Advertisement

Communities of Interest and the Negotiation of Watershed Management

  • Max J. PfefferEmail author
  • Linda P. Wagenet
Chapter

Abstract

The New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed in January 1997 was an extraordinary accomplishment. Some have called this unprecedented agreement “the legal equivalent of a Hoover Dam.” The MOA represents a special kind of accomplishment in community development – the creation of a “watershed community of interest.” This community is described in the MOA as “shar[ing] the common goal of protecting and enhancing the environmental integrity of the Watershed and the social and economic vitality of the Watershed communities.” The MOA was signed by approximately 40 upstate towns and villages, environmental groups, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), New York State, and New York City (NYC). The agreement serves as a blueprint for NYC’s watershed management strategy for water sources west of the Hudson River. It cost approximately one billion dollars over 10 years. Figure 9.1 displays a map of the watershed and highlights some of its prominent features.

Keywords

Eminent Domain Watershed Protection Legal Boundary Home Rule Watershed Management Plan 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Platt, Rutherford H., Paul K. Barten, and Max J. Pfeffer. 2000. “A Full, Clean Glass? Managing New York City’s Watersheds.” Environment 42(5):9–20.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wheatley, M.J. 1999. Leadership and the New Science. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publisher. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    This analysis is limited to the portion of the watershed found west of the Hudson River. NYC harvests 90% of its water supply in this area by means of a set of constructed reservoirs and controlled lakes. NRC (National Research Council). 2000. Watershed Management for Potable Water Supply: Assessing the New York City Strategy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pfeffer, Max J. 2003. “The Watershed as Community.” In Encyclopedia of Community: From the Village to the Virtual World edited by Karen Christensen and David Levinson, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wagenet, Linda and Max J. Pfeffer. 2007. “Organizing Citizen Engagement for Democratic Environmental Planning.” Society and Natural Resources 20(9):801–813.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    In more academic terms, we refer here to a shift from exclusionary social relations, or bonding social capital, to reciprocal ones, or bridging social capital. Social capital is a conceptual cornerstone in understanding the organizational foundations for watershed management. We use “social capital” to refer to the value or utility of social relationships in achieving a desired outcome. This definition is consistent with the foundational literature that treats social capital as a means of gaining access to economic resources (Portes 1998; Bourdieu 1986), but opens the possibility that social capital can be used to pursue ends not purely economic in nature. By community social capital, we mean social relations between communities. While individuals are involved in these relations, we are interested in their interactions as agents representing communities. Following Meyer and Jesperson (2000:101), we conceive of “agency” as “legitimated representation of some legitimate principle, which may be an individual [or] an organization, a nation state, or abstract principles (like those of science …).” (Portes, Alejandro. 1998. “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology 24:1–12; Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” Pp. 241–258 in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by J. D. Richardson, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press; Meyer, John W. and Ronald L. Jepperson. 2000. “The ‘Actors’ of Modern Society: The Cultural Construction of Social Agency.” Sociological Theory 18(1):100–120).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    For an example of the formation of a community of interest – Pfeffer, Max J., John W. Schelhas and Leyla Ann Day. 2001b. “Forest Conservation, Value Conflict, and Interest Formation in a Honduran National Park.” Rural Sociology 66(3):382–402. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 1990. Discussion Draft of Proposed Regulations for the Protection from Contamination, Degradation and Pollution of the New York City Water Supply and Its Sources. Corona, NY: NYCDEP.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Finnegan, Michael C. 1997. New York City’s Watershed Agreement: A Lesson in Sharing Responsibility. Pace Environmental Law Review 14:577–644; Schneeweiss, Jonathan. 1997. “Watershed Protection Strategies: A Case Study of the New York City Watershed in Light of the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act.” Villanova Environmental Law Journal 9:77–119.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    We monitored six local newspapers’ coverage of watershed issues for approximately 6 years beginning in 1994. Newspapers monitored included the Catskill Mountain News (CMN), Daily Freeman (DF), Delaware County Times (DCT), Deposit Courier (DC), New York Times (NYT), and the North Country News (NCN).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stave, