This discussion is based on an American Planning Association project, ”Jintang County, China, Green Infrastructure Plan, Section 3.0 Planning and Managing Water and River Basins in the 21st Century, May 21, 2012 draft prepared by Timothy D. Van Epp, AICP and Marissa S. Van Epp, Eurasia Environmental Associates LLC.

To provide a firm basis for understanding green infrastructure needs and opportunities in Jintang County, this chapter introduces and illustrates key concepts relating to water, river basin, and green infrastructure planning and management and how they have evolved and varied over time and across geographic scales. In doing so, this paper relies heavily on and paraphrases a select few authoritative sources recommended as excellent further reading on these subjects.

What do we mean by “water management” and “river basin”? 

 Water management is the control by humans of the quantity, quality, and accessibility of water for multiple human purposes, including for drinking, agriculture, fisheries, flood control, power and recreation, as well as for ecosystem services.

Rainfall is the natural element that is being drained by a river basin, and rainfall in turn is of course influenced by climate. As will be shown later, man’s management of water is inescapably intertwined with man’s management of river basins. “A river basin is the portion of land drained by a river and its tributaries. It encompasses all of the land surface dissected and drained by many streams and creeks that flow downhill into one another, and eventually into one river. The final destination is an estuary or an ocean. As a bathtub catches all the water that falls within its sides, a river basin sends all the water falling on the surrounding land into a central river and out to the sea.” (Wikipedia)

River basins can be divided up into their constituent tributary “…sub-basins”, or into the upper, middle, and lower sections of the overall basin. A river basin “boundary is normally distinct, easily mapped, and stable, and seldom is there a gap between adjacent basins.”

How has water management evolved over time?  

Globally, there is a long history of human management and monitoring of rivers and their waters, beginning 5,000 years ago. Table 3.1 below provides a more recent history of water and river basin management:

The State of California illustrates the evolution of river basin management in the US. Management has evolved from single- and dual-purpose water management strategies in the period from the mid-1800s through the early 1900s, to the current era of water and river basin management addressing conflicting multiple purposes, including protecting environmental quality.

Through much of its early history, water and river basin management equated with water engineering, in other words management that relies almost exclusively on structural manipulation of water to suit human needs and purposes with little or no attention paid to the use of non-structural solutions such as land use planning and management to sustain multiple water and river basin functions and benefits.

Why is the river basin the optimal unit for water planning and management? 

As a response to the problems and conflicts noted above that were created by single- or dual-purpose water management, or multi-purpose water management via a single project, the practice has evolved over the past 100-150 years such that the river basin is now recognized as the optimal scale for water planning and management.

Attributes of river basins that make them useful units for planning, management, and development include:

• Biogeophysical units with a high degree of functional integrity, and are relatively homogenous systems, even when upper, middle, and lower sections have different conditions and human activities

• Each basin is unique, but there is enough commonality of hydrological, geomorphological, and ecological characteristics for them to serve as widely applicable, non-ephemeral, operational landscape units for planning and management, and for maintaining environmental quality and pursuit of sustainable development

Often the most significant difficulty experienced in water basin planning is that the basins cross political geopolitical boundaries, and international boundaries, and are thus subjected to different political and legal systems and reflect different water use objectives.

What is river basin planning, development and management (RBDPM)?  

Given the characteristics of a river basin, water resources development in river basins can be used “…as an ‘integrating theme’ or ‘development tool’ for improving social, economic and environmental conditions throughout the basin.” This type of planning has been called “River Basin Development Planning and Management”, or RBDPM, and addresses all of the resources – water, land, and development – in a basin, not just the water in the river itself.

RBDPM can be further characterized by the “Three Threes”:

Three integrated concepts

• Multi-purpose development

• Integrative role for the drainage basin unit

• Acceptance of intervention to promote development (improvement of social welfare or regional conditions

Three main water resources activities

• Planning

• Development

• Management

Three main landscape focuses

• Watershed – manage land use and water movements from incipient precipitation to its disposition in stream or groundwater to control erosion and sedimentation and thus better manage agriculture and forestry, typically at the tributary or sub-basin level

• Groundwater – control or enhance groundwater quantity and quality, and protect recharge to groundwater systems and base flows to streams

• River basin – development that can involve stream flow modification by dams, barrages or channelization, intra-basin (often occurs via public water systems flowing to sewer systems with discharge distant from location of water withdrawal), inter-basin transfers of water, and consumptive uses of water

As the schematic below illustrates, RBDPM involves coordination of watershed, groundwater and river basin planning and management, and integration of these with land use, river regulation, welfare improvement, health care, and development in general.

