Introduction

        No plan or strategy has value unless it can be implemented. As circumstances change over time, plans become dated and their usefulness diminishes. This is not to devalue the purpose of planning, but rather to recognize the limitations of traditional planning processes. In response to the shortcomings of traditional approaches to planning, the concept of ‘strategic planning’ emerged over the last two decades. Strategic planning refers to a continuous process of systematically evaluating the nature of a problem, defining long-term objectives, identifying quantifiable goals, developing strategies to reach the identified objectives and goals, and allocating resources to carry out the strategies. Because strategic planning is part of an on-going process, it tends to focus on specific, measurable targets and short-range timetables. This is not to imply that strategic planning cannot embody a long-range focus; short-range actions must be selected to form part of an overall strategy to achieve the desired long-term goals.

        The strategy statement within this document contains two critical elements of strategic planning: an assessment of current conditions, and a vision of a desired future. The link between present conditions and the future vision are the actions required to bring about the desired changes. A commitment to monitor progress and periodically reassess objectives is necessary to transform plan implementation into a strategic planning process.

Approaches to Implementation

        The first and most obvious means of implementing the plan is through the publication and wide dissemination of the strategy statement. Copies of the strategy statement are being provided to all individuals that participated in the Stakeholder Taskforce. Copies are also being provided to those entities and individuals that have potentially significant roles in implementing the strategy, regardless whether they actively participated in the formulation of the strategy statement. Executive summaries of the strategy statement and implementation plan are being published for dissemination to key policy-makers as well as for distribution to the general public.

        Successful implementation requires a sustained effort. To achieve this, the community participation process should be continued. This will ensure that the elements of the strategy are sufficiently prominent on the agendas of the public agencies to merit attention, and it will maintain a mechanism for updating the strategy as new information becomes available. Continuing the process requires the use of various means of sharing information. As during the initial strategy formulation, information can be shared by means of direct mailings, an interactive web page, and occasional press releases. The Stakeholder Taskforce may be reconvened periodically to assess the progress of strategy implementation.

        Because the strategy statement was neither prepared nor targeted at a single entity, implementation requires that linkages be established between elements of the strategy and actions of the many entities responsible for implementation. Some actions require a financial commitment, others require internal policy changes, but all require a demonstration of political will. Many actions require the appropriation of funds for research, engineering, or capital improvements. Often, funds are sought from federal or state agencies. Funding agencies should be encouraged to require conformance between activities and the elements of the strategy. Applications for funding should cite provisions of the strategy statement to demonstrate such conformance. Some aspects of implementation focus on general policies and regulations, such as community water conservation programs. Program planners for water conservation programs should incorporate and build on the concepts expressed in the strategy statement.

        Coordination of effort is necessary to efficiently pursue strategy implementation. Coordination may involve horizontal communication, such as in the development of a regional geographic information system (GIS). As a part of the development of the strategy, linkages have been established between GIS developers working in the region, and a GIS web page was developed to facilitate information sharing. This effort should continue so as to avoid duplication of effort. Other coordination requires vertical communication. Transferring surface water from agricultural to municipal and industrial use requires an open dialogue between farmers, irrigation districts, utilities, the Rio Grande Compact Commission and the Bureau of Reclamation. Discussions begun as part of the development of this strategy should be continued to ensure a workable, equitable transfer.

Impediments to Implementation

        Plans are usually directed at a single entity, such as a business or governmental agency. By contrast, the strategy statement contained in this document is directed at many entities, since no single entity controls all aspects of regional water policy and management. The Paso del Norte region is fractured into a number of different political jurisdictions. Yet, the future of the region depends on the manner in which the multiple jurisdictions manage the region’s limited water resources. Thus, the separate actions of the numerous entities will combine to influence the collective future of the region. The dichotomy between the independence of political jurisdictions and the shared dependency on a common resource creates a significant challenge in implementing the strategy. Some actions must take place locally, others at the state level, others require cooperation between states, others require federal action, and yet others require binational agreements. The challenge is further amplified by the need to coordinate actions between the public and private sectors.

        During the process of creating the strategy, the Stakeholder Taskforce grappled with the problem of coordinating actions. Several participants voiced a general desire for an entity that could be empowered to control the overall allocation of water resources and enforce water quality standards. Yet, when faced with the prospect of advocating the creation of new entity, few of the Stakeholders were supportive of the concept. Rather, the preponderance of opinion was that the roles of existing entities and the linkages between existing entities could evolve to take on this function. If existing agencies are to evolve to respond to a greater mandate, cooperation will be necessary among other agencies to adapt to this altered role.

