Hydrological Connectivity Between Headwater Streams and Downstream Waters: How Science Can Inform Policy1

Abstract: In January 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers exceeded its statutory authority by asserting Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction over non‐navigable, isolated, intrastate waters based solely on their use by migratory birds. The Supreme Court’s majority opinion addressed broader issues of CWA jurisdiction by implying that the CWA intended some “connection” to navigability and that isolated waters need a “significant nexus” to navigable waters to be jurisdictional. Subsequent to this decision (SWANCC), there have been many lawsuits challenging CWA jurisdiction, many of which are focused on headwater, intermittent, and ephemeral streams. To inform the legal and policy debate surrounding this issue, we present information on the geographic distribution of headwater streams and intermittent and ephemeral streams throughout the U.S., summarize major findings from the scientific literature in considering hydrological connectivity between headwater streams and downstream waters, and relate the scientific information presented to policy issues surrounding the scope of waters protected under the CWA. Headwater streams comprise approximately 53% (2,900,000 km) of the total stream length in the U.S., excluding Alaska, and intermittent and ephemeral streams comprise approximately 59% (3,200,000 km) of the total stream length and approximately 50% (1,460,000 km) of the headwater stream length in the U.S., excluding Alaska. Hillslopes, headwater streams, and downstream waters are best described as individual elements of integrated hydrological systems. Hydrological connectivity allows for the exchange of mass, momentum, energy, and organisms longitudinally, laterally, vertically, and temporally between headwater streams and downstream waters. Via hydrological connectivity, headwater, intermittent and ephemeral streams cumulatively contribute to the functional integrity of downstream waters; hydrologically and ecologically, they are a part of the tributary system. As this debate continues, scientific input from multiple fields will be important for policymaking at the federal, state, and local levels and to inform water resource management regardless of the level at which those decisions are being made. Strengthening the interface between science, policy, and public participation is critical if we are going to achieve effective water resource management.     

The grassroot development planning process: the role of physical planning in the rural environment

The concern of this paper is with the spatial consequences of development in a given rural setting and the way in which physical planning fits into the revival of a dying rural area, particularly in Third World Countries. It is based on experience derived from Dekinal in Benue State, Nigeria and endeavours to define a rural area by briefly discussing its characteristics and highlighting its problems. It proposes a comprehensive development planning process to induce development based on available resources.     

Precarious work or sustainable livelihoods? Aligning Prestea's Programme with the development dialogue on artisanal and small‐scale mining

Alternative livelihoods programmes (ALPs) are extensively executed in mining communities, often as models of development dialogue on artisanal and small‐scale mining (ASM). This paper assesses whether Prestea's ALP aligns with the development dialogue on artisanal mining. The conceptual design of ALP in Ghana's Prestea is based on the notions of substitution, homogenous community, and impact scalability. This paper argues that the Prestea ALP is not aligned with the development dialogue on artisanal mining, and therefore it is difficult to understand the role and function of environmentally‐damaging behaviours within livelihood strategies. The paper contends that it would be appropriate to concentrate on improving the existing artisanal miners’ operation of those most susceptible to resource access restrictions. Further, it may be more prudent to utilize livelihood‐centered interventions that create strong connections with sustainable development as a way of creating regular community engagements. Additionally, this paper argues that the term for the intervention programme on artisanal mining should be replaced with the broader term ‘livelihood‐centered intervention’. The replacement of the term ‘ALP’ avoids the tacit belief that ALP can adequately replace artisanal mining operations. Livelihood‐centered intervention should not necessarily utilize alternative livelihoods as direct behavioural change instruments.