Five types of RBDPM have evolved over time:

• Single-purpose – started with water supply, and wastewater management, then flood control, hydropower generation, and irrigation supply – did not address potential conflicting uses and missed opportunities for integration

• Dual-purpose – making easily reconciled trade-offs between say two uses of a dam – power supply and flood control

• Multi-purpose – way to address multiple water needs – dividing up the water among uses without considering optimum allocation of water resources toward conflict resolution

• Comprehensive – optimal development of water and land resources via “… a planned, complex, continuous and interdisciplinary process which is controlled on a systems analysis basis” (UN 1976)

• Integrated – more advanced than comprehensive in that it actively uses water as a ‘tool’ for social and economic development or ‘engine of development’, and it addresses relationships among basin activities, demands, needs, etc., with the intention of managing the river basin for human welfare.

Single-, dual- and multipurpose RBDPM were discussed earlier. Comprehensive and integrated RBDPM will be described and compared below.

What is comprehensive river basin management?  

Comprehensive RBDPM involves water master planning aimed at addressing multiple water uses through analysis of hydrologic, social, and economic issues and alternative structural options. Despite its ambitious objectives, the actual practice of comprehensive RBDPM encountered several problems:

1. Other water-related government agencies were not consulted, so multiple agencies would create separate and uncoordinated policies and plans for the same river basin.

2. The health and capacity of a river basin’s natural resource base to accommodate the implementation of one or more development proposals was not considered, so there was no balancing of economic, social, and environmental factors for sustainable basin management.

3. There was no technical and economic framework for analyzing both water supply and demand.

4. There was no “bottom-up planning” at the village, water user association, sub-basin, or watershed level.

5. River basin stakeholders and community were not consulted and did not participate in the basin planning process.

What is integrated river basin management and integrated water resource management? 

Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM), which is sometimes referred to as the closely related concept of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), attempts to address the efficiencies noted above by planning for multiple water uses and presenting a range of reasonable options while balancing economic, social and environmental concerns and including all relevant government agencies and levels and all relevant stakeholders and communities.

IRBM/IWRM integrates water planning and management with many other facets of development to find optimal solutions to multi-dimensional water problems encompassing:

• Environmental, social, and economic development (three pillars of sustainable development)

• Facility and infrastructure planning, construction, operation, and decommissioning

• Policies, programs and projects

• National, regional, and local levels

• Sectors and departments

Another perspective is that IIWRM assures that all projects involving the use of water CONSIDER the interactions of the full water environment, so that, for example, a water supply project considers how water runoff, flooding, and wastewater might relate to the proposed project. In this context, multi-dimensional water problems are really ALL water problems.

IRBM/IWRM includes four sequential sub-processes:

• Developing and agreeing to the planning process and procedures – done by the RBO or a steering committee of representatives of water-related government agencies.

• Developing a dialogue with the public, stakeholders and politicians – don’t just keep the community informed but actively solicit their input to decision-making so they “own” the planning process.

• Undertaking the planning process – either by the RBO or by professionals and technical experts in river basin planning.

• Building knowledge and capacity within the planning organization to ensure the effectiveness of the planning process.

The four planning steps above, however, do not by themselves define IWRM; IWRM is about both planning and MANAGEMENT of water resources.

World Bank’s IWRM Planning Methodology

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is a process that promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land, and related resources in order to maximize the economic and social benefits in an equitable and sustainable manner. The World Bank Group's Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) Planning Guide (2022) is a comprehensive guide to IWRM planning, including river basin planning. The guide covers all aspects of IWRM planning, from data collection and analysis to stakeholder engagement and implementation. Under the World Bank’s system, IWRM plans are developed through a series of steps that include:

The integrated river basin planning process can be broken down into nine (9) constituent tasks, as described below.

1. Understanding the condition of the basin. This can be done through:

• A study of the historical context of the basin, status, and trends

• Collection and analysis of water-related data

• Analysis of the data to create an environmental inven­tory of the basin

• Identification of the key natural resource problems from these data and this information

• Development of the knowledge on behavioral trends and the degree of stress that the key resource areas can with­stand as a result of any increased water development. 

2. Identifying the national, regional, and sub-national goals and objectives for water and related resources development.

3. Developing specific water and natural resource poli­cies, procedures, goals, and strategies consistent with the national and regional goals, to guide how and when the resources can be utilized within the agreed stress or impact limits.

4. Analyzing the various water sector requirements and the development of a broad basin-wide water and related resources framework that best meets the overall basin needs. The framework should be comprehensive, consid­ering conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater, transferable water rights, reuse, and conventional supply management options, as well as demand management instruments.

5. Undertaking bottom-up planning at the sub-basin or catchment level, often called land and water management planning (or sub-basin planning, micro-planning, village development planning, or water user association planning, depending on the level and community institution involved). This will involve significant community participation.