        The strategy statement was developed through an inclusive, participatory process. The Center for Environmental Resource Management (CERM) staffed the undertaking and provided neutral venues for meetings. The openness of the process and the lack of a vested interest by the CERM staff facilitated a free exchange of ideas. Ironically, the strength of the process used to create the strategy becomes a weakness in its implementation. Absent a single entity with the means and authority to oversee strategy implementation, the process must instead rely on the continued cooperation among the many different entities that have the power to implement components of the strategy. Maintaining the Stakeholder Taskforce may provide a means for promoting cooperative action and ensuring that the strategy objectives are not disregarded.

Pursuing Priority Recommendations

        During the initial process of developing the Strategy statement, a number of issues were raised and suggestions made. Discussions in subsequent meetings focused on developing recommendations and identifying those proposed actions that had the greatest importance. (see the section Public Participation Process for a full description of the process used to prioritize recommendations.)

        The following recommendations were given the highest priority by the Stakeholder Taskforce. The recommendations are listed in priority sequence as assigned by the Stakeholder Taskforce. For reference purposes, Strategy Statement Action numbers are shown in parentheses.

Priority 1: Inventory Regional Aquifers (Action 1.1-A-1)

Completely inventory, map, quantify and model the extent and quality of aquifers within the region on both sides of the international border. Determine the volume, quality and potential variability and stratification of the brackish and fresh water fractions of the aquifers; quantify the potential for ground water recharge and determine the surface / ground water interaction.

Funding:  The primary federal funding should be through INEGI and USGS respectively, with some supplemental funding for specialized research through EPA. Primary state funding should be from the New Mexico State Engineer’s Office and the Texas Water Development Board. Local funding and/or in-kind support should be from El Paso Water Utilities, the Junta Municipal de Agua y Saneamiento and, to a lesser extent, from the Las Cruces Utility Division.

Inter-regional Coordination:  Information should be shared among all researchers and entities involved in water resource planning. Agencies should compile ground water databases in a manner that facilitates their assembly in a regional GIS.

Monitoring:  An Action Committee from the Stakeholder Taskforce has been created to pursue this action item. This committee should report back to the full Stakeholder Taskforce. A number of university researchers have expressed interest in access to the information. The means by which researchers are able to obtain information will provide a measure of the accessibility of the data.

Timetable for Completion:  A report on the research on the Hueco Bolson has been completed and is under review by the Mexican authorities. This report should be released Spring of 1998. Concurrently with the release of this report, discussions should be undertaken between the U. S. and Mexican agencies regarding a similar study for the Mesilla Bolson. If arrangements can be made, such a study should be begun before the year is concluded, and preliminary results could be released within the next two years.

Action Committee:  Entities that have volunteered to participate are the International Boundary and Water Commission / Comisión Internacional de Limites y Aguas; U. S. Geological Survey; Congressman Reyes’ Office; Rio Grande Compact Commission; New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute; and El Paso Water Utilities.

Priority 2: Use Treated Effluent (Action 1.4-A-1)

Promote the use of treated effluent through appropriate policies and pricing such as location of water-using industries, golf courses, urban wetlands, and green spaces near wastewater treatment plants to facilitate the extension of treated effluent water lines and price incentives for use of treated effluent.

Funding:  This initiative will require local utility revenues with supplemental financial assistance from federal and state agencies when available.

Inter-regional Coordination:  As wastewater reuse projects are implemented, utilities should share information with each other to learn from each others’ experiences. All communities in the region should adopt similar policies such that economic development incentives to water-using businesses are restricted to the businesses agreeing to use treated wastewater.

Monitoring:  Utilities should maintain records of the volume of treated effluent used and set goals for maximizing the use of treated wastewater.

Timetable for Completion:  El Paso Water Utilities is currently constructing a gray water line from one of its wastewater treatment plants. During the next five years, El Paso Water Utilities should undertake a similar ventures for its other three wastewater treatment plants. The Junta Municipal de Agua y Saneamiento is considering proposals for use of the effluent from its proposed wastewater treatment plant; arrangements should be finalized so that gray water reuse can be implemented concurrently with its wastewater treatment plant coming on-line. The city of Las Cruces should undertake its own wastewater reuse project during next five years.

