Water markets in federal countries: comparing coordination institutions in Australia, Spain and the Western USA

Abstract

Water markets are a prime example of decentralised resource allocation, yet their success often depends on strong coordination institutions, particularly as water is redistributed across sectors and political borders. The territorial division of authority in federal countries creates potential intergovernmental coordination challenges in river basins shared by multiple jurisdictions. This paper compares water markets and associated institutional reforms in Australia, Spain and the Western USA—three countries with long-standing experience with water markets but different approaches to distributing authority and intergovernmental coordination. We conduct an institutional mapping of national and sub-national roles in market-based water allocation reforms across the three countries and employ process tracing techniques to examine coordination challenges and institutional responses associated with water markets. We find that (1) policy goals addressed by water markets vary across—and within—the three countries, reflecting differences in the level of decentralisation, but (2) all three countries have required capable coordination institutions to address the distributional conflicts associated with water markets. Coordination institutions can take multiple forms and include both formal and informal venues for planning, financing and conflict management matched to local conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Spain has 17 autonomous regions, which are hereafter called ‘states’ to ease comparison with the sub-national jurisdictions in Australia and the USA.

  2. 2.

    Time series data on Western US water markets are unavailable since the end of the Water Strategist newsletter circulated by the private firm, Stratecon, Inc. until 2010.

  3. 3.

    An adjudication refers to the process of establishing the extent, validity and priority of water rights under the prior appropriation doctrine; the process involves a judge or an appointed special master reviewing evidence about historic water use and claims, often with substantial data and administrative support from water agencies.

  4. 4.

    Unbundled water rights separate the permanent water access entitlement and the temporary water allocation from the land where the water is used; in fact, it is not necessary to use water on land at all.

  5. 5.

    High market activity is noted by WestWater (2016) in the Central Valley of California, Southern California, Southern Nevada, Phoenix of Arizona, Northern Front Range of Colorado, Middle Rio Grande of New Mexico, Edwards Aquifer of Texas and Lower Rio Grande (also Texas). All but the Edwards Aquifer are beneficiaries of federal water projects.

References

  1. Aither (2016) Water markets report: 2015–16 review and 2016–17 outlook. http://www.aither.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Aither_WaterMarketsReport2015-FINAL-25Aug2016.pdf, Aither, Pty Ltd.

  2. Bednar J (2008) The robust federation: principles of design. Cambridge University Press

  3. Bennett J (2005) The evolution of markets for water: theory and practice in Australia Edward Elgar Publishing.

  4. Bettles C (2013) States Cut MDBA budget [online]. Farm Weekly, 27 Feb 2013. Available: http://www.farmweekly.com.au/news/agriculture/agribusiness/general-news/states-cut-mdba-budget/2648427.aspx [Accessed 15 January 2017].

  5. Bretsen SN, Hill PJ (2006) Irrigation institutions in the American West. UCLA J Environ Law Policy 25:283–330 https://escholarship.org/uc/item/45s214ts

    Google Scholar 

  6. Birkenholtz T (2016). Dispossessing irrigators: Water grabbing, supply-side growth and farmer resistance in India. Geoforum, 69, 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.12.014

  7. Bureau of Meteorology. (2016). "Water Market Information." from http://www.nationalwatermarket.gov.au/water-market-reports/download-data.html

  8. Calatrava J & Martínez Granados D (2016) Los mercados formales de agua en la cuenca del Segura. IN: Gómez-Limón, J.A. and J. Calatrava (Coord.) Los mercados de agua en España: Presente y perspectivas, Fundación Cajamar, Almería, pp. 153–284

  9. Casado-Perez V (2016) The role of government in water markets. Taylor & Francis.

  10. Casado-Pérez V (2015) Missing water markets: a cautionary tale of governmental failure. NYU Environmental Law. Journal 23:157–241. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2406726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Colby BG (1990) Transactions costs and efficiency in western water allocation. Am J Agric Econ 72(5):1184–1192. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Collier D (2011) Understanding process tracing. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44(4), pp. 823–830 doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511001429

  13. Commonwealth of Australia (1993) National Competition Policy Review (the Hilmer report). Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  14. Connell D (2007) Water politics in the Murray-Darling basin. Federation Press

  15. Culp PW, Glennon RJ and Libecap G (2014) Shopping for water: how the market can mitigate water shortages in the American West. Island Press.