6. Obtaining broad input from relevant groups and people in the basin as to the appropriateness of both the higher-level framework plan and the lower-level land and water management plans.

7. Incorporating the best portfolio of proposals that bal­ance economic, environmental, and social issues at both higher and lower levels into the first basin development plan. Parts of the plan will likely change as more data become available and more planning occurs at the lower levels. It is common for the initial plan mainly to include major projects and broad management improvements from the top-down management, as the lower-level planning often takes longer to complete.

8. Developing investment plans on both a sub-basin and whole-basin basis to fund and implement the basin water plan.

9. Developing and implementing a monitoring plan to ensure that the contents and approaches expressed in the basin plan are being followed.

Using the World Bank’s planning methodology outlined above, the resulting IWRM plan should include the following components:

• A vision for the future of water resources management in the river basin.

• A situation analysis of the current state of water resources in the basin.

• A strategy for managing water resources in the basin.

• An action plan for implementing the strategy.

• A monitoring and evaluation plan for tracking progress and making adjustments to the plan as needed.

In general, the IWRM planning process should be iterative and adaptive, and it should be based on the principles of stakeholder participation, integrated water resources management, and sustainability. Also, importantly, the whole process should be aimed at improved management of the full suite of water resources.

Fully involving and integrating the planning of all water-related agencies and stakeholders for a given river basin can result in a rather complex and multi-element IRBM/IWRM plan, as illustrated by the World Bank’s hypothetical framework plan provided in Figure 3.4 below. While such a framework plan may initially appear dauntingly large to the RBO responsible for integrating the plan, it should be borne in mind that many of the separate plan elements will be, or would have already been, prepared by the single-purpose water-related agencies involved in the planning process.

River Basin Planning Under the EU Water Framework Directive

As water has a truly transboundary character, its sustainable use and protection have to be carried out on the basis of the hydrological boundaries, and if necessary via cross-institutional or even international cooperation.

Therefore, the Water Framework Directive prescribes that management activities should aim to achieve the goals of the directive within geographical areas or river basin districts (RBDs). These are based largely on surface water catchments, together with the boundaries of associated groundwater and coastal water bodies. 

For each river basin district, a river basin planning process must be set up. The first milestone of this planning process (analysis, monitoring, objective-setting, and consideration of measures to maintain or improve water status) is the initial river basin management plan. The river basin management plan will:

• Record the current status of water bodies within the river basin district

• Set out the measures planned to meet the objectives

• Act as the main reporting mechanism to the Commission and the public

The whole process of river basin management planning includes the preparation of programs of measures at the basin level for achieving the environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive cost-effectively. The planning, implementation, and evaluation of the program of measures is an iterative process that will probably include the river basin management plan of the first (2009), second (2015), or further cycles (2021, 2027).

Basic measures include control of pollution at source through the setting of emission limit values as well as through the setting of environmental quality standards. The use of economic instruments, such as water pricing, is part of the basic measures. Here, in particular, the 'polluter pays' principle should be taken into account. The directive aims to ensure that pricing policies improve the sustainable use of water resources. (Note: Ideally, this list could also include strategies such as discouragement of excess withdrawals, maintenance of ecological flow requirements, and consideration of equitable sharing of the benefits of the water environment.)

The planning process together with the implementation of the program of measures is often referred to as river basin management. The river basin plans should include the INVOLVEMENT and engagement of the public, not just sharing information. Then they serve as guides to decision-makers - officials, local leaders, the public, etc.

Model River Basin Planning Efforts in the United States

Two case studies of notable US river basin planning, namely the Chesapeake Bay Program and the Highlands New Jersey Regional Master Plan. These two basin plans were selected for the following reasons:

Chesapeake Bay Program

• A good example of using sub-basin or local watershed land and water management planning to reduce stormwater (non-point source) runoff and soil erosion from agricultural and urban lands and thus reduce sedimentation (suspended solids), nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and pesticides in streams and rivers (surface water) and ultimately protect estuarine water quality and thus fisheries and aquatic ecology in the Chesapeake Bay

• Evolved over a long period beginning in the 1970s and 1980s with several years of critically needed initial data collection and analysis, and then gradual buildup/evolution of agreements among the USEPA regional office, and the states and localities in the Chesapeake Bay Basin

• Good example of the need to coordinate and ways of coordinating complex institutional arrangements among national, state, and local initiatives; a long-established planning and action framework is thus still able to generate unique, progressive “bottom-up” initiatives by local governments within a overall action framework, e.g. the Lancaster City Green Infrastructure Plan

• Features substantive plan elements in six "Programs and Projects”, including most notably the Resource Lands Assessment (RLA) inventory of natural attributes of the Bay area and the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) project to set limits on the total pollution discharged to the Bay. Under this latter project, a notable local bottom-up green infrastructure plan has been developed for Lancaster City, Pennsylvania (see the section on Green Infrastructure and Box 3.4 below).

• For more information see: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/, http://www.chesbay.us/index.htm 

Highlands Regional Master Plan, New Jersey 

• Good example of using watershed land and water management planning to protect the quantity and quality of  a major regional groundwater resource that supplies drinking water to much of the State of New Jersey

• Like the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Highlands is able to use a long-established planning and action framework to generate unique, progressive “bottom-up” initiatives by local governments, e.g. the ongoing regenerative design (green infrastructure) planning process being undertaken by the non-profit Regional Plan Association with technical assistance from the Highland Council staff and funding from the private Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, under the Highlands Municipal Partnership Pilot Project (MP3) program and its initiative focusing on downtown center development.

• For more information see: http://www.highlands.state.nj.us/njhighlands/

Each case study presentation addresses the roughly following topics:

• Motivation and History/Evolution of Plan or Program

• Objectives and Scope

• Scale(s) of Application (river basin, watershed, metro region, local, etc.)

• Green Infrastructure Elements (whether biodiversity conservation or storm water management driven)

• Plan Development:  methodology, techniques, data sources, collection and analysis (e.g., remote sensing, GIS, etc.)

• Management Systems employed to "plan, do, check, act" i.e. to implement and sustain the plan over time

• Institutional Arrangements and Intergovernmental Coordination

• Stakeholder and Public Consultation

• Indicators and Targets 

• Policies and Procedures

• Measures and Actions

• Monitoring and Evaluation 

• Updating and Revision

Establishing a River Basin Organization (RBO)

For IRBM/IWRM planning to be effective, some form of organization needs to be established to oversee the planning and implementation process. Several types of river basin organizations (RBOs) have evolved or been developed deliberately over time to provide river basin planning and management services:

• Autonomous regional authorities – have the power to promote and enforce change

• Entities – e.g., development corporations, which have intermediate and varying power 

• Planning executives 

• Coordinating commissions or committees – advisory or monitoring roles only

RBOs were originally set up to plan and manage for a single water-related purpose, such as water supply or hydropower, or a single project with multiple water-related purposes. The RBO typically had a limited role and the planning they did rarely addressed the overall sustainable management of the river basin. Conflict and disagreement often resulted when different single-purpose RBOs pursued their individual water resources agendas, especially when considerable resources had already been expended in making and implementing their river basin plans. Mixed results in effectively implementing RBDPM can often be traced to insufficient RBO power to carry our RBDPM. 

The river basin planning goals of RBOs vary depending on the particular RBO, but can include:

• To coordinate the use of shared basins (multi-users/inter-state/inter-nation).

• To avoid environmental degradation.

• To promote sustainable development.

• To integrate land and water management.

• To promote integrated, optimal development of natural resources, agriculture, infrastructure, social services, etc.

• To provide comprehensive and decentralized management and planning.

• To decentralize planning and management and make it adaptive.

• To ensure developments within a basin do not interact in a negative way.

• To focus on natural resource benefits for regional development and serve as a regional planning and management strategy.

• To attract development into a basin/remote area, countering the “pull” of large cities or favored areas.

• To promote rural development.

• To provide an acceptable management and planning approach that might “side-step” existing stagnant or corrupt arrangements.

• To establish a politically acceptable way of gaining the cooperation of co-riparian states or nations that would probably refuse to surrender authority to other types of agencies.

• To integrate environmental dimensions with other aspects of planning and management.

Given the above objectives and purposes of a river basin organization, the following topics should be addressed in a RBO plan:

1. The membership structure

2. The functional scope

3. The international water law principles on which the RBO relies

4. The level of institutionalization and legalization of the RBO

5. The RBO’s organizational set-up

6. The Secretariat

7. The financing of the RBO

8. Decision-making mechanisms

9. Data and information-sharing mechanisms

10. Monitoring mechanisms

11. Dispute-resolution mechanisms

12. Mechanisms for Stakeholder Involvement

For each of these RBO design characteristics, information was gathered for each RBO in the world’s transboundary rivers. 

Authors: Susanne Schmeier, Andrea K. Gerlak, and Sabine Blumstein. International Journal of River Basin Management, Volume: 13, Issue 1, pages 51-72, 2015: 

https://transboundarywaters.science.oregonstate.edu/sites/transboundarywaters.science.oregonstate.edu/files/Database/Data/RBO/Schmeier_2013_InstDesignRBOs_TFDD_RBO_Database_Paper%20%281%29.pdf