Action Committee:  Entities that have volunteered to participate to further this objective are the El Paso County Water Improvement District Number One; El Paso Water Utilities; the Elephant Butte Irrigation District; the New Mexico Environment Department; Sr. Fredric Estrada representing ? ; and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission.

Priority 3: Resolve Ownership Disputes (Action 1.2-A-3)

Resolve disputes over ownership of regional waters so that transfer of water between uses can occur in an orderly manner.

Funding:  Additional funding is not required to resolve the legal dispute. An amicable, negotiated settlement will save on legal costs and hasten a more rational water distribution policy in the region.

Inter-regional Coordination:  All regional entities should cooperate to expedite resolution to the current conflict, and an ADR process should be agreed upon to handle future conflicts.

Monitoring:  While the current ADR process is proceeding, a Stakeholder Taskforce committee should group to discuss appropriate ADR approaches to future conflicts, and this committee should report back to the full Stakeholder Taskforce when it next assembles.

Timetable for Completion:  The parties involved in the current dispute should resolve to seek a solution within the next year.

Action Committee:  No committee has yet been created for this action item.

Priority 4: Mandate Water Conservation (Action 4.3-A-2)

Make water conservation measures mandatory for all entities, public and private, and residential users. Regulations should be strictly enforced and violators subject to civil fines.

Funding:  Some financial support and technical assistance may be available through state agencies, but this action primarily is directed at appropriate utility operating policies.

Inter-regional Coordination:  Utilities in the region should communicate with each other to share their experiences. To the extent practical and beneficial, utilities in the region should opt for a common approach to promoting conservation and enforcing water use restrictions.

Monitoring:  A committee from the Stakeholder Taskforce has been formed to help coordinate the water conservation policies of the water utilities in the region. This committee should report back to the Stakeholder Taskforce regarding any changes enacted or problems encountered. Each utility should compile information to measure the effectiveness of alternative conservation strategies.

Timetable for Completion:  Procedures to promote water conservation should be adopted, periodically reevaluated and refined as appropriate on an on-going basis. Consequently, there is no completion date for this action item.

Action Committee:  No committee has yet been created for this action item.

Priority 5: Drought Management (Action 1.2-A-1)

Create a region-wide drought management plan that incorporates the needs of municipal, industrial, agricultural, and environmental uses.

Funding:  The bulk of the funding for this initiative should come from the allocation of funds under existing fiscal budgets, with supplemental outside financial assistance if available.

Inter-regional Coordination:  Creating an overall, region-wide drought management plan will require the creation of a technical working group composed, at minimum, of representatives from the three major utilities and the irrigation districts.

Monitoring:  Once the technical working group has a draft strategy for review, a larger, non-technical panel should be created to provide for input from a broad cross-section of stakeholders. The drought management plan should be presented and discussed at well-publicized public meetings.

Timetable for Completion:  A regional drought management plan can be developed over the next two years.

Action Committee:  No committee has yet been created for this action item.

Priority 6: Public Education (Action 4.3-A-1)

Educate the public about the importance of water conservation through various means including native plant sales, media campaigns, conservation contests, school curriculum development, and “water fairs”.

Funding:  Sustaining an educational effort will require a commitment of local resources, but supplemental funding should be sought from programs such as the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission’s environmental education program. Additional, in-kind support may be available through public service announcements on local news media.

Inter-regional Coordination:  A region-wide coordinating committee should be created with representatives from school districts and utilities. Participants should seek common approach to public education to minimize production costs and maximize public impact by having a uniform message across the region. This will demonstrate to the public our common regional approach to water problems

Monitoring:  Concurrently with the implementation of every new educational initiative should be a means of evaluating how many households receive the educational message. This information should be used to evaluate cost-effectiveness and refine future educational campaigns.

Timetable for Completion:  Public education should be an on-going function. A common regional education campaign could be implemented within the year. Annually, entities from throughout the region should participate in the Dia del Rio campaign and strive to make this a significant public event in the region, thereby bolstering cooperative attitudes among communities.

Action Committee:  No committee has yet been created for this action item.

Priority 7: Borrow Irrigation Water (Action 1.3-A-1)

Investigate the feasibility of “borrowing” irrigation water for drinking water use, then “paying back” the water in wastewater effluent for agricultural use, including necessary salinity considerations and possibly crop restriction.

