Advertisement

Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 1621–1632 | Cite as

Utilizing sustainability criteria to evaluate river basin decision-making: the case of the Colorado River Basin

  • John Berggren
Original Article

Abstract

Increasing demands, climate change and variability, and over-allocation pose tremendous challenges for the sustainable management of water resources. Federal river systems such as the Colorado River Basin provide an opportunity to understand multi-level governance challenges to sustainability as well as opportunities to improve decision-making processes. This paper seeks to understand what components of the decision-making process are important for meeting sustainability criteria. This research uses the Colorado River Basin in a multi-method study designed to understand how those specific components not only highlight challenges to sustainability, but also how they may be utilized to further sustainability objectives. Results suggest that process components such as stakeholder participation, decision-making transparency, and fairness are important considerations in the sustainability of a river basin system. Further, a nuanced analysis of the process suggests that these components provide guidance for how decision-making might be improved. This includes emphasizing problematic hydrological or institutional events, reconciling transparency and decision-making efficiency, and acknowledging that all users in the system will need to undertake shortages. Results also suggest how the state and federal governments have specific roles in implementing and facilitating these processes.

Keywords

Sustainability Water governance Colorado River Basin Participation Transparency 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges the reviews and feedback from the special issue editors Drs. Dustin Garrick and Lucia De Stefano, two anonymous reviewers, and the journal editors. Additional thanks to Drs. Lisa Dilling and Deserai Crow for their comments and support.

Supplementary material

10113_2018_1354_MOESM1_ESM.docx (45 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 44 kb)
10113_2018_1354_MOESM2_ESM.docx (58 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 58 kb)

References

  1. Ananda J, Proctor W (2013) Collaborative approaches to water management and planning: an institutional perspective. Ecol Econ 86:97–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.10.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bethlehem J (2014) Web surveys in official statistics. In: Engel U, Jann B, Lynn P, Scherpenzeel A, Sturgis P (eds) Improving survey methods. Routledge, New York, pp 156–169Google Scholar
  3. Bureau of Reclamation (2012) Colorado River Basin water supply and demand study: executive summary. Department of the Interior. http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/Executive%20Summary/CRBS_Executive_Summary_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 23 September 2016
  4. Crow D (2010) Local media and experts: sources of environmental policy initiation? Policy Stud J 38:143–164.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00348.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dillman D, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2009) Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method, 3rd edition. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  6. Falkenmark M, Molden D (2008) Wake up to realities of river basin closure. Int J Water Resour D 24:201–215.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07900620701723570 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garrick DE, Stefano LD (2016) Adaptive capacity in federal rivers: coordinate challenges and institutional responses. Curr Opin Env Sust 21:78–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gerlak A (2014) Federalism and US water policy. In: Garrick D, Anderson G, Connel D, Pittock J (eds) Federal rivers: managing water in multi-layered political systems. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 41–56Google Scholar
  9. Gibson RB, Hassan S, Holtz S, Tansey J, Whitelaw G (2005) Sustainability assessment: criteria, processes and applications. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Glennon RJ, Culp PW (2002) The last green lagoon: how and why the Bush Administration should save the Colorado River Delta. Ecol Law Quart 28:903–992Google Scholar
  11. Gold RL (2008) Dividing the pie—dealing with surplus and drought: examining the Colorado River compact of 1922. J Land Resour Environ Law 28:71Google Scholar
  12. Hedelin B (2007) Criteria for the assessment of sustainable water management. Environ Manag 39:151–163.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0387-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kenney D (2005) In search of sustainable water management: international lessons for the American West and beyond. Edward Elgar, MassachusettsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. King JS, Culp PW, De La Parra C (2014) Getting to the right side of the river: lessons for binational cooperation on the road to Minute 319. 18 U. Denv Water Law Rev 1:36Google Scholar
  15. McCaffrey S (2003) The need for flexibility in freshwater treaty regimes. Nat Resour Forum 27:156–162.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.00050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McClurg S (2013) Colorado River project symposium proceedings. Water Education Foundation, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  17. Meko DM, Woodhouse CA, Baisan CA, Knight T, Lukas JJ, Hughes MK, Salzer MW (2007) Medieval drought in the upper Colorado River Basin. Geophys Res Lett 34:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL029988 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miles MB, Huberman AM (1984) Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: toward a shared craft. Educ Res 13:20–30  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X013005020
  19. Millar MM, Dillman DA (2011) Improving response to web and mixed-mode surveys. Public Opin Q 75:251–269.  https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mostert E (2006) Participation for sustainable water management. In: Giupponi C, Jakeman AJ, Karssenberg D, Hare MP (eds) Sustainable management of water resources. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  21. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  23. Overpeck J, Udall B (2010) Dry times ahead. Science 328:1642–1643.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1186591 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pahl-Wostl C (2007) Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resour Manag 21:49–62.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-006-9040-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reed PM, Kasprzyk J (2009) Water resources management: the myth, the wicked, and the future. J Water Res Pl-ASCE 135:411–413.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Renner R, Schneider F, Hohenwallner D, Kopeinig C, Kruse S, Lienert J, Link S, Muhar S (2013) Meeting the challenges of transdisciplinary knowledge production for sustainable water governance. Mt Res Dev 33:234–247.  https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-13-00002.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rogers P, Hall A (2003) Effective water governance. Global Water Partnership Technical Committee, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  28. Sabatier P, Focht W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock M (2005) Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed management. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Schlager E, Blomquist W (2008) Embracing watershed politics. University of Colorado Press, BoulderCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schlager E, Heikkila T (2009) Resolving water conflicts: a comparative analysis of interstate river compacts. Policy Stud J 37:367–392.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00319.x/abstract CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schlager E, Heikkila T (2011) Left high and dry? Climate change, common-pool resource theory, and the adaptability of western water compacts. Public Admin Rev 71:461–470.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02367.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schlager E, Heikkila T (2014) Water scarcity, conflict resolution, and adaptive governance in federal transboundary river basins. In: Garrick D, Anderson G, Connel D, Pittock J (eds) Federal rivers: managing water in multi-layered political systems. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 57–75Google Scholar
  33. Schlager E, Heikkila T, Case C (2012) The costs of compliance with interstate agreements: lessons from water compacts in the Western United States. Publius J Federalism 42:494–515.  https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjs017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stakhiv EZ (2011) Pragmatic approaches for water management under climate change uncertainty. J Am Water Resour As 47:1183–1196.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00589.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tortajada C (2010) Water governance: some critical issues. Int J Water Resour D 26:297–307.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07900621003683298 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Udall B, Overpeck J (2017) The twenty-first century Colorado River hot drought and implications for the future. Water Resour Res 53:2404–2418.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Whiteley JM, Ingram H, Perry RW (2008) Water, place, and equity. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wiek A, Larson KL (2012) Water, people, and sustainability—a systems framework for analyzing and assessing water governance regimes. Water Resour Manag 26:3153–3171.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0065-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilder M, Ingram H (2016) Knowing equity when we see it: water equity in contemporary global contexts. In: Conca K, Weinthal E (eds) The Oxford handbook of water politics and policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199335084.013.11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Studies ProgramUniversity of Colorado-BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations