Restoring and preserving America's critical freshwater ecosystems—rivers, lakes, wetlands and the organisms they support—presents a significant challenge that requires inclusive stakeholder engagement, clear regulatory and interagency navigation, and robust scientific monitoring.
Freshwater ecosystems provide critical infrastructure protection through flood mitigation, water supply resilience through water provision, and economic benefits through ecosystem services and fisheries. However, freshwater ecosystems in the U.S. have been subject to a wide range of human-induced disturbances, including altered and regulated flow patterns, introduction of invasive species, and impacts from climate change.
Traditional regulation may not always be conducive to a holistic restoration approach to ecosystem management since a one-size-fits-all approach is often unsuccessful. For example, the Endangered Species Act can sometimes steer restoration efforts to focus too narrowly on a single species, at the expense of ensuring an overall healthy and biodiverse ecosystem.
Restoration of freshwater ecosystems is a grand challenge for U.S. water policy because buy-in is needed from stakeholders with varying interests. A complex set of policy and regulatory frameworks among multiple agencies must be navigated. And freshwater ecosystems are affected by complex physical, chemical, and biological factors, which require significant monitoring and evaluation to ensure successful restoration projects.
Traditional regulation may not always be conducive to a holistic restoration approach to ecosystem management since a one-size-fits-all approach is often unsuccessful.
Addressing each of these barriers is crucial to successful restoration, and we provide some examples of large-scale restoration initiatives below:
Ensuring buy-in from a comprehensive spectrum of stakeholders: The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (PDF) (KBRA) was notable in its ability to gain support from stakeholders with a wide range of interests, but its implementation was unsuccessful. The Klamath Basin, spanning southern Oregon and northern California, has historically faced conflicts over water rights, fish populations, tribal interests, and hydroelectric power generation. Efforts to craft the KBRA brought together a diverse group of stakeholders, including tribal governments, irrigation districts, environmental organizations, energy utilities, and local and state government agencies. The KBRA aimed to balance these interests by outlining measures for dam removal and habitat restoration while maintaining an adequate water supply to irrigators. Central to the success of drafting the KBRA was the active participation of Indigenous tribes, who played a critical role in advocating for the ecological and cultural restoration of the basin. Despite success in drafting the agreement, it was eventually struck down in Congress. While dam removal is currently being undertaken in the Klamath Basin, these efforts lack the holistic, integrated, and carefully planned restoration approach outlined in the KBRA. Future initiatives should take care to anticipate and mitigate political conflict at multiple levels and ensure that a comprehensive list of stakeholders have their voices heard.
Navigating regulatory frameworks, fragmented governance, and funding uncertainty: The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is the largest freshwater ecosystem restoration project to have been undertaken in the United States. The initiative, led by federal agencies and Florida state government, faced delays from the start (PDF) as planners had to navigate regulatory requirements at both state and federal levels, disagreements between agencies, and initial funding constraints. Progress has somewhat accelerated in recent years, especially towards reconnecting Lake Okeechobee with the Everglades, a critical step in restoring the ecosystem. The ongoing disconnect between agencies, coupled with varying levels of funding across state and federal governments, continues to delay the project: originally slated to be complete in 2030, the project's completion is now projected for 2050 (PDF). To prevent similar delays in future restoration projects, planners should map out regulatory policies and governance structures from the start to proactively anticipate disagreements between agencies and disparities in regulations. Input from local and tribal communities should also be considered. Lastly, adaptive planning and management approaches should be used to accommodate funding uncertainties over time.
Monitoring and evaluation of complex scientific processes: The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), which began in 2010, has completed over 8,000 projects funded by 15 federal agencies and executed at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels. The initiative aims to restore freshwater ecosystems in order to improve inland fisheries, increase wetlands, and reduce pollution. The GLRI addresses challenging ecological problems including controlling invasive species in the Great Lakes' interconnected waterways, enhancing habitat for native species, and reducing nutrient loads from agricultural runoff. The notably decentralized initiative has been successful due to its ability to obtain support from many regional and federal stakeholders and navigate diverse governance structures. Due to the highly intertwined processes in the Great Lakes ecosystems, the initiative uses data-driven decisionmaking and measures progress through advanced monitoring technologies. These include remote sensing for vegetation management, environmental DNA analysis to track invasive species, and edge-of-field monitoring for non-point source pollution. Such enhanced measurements of progress allow for further adaptive restoration management. By investing in scientific research and technological innovation, the GLRI demonstrates the importance of robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks in ecosystem recovery. Future restoration projects should model these innovations to more effectively manage restoration projects while measuring and communicating progress.
The examples above should serve as lessons and strategies to manage the complex processes involved in restoration efforts for projects in the future.