Funding:  Technical studies are likely to be required to fully explore this concept. Outside financial support from federal and state agencies should be sought for such studies. Ultimately, a financial system may be necessary to compensate agricultural interests if the implementation of this concept is demonstrated to so impair water quality as to restrict crop types or reduce agricultural yields. Further, discussions must anticipate the financing for the cost for additional water quality monitoring.

Inter-regional Coordination:  While laws and institutions differ between Texas and New Mexico and between the United States and Mexico, many aspects of this issue will likely be the same across jurisdictions. A working group from the different jurisdictions should be formed to share their experiences with each other.

Monitoring:  A Stakeholder Taskforce committee has been formed to further explore this idea; this committee should report back to entire Taskforce when it is next convened.

Timetable for Completion:  The timetable for implementation will vary among jurisdictions, but arrangements should be made in advance of bringing new surface water treatment plants on-line to facilitate concurrent implementation.

Action Committee:  No committee has yet been created for this action item.

Priority 8: International Planning (Action 1.5-A-1)

Provide for enhanced international water planning and management either through an existing entity or the creation of a new entity to exchange data and address water quality concerns.

Funding:  Increased federal appropriations from the two governments will be required for an expanded role for the IBWC / CILA or for a developing and maintaining a new institution.

Inter-regional Coordination:  Coordinating planning activities requires that the IBWC / CILA processes be made more open and transparent and include a mechanism for more stakeholder access. To the maximum extent possible, planning activities should be conducted openly and should be inclusive of the wide range of stakeholders in the region. This might be accomplished via links with existing organizations such as the New Mexico / Texas Water Commission for public outreach and inter-agency coordination.

Monitoring:  A committee from the Stakeholder Taskforce was created to explore the potential for expanding the IBWC / CILA role. This committee should report back to entire Stakeholder Taskforce when it is next convened.

Timetable for Completion:  Institutions tend to change slowly. The full evolution of an expanded role for the IBWC/CILA may require up to four years to realize.

Action Committee:  Entities that have volunteered to participate are El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1; and the International Boundary and Water Commission / Comisión Internacional de Limites y Aguas;

Priority 9: Biological Inventory (Action 2.2-A-1)

Prepare a comprehensive biological inventory and assessment of the river ecosystem through the: identification of the existing biological habitats; inventory of the biological community; historical characterization of the fish and wildlife communities; determination of the historical and current relationship of the biological communities to the river; and, identification of sensitive biological areas along the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo. Assessment would serve as a baseline to determine the minimal flows and range of flow conditions needed to create and maintain a functional river ecosystem, evaluate future development proposals and develop a plan for a healthy ecosystem.

Funding:  Funds for a biological inventory should be sought from both federal and state sources. Principal funding is likely to be obtained through INE and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with possible supplemental funding through EPA.

Inter-regional Coordination:  A single effort to inventory biological resources is neither probable in terms of funding, nor practical in terms of the range of subject matter content. Coordination will be necessary among different research efforts to assure that a thorough inventory emerges from studies of independent researchers. Regional universities should cooperate and form partnerships rather than compete and thereby potentially duplicate their efforts. Targeted, non-biological studies such as modeling historic stream flow, should be identified and suggested to other, non-biological researchers.

Monitoring:  A committee from the Stakeholder Taskforce was formed to pursue this action item. This committee includes representatives universities, government agencies and non-governmental organizations. This committee should consider potential sources of funding and means of coordinating research efforts, and report back to entire Stakeholder Taskforce when it is next convened.

Timetable for Completion:  A full inventory may require up to three years to assemble; developing a plan for river ecosystem enhancement could require an additional two years.

Action Committee:  Entities that have volunteered to participate are the Instituto Nacional de Ecologica; the Southwest Environmental Center; the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and the U. S. Geological Survey.

Priority 10: Sale of Agricultural Water (Action 3.2-A-1)

Promote systems that enable farmers to sell off the unused portion of their water allotment, without losing the right to that allotment, thereby enabling reallocation of water to municipal use while promoting agriculture based on types of crops and improved irrigation techniques that make efficient use of the remaining water.