  16. COAG (1994) Communiqué-water reform framework, Hobart, Council of Australian Governments.

  17. COAG (2004) Intergovernmental agreement on a National Water Initiative, Council of Australian Governments.

  18. Department of Sustainability and the Environment (VIC) (2008) Water trading in Northern Victoria 1991/92–2005/06. Technical Report. Melbourne: State of Victoria.

  19. De Stefano L & Hernández-Mora N. this issue Multi-level interactions in a context of political decentralization and evolving water-policy goals: the case of Spain

  20. De Stefano L (2005) Los mercados de agua y la conservación del medio ambiente: oportunidades y retos para su implantación en España. WWF-Spain position paper.

  21. Del Moral L, Giansante C, Babiano L (2000) L’evolution des modalités d’allocation de la resource en eau en Espagne. Révue d’Economie Mediterranéen 48(191):235–248

    Google Scholar 

  22. Easter KW, Rosegrant MW, Dinar A (1999) Formal and informal markets for water: institutions, performance, and constraints. World Bank Res Obs 14(1):99–116. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/14.1.99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Elazar DJ (1987) Exploring Federalism , University of Alabama Press.

  24. Feiock RC (2013) The institutional collective action framework. Policy Stud J 41(3):397–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Feller JM (2007) The adjudication that ate Arizona water law. Arizona Law Rev 49:405–440 https://ssrn.com/abstract=1467835

    Google Scholar 

  26. Garrick DE, De Stefano L (2016) Adaptive capacity in federal rivers: coordination challenges and institutional responses. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 21:78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.11.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Garrick D (2015) Water allocation in rivers under pressure: water trading, transaction costs and transboundary governance in the Western US and Australia. Edward Elgar. pp. 256. ISBN: 978 1 78100 385 5.

  28. Garrick D, Whitten SM, Coggan A (2013) Understanding the evolution and performance of water markets and allocation policy: a transaction costs analysis framework. Ecol Econ: J Int Soc Ecol Econ 88:195–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gerlak AK (2005) Federalism and US water policy: lessons for the twenty-first century. Publius: J Federalism 36(2):231–257. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pji032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Grafton RQ, Libecap G, McGlennon S, Landry C, O’Brien B (2011) An integrated assessment of water markets: a cross-country comparison. Rev Environ Econ Policy 5(2):219–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rer002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Grafton RQ, Libecap GD, Edwards EC, O'Brien RB, & Landry C (2012). Comparative assessment of water markets: insights from the Murray–Darling Basin of Australia and the Western USA. Water Policy, 14(2), 175–193 https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2011.016

  32. Grafton RQ, Horne J (2014) Water markets in the Murray-Darling Basin. Agric Water Manag 145:61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Guest C (2017) Sharing the water—one hundred years of River Murray politics. Murray Darling Basin Authority, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hart BT (2015) The Australian Murray–Darling Basin plan: challenges in its implementation (part 1). Int J Water Resour Dev 32(6):835–852. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2015.1083847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Heinmiller, B. T. (2007). The Politics of" Cap and Trade" Policies. Natural Resources Journal, 445-467 http://www.jstor.org/stable/24889178

  36. Heinmiller T (2009) Path dependency and collective action in common pool governance. Int J Commons 3(1):131–147. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hernández-Mora N, Del Moral L (2015) Developing markets for water reallocation: revisiting the experience of Spanish water mercantilización. Geoforum; J Phys Human Region Geosci 62:143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.04.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hernández-Mora, N., Del Moral, L., La Roca, F., La Calle, A., & Schmidt, G., 2014. Interbasin water transfers in Spain. Interregional conflicts and governance responses. In: Schneider-Madanes, G. (Ed.) Globalized water: a question of governance. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 175–194.

  39. Horne A, O’Donnell E (2014) Decision making roles and responsibility for environmental water in the Murray-Darling Basin. Aust J Water Resour 18(2):118–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2014.11465445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Howe CW, Schurmeier DR, Douglas Shaw W (1986) Innovative approaches to water allocation: the potential for water markets. Water Resour Res 22(4):439–445. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR022i004p00439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kenney D (2013) Cross-boundary water transfers in the Colorado River basin: a review of efforts and issues associated with marketing water across state lines or reservation boundaries. Colorado River Governance Initiative, Boulder, Colorado

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kildea P, Williams G (2010) The constitution and the management of water in Australia’s rivers. Sydney Law Review 32:595–616 https://ssrn.com/abstract=1912365

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kildea P, Williams G (2011) The water act and the Murray-Darling Basin plan. Public Law Rev 22:9–13

