.
Seifert says Accelerating Innovation scenario is a series of climate change and the US addresses heavily in technology to work on the issues, we become a center, we have a growth spurt and more jobs are created, we have a green infrastructure. We stop eating dairy, so we have motherless meats. Livestock is replaced by crops. Nature is engineered as we try to control it and we put ourselves at risk of losing nature.
Booth says that gets translated because we have a more efficient way to produce livestock and grow more food. There is more corn in the future, there is also urbanization growth. The climate is most moderate of the 4, its slightly wetter, there is more heavy rainfall and a few more heatwaves, but this is the most moderate.
Siefert says Government is next, there is a water crisis, there is public outrage and there are solutions. Water Security act in 2040 and there are water governance boards. Wisconsin has upper Mississippi and Great Lakes, the federal government has goals for each of the watersheds. Farmers treat water as if it is a crop. Cities have a green infrastucture and are rewarded for saving water.
Booth says that grasses and biofuels are increased due to the regulations, there is more green on the map. Forrests grow as well. There are more people, just in the same urban footprint due to the water regulations. The climate is warmer by 7 degrees. Its wetter in the beginning and then ends drier than today. Extreme water eventsand heatwaves increase.
Connected Communities has a youth movement to have less consumption. By 2070 sustainability is the new normal, communities and cities are built more densely. Climate change mititgation is global, crisis for fuel incorporates social costs. Air travel is harder. Landscape leads to a dietary change away from meat and dairy, the map is greener, more pasture. The urban areas are fairly constant, not much growth, some urban spaces have prairie restoration. It’s 6 degrees warmer and more rain and heat events.
Abandonment and Renewal is the last scenario, there is a food crisis that results from disasters, the food crisis is more important than water quality. There is toxic fumes, people get sick, people flee the area. They used that scenario to get a lower population. In the disaster’s wake, ecosystems grow back, the few people that live here are in urban clusters or farmers. After the event in the 2030, agriculture goes wild and turns into grass. The urban areas degrade and turn into grass. Ag areas are small, close communities and food stays in the local markets. It is much wetter, there are huge floods, by the end the temperature is 9 degrees warmer. There is a large heatwave.
Mo Cheeks and Marsha Rummel have joined the crowd.
Siefert – This is a tool to think about the future and the vulnerabilities, its a framework to weigh the tradoffs and make choices, it is a back drop for priorities and a way to engage constituents.
Booth – says that in abandonment model, this is a storm like they saw in Lake Delton, they show the flooding of he Isthmus. We did get a lot of rain in 2008 and we could get more and we have a vulnerability. The other issue is water quality and the phosphorus concentration is shown for each of the 4 scenarios. It is challenging to improve water quality, even though there are a lot of changes on the landscape. Partially becasue the climate is wetter, there is more runoff – and phosphorus is a tricky element. The legacy of the agricultural practices lives on for generations.
Siefert says that they need to look at the differences in the scenarios and what the threats are and what is common between them. She understands that social equity is an issue and they can use the scenarios to think about that. The 5th scenario is the vision of the future we want.
There are two engagement opportunities. Discussion guide in development, they are looking for groups to pilot it. There is also a writing contest (info in link above). They are looking for visions of resilience for water and people. Submissions due Feb 1.
Amanda Hall has joined them. So 8 of the 20 members are present.
Questions
DeMarb asks how long it would take to see change in the phosphorus. He says this is one of the challenges with the increased water fall events. He says there can be other scenarios where we can change it a decade or two before. The changes happen later
Mike Verveer is here now. As is David Ahrens.
Kemble asks about the locks and lake levels and if there are optimums? Booth says that was not a task for their project but would work on it with people who are interest, its a challenging optimization problem. They would talk about it with those who are interested in updating the plans. They work with people with better models, theirs is a little cruder.
Judy Olsen asks about how people discuss these scenarios. Siefert says that they provide possibilities for people to think about and help us think about what is desirable and undesirables and it helps us think of good ideas and threats, ti gives us a framework. Olsen asks how do you get people involved discussing the scenarios. She says that they did workshops through the county, they tested it out. The discussion guide will be an opportunity to talk about it on their own, people have to organize their own groups on their own.
Carl Landeness asks what happens when the funding goes away. They apply for more. There are possibilities they can work on, but they don’t plan to go away.
Satya Rhodes-Conway asks to what extent the models differentiate between levels of government – this is local vs state or fed. Also, if you want people to have conversations, what to you hope to see out of those conversations. What is the action you hope people will take.
Booth says the levels of government depends upon the scenario. Siefert says they want people to think in long term ways. She hopes people develop a vision for the future and lay the ground work for a more creative future. There are no actions in particular, but they might be able to have more solutions. They ask if there are other ideas to let them know.
Judy Olsen says the scenario process is interesting, is this a process used in other settings. Booth says that at this scale it is rare. There was an extensive look at the the writings. It’s common with global scenarios, but this is something that people can identify with. It’s starting to grow. The scenarios are detail rich, so its not that common. (I got distracted . . . my bad . . . )
Palm, Carter and Schmidt are here – but they missed the presentation, its 5 minutes to 6:00.
Mostly members of the public are talking now.