Funding:  Developing the language for appropriate enabling legislation will require specialized legal work. This might be available through the legal staffs of irrigation districts and utilities; otherwise, irrigation districts and utilities could pool resources to seek necessary legal assistance

Inter-regional Coordination:  A committee from the Stakeholder Taskforce committee might liaison with CLA groups for the coordination purposes. The type of legislation required will differ between New Mexico and Texas, and between the United States and Mexico. Working groups should coordinate to the extent necessary to assure that the practical impact of any change will be similar among the different jurisdictions.

Monitoring:  The Stakeholder Taskforce committee to report to overall group. A concerted effort will be required as initial attempts at legislative changes may not be successful.

Timetable for Completion:  An appropriate bill could be introduced in the 1999 Texas legislative session. New Mexico’s laws were recently changed to permit some transfer of water from agriculture to non-agricultural use; however, if additional statutory changes are found to be necessary, they should be pursued during 1999 New Mexico legislative session. In Mexico, statutory changes may be required at the federal level; 1999 should be targeted as the date for identifying necessary changes and formally pursing those changes that are required.

Action Committee:  Entities that have volunteered to participate are the City of Las Cruces; El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1; El Paso Water Utilities; the Elephant Butte Irrigation District; the Rio Grande Compact Commission; and the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Priority 11: Extend Water to Unserved Areas (Action 4.1-A-1)

Assure that water, sufficient in quantity and quality for basic human needs, is supplied to unserved areas through the extension of municipal water lines, regulation of water-haulers, or other means.

Funding:  The cost of expanding delivery capacity and extending utility services is considerable. Continued financial support is needed from federal agencies such as the EPA, state agencies such as the Texas Water Development Board, private foundations such as the Ford Foundation, and from local utilities.

Inter-regional Coordination:  In order to coordinate actions and anticipate cross-jurisdiction issues, an on-going dialogue is needed between the major utilities and planners in El Paso and Doña Ana counties regarding efforts to extend services to existing substandard developments and of curtailing further such development. This dialogue should include the Junta Municipal de Agua y Saneamiento and planners from Cd. Juárez to better understand Mexican efforts at providing water and wastewater services to outlying neighborhoods, particularly since the policies and practices in Mexico have implications on the expectations of immigrants settling in border cities in the United States.

Monitoring:  A significant amount of public attention has been devoted to this issue. The continued involvement by activist non-governmental organizations should ensure that this issue remains prominent on the agenda of local utilities. Planning agencies should monitor land sales, development and housing construction in outlying areas to ensure that further substandard development does not follow in the wake of utility extensions.

Timetable for Completion:  Currently planned extensions of water and wastewater services to outlying unserved developments are expected to be completed during the next fifteen years. Other, more sparsely settled developments will remain beyond the limits of the utility services. For those developments beyond the limits of planned service line extensions, a goal should be set to develop and implement acceptable alternatives for providing for water and wastewater needs during the next ten years.

Action Committee:  Entities that have volunteered to participate are the El Paso Water Utilities; the Elephant Butte Irrigation District; the Instituto Municipal de Investigación y Planeación; the Rio Grande Compact Commission; the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Priority 12: Rate Structures (Action 5.4-A-1)

Determine the “real cost” of water factoring in exploration, treatment, and delivery, future depletion allowances and quality of life and environmental issues. Use that value to define rate structures that reflect long term sustainable use.

Funding:  Federal funding should be sought from agencies such as the Economic Development Administration, the EPA and the Comisión Nacional del Agua (CNA). Technical information and in-kind support will be required from utilities and irrigation districts.

Inter-regional Coordination:  Studies of the monetary value of water should not be constrained by existing patterns of use nor confined based on jurisdictional limits. A regional approach should be used with ample input from utilities, irrigation districts and other stakeholders. When applying the information developed by studies of water value, utilities in the region should opt for a similar approach in modifying their rate structures.

Monitoring:  When it next convenes, the Stakeholder Taskforce should reevaluate this action item to determine if sufficient progress is being made in initiating appropriate research. Once one or more research studies are funded, the researchers should be required to form and report to a stakeholder group to assure the reliability of data and usefulness of the analysis. Timetable for Completion: Appropriate studies could be commissioned during the forthcoming year and completed the following year. Additional time will be required to translate the results of such studies into water price adjustments.

Action Committee:  Entities that have volunteered to participate are El Paso Water Utilities; the Junta Municpal de Agua y Saneamiento; New Mexico State University; the New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute; the Texas A&M Research Center; the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation; and the University of Texas at El Paso.

