Abstract
Over the last several decades, water users in the western United States have increasingly turned to groundwater resources to support economic development, but few institutional arrangements were in place to govern groundwater use. Over time, numerous groundwater problems have emerged. Two closely related explanations for this are explored. Surface water sources were the first to be developed, and institutional arrangements to allocate surface water were the first to be devised. These arrangements are not particularly well suited for governing groundwater. Furthermore, the physical differences between rivers and aquifers lead to differences in the development of each type of water, and in production and organization costs. Groundwater development involves low upfront production costs, which individual water users can cover. Once groundwater users have individually invested in productive activities problems emerge, such as declining water tables. Thus, unlike surface water users, groundwater users are faced with devising institutional arrangements to coordinate their water uses after they have invested in and developed productive economic activities. Most western states regulate pumping, although groundwater users, in general, resist pumping limits. The discussion concludes with proposals for modifying the prior appropriation doctrine to better accommodate the active management of groundwater basins for long-term sustainability.
Résumé
Sur les dernières decades, les utilisateurs d'eau dans l'Ouest des Etats-Unis se sont tournés en nombre croissant vers les ressources en eau souterraine, pour supporter le développement économique, mais plusieurs arrangements institutionnels ont été mis en place pour gouverner l'usage de l'eau souterraine. Au fil du temps, plusieurs problèmes relatifs aux eaux souterraines sont apparus. Deux proches explications proches pour ceux-ci ont été explorées. Les ressources d'eau de surface ont été les premières à être développées, et les arrangements institutionnels pour l'allocation des eaux de surface ont été les premiers à être divisés. Ces arrangements ne conviennent pas particulièrement bien aux autorités des eaux souterraines. De plus, les différences physiques entre les rivières et les aquifères ont mené à des différences dans le développement de chaque type d'eau, et dans la production et l'organisation des coûts. Le développement de l'eau souterraine nécessite des lois sur les cots de production que chaque utilisateur de l'eau peut couvrir. Dés lors que les utilisateurs de l'eau souterraine ont individuellement investi dans des activités productrice, des problèmes émergent, tels que la baisse des niveaux d'eau. Ainsi, comme pour les utilisateurs d'eau de surface, les utilisateurs d'eau souterraine sont confrontés à la conception des arrangements constitutionnels pour coordonner l'utilisation qu'ils font de l'eau, après avoir inventés et développés leurs activité économique productive. La plus part des états de l'Ouest régulent le pompage, bien qu'en général l'utilisation des eaux souterraines, en général, résiste aux limites de pompage. La discussion conclut sur des propositions permettant de modifier la doctrine d'appropriation, pour ainsi mieux accommoder la gestion active des bassins d'eau souterraine à une durabilité sur le long terme.
Resumen
En las últimas décadas los usuarios de agua del occidente de Estados Unidos se han vuelto ascendentemente hacia los recursos de agua subterránea para apoyar el desarrollo económico, aunque pocos convenios institucionales estaban disponibles para regular el uso del agua subterránea. Con el tiempo han emergido numerosos problemas de agua subterránea. Se exploran dos explicaciones estrechamente relacionadas para estos problemas. Las fuentes de agua superficial fueron las primeras en ser desarrolladas y los convenios institucionales para distribuir el agua superficial fueron los primeros en ser concebidos. Estos convenios no están bien adaptados para la gobernabilidad del agua subterránea. Además, las diferencias físicas entre ríos y acuíferos lleva a diferencias en el desarrollo de cada tipo de agua, y en la producción y costos de organización. El desarrollo del agua subterránea involucra costos iniciales de producción bajos que los usuarios individuales de agua pueden cubrir. Media vez los usuarios de agua subterránea han invertido individualmente en actividades productivas emergen problemas tal como niveles de agua descendentes. De este modo, a diferencia de usuarios de agua superficial, los usuarios de agua subterránea se enfrentan con el reto de diseñar convenios institucionales para coordinar sus usos del agua después de que han invertido y desarrollado actividades económicas productivas. La mayoría de estados del occidente regulan el bombeo aunque los usuarios de agua subterránea, en general, se resisten a los límites de bombeo. La discusión concluye con propuestas para modificar la doctrina de apropiación anterior para una mejor adaptación de la gestión activa de las cuencas de agua subterránea para sostenibilidad a largo plazo.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For the purposes of this paper the western states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming
For a more general argument concerning the conflict between property regimes and ecosystem governance in the U.S. see Klug (2002).
The argument that the prior appropriation system is best suited for an arid environment is most clearly explicated in Dunbar (1983). Pisani (1996) takes exception to it. While Pisani agrees that aridity played a central role in the development and adoption of the prior appropriation doctrine, he argues that alternative water law systems were present, such as the riparian doctrine and Mexican and Spanish water laws and practices. The prior appropriation system succeeded over other systems for a variety of economic reasons. For instance, in the 19th century beliefs in the power of free enterprise and private property as the best means of meeting people's needs prevailed. Less consideration was given to community needs, such as assuring that all members were given equal access to a water supply. As Pisani (1996:23) concludes: “The pursuit of wealth took precedence. Enterprise triumphed over equity”.
This practice is known as the ‘futile call’ (Tarlock et al. 2002:184).
Five of the seventeen western states do not govern groundwater under the prior appropriation. They are Arizona, California, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. Of the five, Nebraska recognizes the hydrologic connection between ground and surface water and attempts to coordinate the management of the two types of water.
In Colorado, monitoring of water rights largely falls on water users either requesting state water officials to shut down junior users or using courts to bring lawsuits. Measuring of actual water use usually does not occur unless a change or transfer of water rights occurs.