    Google Scholar 

  44. Kirby M, Bark R, Connor J, Qureshi ME, Keyworth S (2014) Sustainable irrigation: how did irrigated agriculture in Australia’s Murray–Darling basin adapt in the millennium drought? Agric Water Manag 145:154–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.02.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Maestu J (2013) Water trading and global water scarcity: international experiences , Routledge

  46. Marston L, Cai X (2016) An overview of water reallocation and the barriers to its implementation. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Water 3(5):658–677. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Matthews K (2017) Independent investigation into NSW water management and compliance: advice on implementation. NSW Department of Industry, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  48. Meinzen-Dick R (2014) Property rights and sustainable irrigation: a developing country perspective. Agric Water Manag 145:23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.03.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Meinzen-Dick RS (1996) Groundwater markets in Pakistan: participation and productivity , Intl Food Policy Res Inst.

  50. Murray-Darling Basin Authority (2012) Murray-Darling Basin plan. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  51. Murray-Darling Basin Commission (1995) An audit of water use in the Murray-Darling Basin: June 1995. Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  52. Murray-Darling Basin Commission (1998) Murray-Darling Basin cap on diversions water year 1997/98: striking the balance. Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  53. Murray-Darling Basin Commission (2006). "Permanent Interstate Water Trading: How To Manual". (Canberra: Murray-Darling Basin Commission)

  54. National Farmers’ Federation 2010. Submission to productivity commission’s draft research report: market mechanisms for recovering water in the Murray-Darling Basin. http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/murray-darling-water-recovery/submissions/subdr088.pdf : National Farmers' Federation.

  55. National Water Commission (2013) Australian water markets report 2011–12. NWC, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  56. National Water Commission (2014) Australian water markets: trends and drivers 2007–08 to 2012–13. National Water Commission, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  57. Nelson R, Perrone D (2016). The role of permitting regimes in Western United States groundwater management. Groundwater, 54(6), 761–764 https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12467

  58. Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press

  59. Palomo-Hierro S, Gómez-Limón JA, Riesgo L (2015) Water markets in Spain: performance and challenges. Water 7:652–678. https://doi.org/10.3390/w7020652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Prime Minister of Australia (2007) A national plan for water security. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.

  61. Productivity Commission (2010) Market mechanisms for recovering water in the Murray-Darling Basin (final report, March). Productivity Commission, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  62. Pujol J, Raggi M, Viaggi D (2006) The potential impact of markets for irrigation water in Italy and Spain: a comparison of two study areas. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 50(3):361–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2006.00352.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Qureshi ME, Shi T, Qureshi SE, Proctor W (2009) Removing barriers to facilitate efficient water markets in the Murray-Darling Basin of Australia. Agric Water Manag 96(11):1641–1651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.06.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Ross A, Martinez-Santos P (2010) The challenge of groundwater governance: case studies from Spain and Australia. Reg Environ Chang 10(4):299–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-009-0086-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Ruml CC (2005). The Coase theorem and western US appropriative water rights. Natural Resources Journal, 169–200. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24888967

  66. Tarlock A D. (2001). The future of prior appropriation in the new west. Natural Resources Journal, 41(4), 769–793 http://www.jstor.org/stable/24888845

  67. US Bureau of Reclamation (2016) Water marketing activities in the Bureau of Reclamation. In: US Department of Interior. DC, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  68. Young M, Hatton MacDonald D, Stringer R, Bjornlund H (2000) Interstate water trading: a 2-year review, CSIRO Policy and Economic Research Unit.

  69. WestWater Research (2016) Water market insider. Quarter 2. Available at: www.waterexchange.com. Accessed December 15th 2016.

  70. Wheeler K, Robinson CJ, Bark RH (2018) Transboundary river models: bridging the boundaries between science, participation and regional decision-making for the Colorado River and Murray-Darling River basins. Reg Environ Chang. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1304-z

  71. Wheeler S, Loch A, Crase L, Young M, Grafton RQ (2017) Developing a water market readiness assessment framework. J Hydrol 552:807–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.07.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Williams JM, Webster A (2010) Section 100 and state water rights. Public Law Rev 21-284:267–284

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dustin E. Garrick.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garrick, D.E., Hernández-Mora, N. & O’Donnell, E. Water markets in federal countries: comparing coordination institutions in Australia, Spain and the Western USA. Reg Environ Change 18, 1593–1606 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1320-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Water markets
  • Federalism
  • Decentralisation
  • Murray-Darling Basin
  • Spain
  • Western USA