Priority 13: Regional Planning and Management (Action 5.5-A-1)

Develop a unified region-wide water management and planning mechanism to coordinate water policy in the region.

Funding:  Regional planning requires pooling revenue from several sources. A sustained planning function will require a commitment of revenue from utilities, the New Mexico State Engineer’s office and the Texas Water Development Board. Individual planning studies may entail federal support from EPA and CNA or from BECC / COCEF.

Inter-regional Coordination:  The essence of this action item is that a regional approach be taken to planning and managing water resources. Regional planning can only succeed with the full cooperation of all jurisdictions in the region.

Monitoring:  An open planning process requires the active participation of stakeholders. The Stakeholder Taskforce itself might become a device for this purpose, and thereby assume a degree of permanence.

Timetable for Completion:  A regional planning mechanism, taking on both a long-range and strategic planning functions, should evolve to meet the region’s needs. The New Mexico / Texas Water Commission represents a beginning, but it is not necessarily the only option. If supported by the major actors in the region, it may take up to five years for a true regional planning mechanism to develop.

Action Committee:  Entities that have volunteered to participate are El Paso Water Utilities; the International Boundary and Water Commission / Comisión Internacional de Limites y Aguas; the New Mexico State Engineer’s Office; and the Texas Water Development Board.

Priority 14: Development Impact Analysis (Action 1.1-A-2)

Assess the impact of regional development/growth patterns on water supply and delivery.

Funding:  The cost of necessary planning studies will require a commitment of local funds, possibly supplemented by grants from federal sources

Inter-regional Coordination:  The planning effort should not be pursued separately by different jurisdictions, but instead should be a collective effort by planning entities and utilities throughout the region. This will enable a consistent approach regarding time frames and demographic assumptions, and it will facilitate analyses of the interrelationship of growth dynamics among the various jurisdictions in the region. Ultimately, however, separate development control strategies must be formulated based on the different sets of laws governing land use control.

Monitoring:  All planning efforts must be revisited and periodically updated as new information becomes available and circumstances change. Each updating process provides an opportunity to assess the accuracy of past projections and the usefulness of the planning effort.

Timetable for Completion:  The initial coordinated planning analysis can be completed within two years.

Action Committee:  No committee has yet been created for this action item.

Priority 15: Coordinate Water Service Providers (Action 1.2-A-2)

Establish a formal permanent dialogue between providers of municipal and industrial water (MUDs, water utilities) within the region.

Funding:  Funding for this activity is only that necessary to enable the Advisory Council to be properly staffed. This could be accomplished through a dues structure from water supply entity members.

Inter-regional Coordination:  The essence of this action is to promote inter-regional cooperation. As such, it must be a binational, bi-state effort to be meaningful.

Monitoring:  The effectiveness of this approach will be evident if joint ventures or other cooperative actions between regional entities develop as a result of the Advisory Council.. Over time, participating entities either will realize a mutual benefit from such cooperation, or the members will abandon the effort and the Council will cease to exist.

Timetable for Completion:  The New Mexico / Texas Water Commission should endeavor to create the Water Supply Advisory Council within the year.

Action Committee:  No committee has yet been created for this action item.

Priority 16: Promote Xeriscaping (Action 4.2-A-1)

Encourage the use of native and desert adapted drought-tolerant plant species, consistent with accepted xeriscaping principles for use in residential, public and commercial landscaping through tax and monetary incentives.

Funding:  A commitment of program staff and funding will be necessary from state extension services. Grants from federal sources could be sought to promote the hybridization of drought-tolerant plant species to enable their use as ornamentals in landscaping. A commitment of funds from local sources is necessary to provide for the design, development and publicizing of model projects.

Inter-regional Coordination:  While many actions are required at a ‘grass-roots’ level, the efficiency and impact of programs to promote xeriscaping can be maximized if information is shared between entities. Beyond governmental coordination, xeriscaping could be promoted by a regional business organization to encourage cooperation among landscape architects, nurseries and landscape contractors.

Monitoring:  Xeriscaping prototypes should be used to document initial costs, maintenance costs, and water savings over time. This information can be compared against conventional irrigated landscaping to demonstrate water and monetary savings. Such information can be used to refine design approaches and to educate the public.

Timetable for Completion:  Promoting xeriscaping requires an on-going effort. The initial marketing and education plan could be accomplished within two years.

Action Committee:  No committee has yet been created for this action item.