As Bastasch (1998:60) explains, “The prime directive is to issue a water right unless there is injury to other rights or the public interest. Contrast this with a more conservative approach—arguably one more appropriate for allocating a limited public resource—which would be to deny applications unless it can be shown that no harm would result to other rights or the public interest.”
Grant (1987) argues that the practice of issuing water rights in overappropriated water sources reflects a “hunting license” mentality. Appropriators are given permission to hunt for unappropriated water. If they can find none, that is, if in hunting they deprive senior appropriators of water, the priority system will curtail their activities.
In states that do not apply the prior appropriation doctrine to tributary groundwater, intense conflict has emerged around the effects of pumping on surface water flows. Arizona is an extreme example of a state that uses distinct bodies of law and regulation to govern ground and surface water with no legal recognition of the physical connection between the two sources of water (Glennon 2003). Except for a few basins that underlay the most heavily populated areas of the state and are heavily regulated, all other basins remain under the reasonable use doctrine. Under Arizona law surface water rights holders, governed by the appropriation doctrine, have no recourse against well owners who are governed by the reasonable use doctrine (Glennon 2003). Consequently, well owners can and have pumped rivers and streams dry (Glennon 2003).
This practice was allowed for more than a decade by the Colorado State Engineer's Office on the South Platte River. In order to delay the time when a call would go on the river, a well association was allowed to deliver groundwater to one of the most senior surface water rights holders (MacDonnell 1988)
References
Abbott C, Leonard SJ, McComb D (1994) Colorado: a history of the centennial state. 3d edn., University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO
Ashley JS, Smith ZA (1999) Groundwater management in the west, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE
Bartolino JR, Cole JC (2002) Ground-water resources of the Middle Rio Grande Basin, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Circular 1222, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC
Bastasch R (1998) Waters of Oregon, Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR
Blomquist W (1992) Dividing the waters, ICS Press, San Francisco, CA
Blomquist W, Schlager E, Heikkia T (2004) Common waters, diverging streams, Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC
Brown J (2003) “Whisky's fer drinkin' water's fer fightin'!” is it? Resolving a collective action dilemma in New Mexico. Natural Resources Journal 43:185–221
Bryner G, Purcell E (2003) Groundwater Law Source Book of the Western United States, Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado Law School, Boulder, CO
Clark I (1987) Water in New Mexico: a history of its management and use, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM
Colorado Geological Survey (2003) Groundwater Atlas Of Colorado, http://geosurvey.state.co.us/wateratlas/
Dunbar RG (1977) The adaptation of groundwater-control institutions to the arid west. Agricultural History 51(4):662–680
Dunbar RG (1983) Forging New Rights in Western Waters, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE
Fischer WH, Ray SB (1978) A Guide to Colorado Water Law, Colorado State University, Colorado Water Resources Research Institute, Fort Collins, CO
Glennon R (2003) Water Follies, Island Press, Washington, DC
Gould GA (1990) Water rights systems. In: KR Wright, Water rights of the fifty states and territories, Am Water Works Assoc, Denver, CO, pp 6–18
Grant DL (1987) The complexities of managing hydrologically connected surface water and groundwater under the appropriation doctrine. Land and Water Law Review 22(1):63–95
Hutson SS, Barber NL, Kenny JF, Linsey KS, Lumia DS, Maupin MA (2004) Estimated use of water in the United States in 2000, U.S. Geol Surv Circ 1268, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC
Jones CA (2002) The Administration of the Middle Rio Grande Basin: 1956–2002. Nat Resour J 42:939–968
Klug H (2002) Straining the law: conflicting legal premises and the governance of aquatic resources. Soc Nat Resour 15:693–707
Lucero L, Tarlock AD (2003) Water supply and urban growth in New Mexico: same old, same old or a new era? Nat Resour J 43:803–835
MacDonnell L (1988) Colorado's law of ‘underground water’: a look at the South Platte Basin and beyond. University of Colorado Law Review 59(3):579–625
McGuire VL, Johnson MR, Scheiffer RL, Stanton JS, Sebree SK, Verstreiten IM (2003) Water in storage and approaches to groundwater management. High Plains aquifer, 2000, USGS Circ 1243
Mehls S (1984) The new empire of the Rockies: a history of northeast Colorado, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO
Oregon Water Resources Department (2002) Groundwater supplies in the Willamette Basin, Portland, OR
Oregon Water Resources Department (2003) Groundwater supplies in the Umatilla Basin, Portland, OR
Pisani D (1996) Water, land, and law in the west: the limits of public policy 1850–1920, University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS
Radosevich GE, Nobe KC, Allardice D, Kirkwood C (1976) Evolution and administration of Colorado water law: 1876–1976, Water Resour Publ, Fort Collins, CO
Shah T (1993) Groundwater markets and irrigation development, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Tarlock AD, Corbridge JN Jr, Getches DH (2002) Water resource management: a casebook in law and public policy, Foundation Press, New York
Upper Black Squirrel Creek Groundwater Management District (2001) Rules and regulations and statement of policy, Colorado Groundwater Commission, Denver, CO
U.S. National Hydrography Dataset, University of Arizona: Tucson, AZ 2005. Map of Western U.S. 1:50,000,000. Using ArcGIS, v.8.3 Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute, 1992–2005
Vranesh G (1987) Colorado Water Law, 3 vols. Natural Resources Law Center, Boulder, CO
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schlager, E. Challenges of governing groundwater in U.S. western states. Hydrogeol J 14, 350–360 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-005-0012-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-005-0012-1