Summary and Discussion of Reed (2009)

Reference
Reed, P.M., and Kasprzyk, J.R., “Water Resources Management: The Myth, the Wicked, & The Future.” ASCE Journal of Water Resources Planning & Management, v135, n6, pp. 411-413, 2009.

Summary
Reed and Kasprzyk provide a modern update to Liebman’s 1976 critique of water resources planning and management. They seek to “elucidate what water management science should be in the future,” by revisiting important challenges discussed in the past. The editorial discussed three main supposed flaws, and places for improvement, in our thinking on water management:
1) Optimality is a myth
2) Water is a “wicked” problem
3) “The future requires transparency and constructive decision aiding”
The author’s criticize optimality analysis as overly simplistic, with too many invalid assumptions. For example, Reed and Kasprzyk content that the complexity of water management means scientists can never have perfect knowledge of water systems. Therefore, they believe, no model can be completely valid. This reflects the “wicked” nature of water resources. Wicked, in this context, identifies five traits described by Rittel and Webber in 1973, including 1) no consensus on what constitutes optional conditions, 2) no objective judgments, 3)problems that are not “decomposable” into separate distinct issues, 4) often irreversible decisions, and 5) a wide range of highly uncertain consequences.
The authors suggest that to work with wicked problems, water managers will need to overcome their traditional thinking about water. This means recognizing the limitations of traditional methods for classifying, decomposing, and solving water problems. It means bridging the artificial distinction between “engineering,” “science,” and “policy,” and uniting disciplines of water research, such as water management and water cycle science.
Ultimately, the authors recommend that water managers embrace a system called “constructive decision-aiding science.” They recommend collaboration and negotiation to assess diverse perspectives and identify decision alternatives. They view this as a “mechanism for discovering system dependencies and/or trade offs.” They place this kind of analysis above optimization, concluding that it can no longer be assume that there is one single correct solution.

Discussion
This 2009 editorial does a good job of updating Liebman’s paper, which is now over thirty years old. It is interesting to see how issues which were raised decades ago are still pertinent today.
I agree that it is always important to recognize that models are projections only. They are based on facts, but often require assumptions. The result is that any time assumptions are factored in to models, model certainty declines. Thus, it is important to recognize what models can and cannot do, and not misapply the results.
I found a big short-falling of the article to be the lack of compelling examples of what exactly is deleterious about “decomposing” water management problems into component parts. If models are flawed and myopic, what is an example of their failure? The authors discussed the Chesapeake Watershed models as exemplifying the challenge of “how to formulate, parameterize, and use our models in a manner that does not invalidate our ability to falsify important hypotheses.” However, they also admit that the model has had a very positive impact on policy. In addition, the models in use are subject to constant improvement, including increased monitoring stations, increased parameter acceptance, and longer time projections (http://www.chesapeakebay.net/modeling.aspx). This is one of the great aspects of models, that they can be constantly enhanced and made more accurate as technology and understanding increases.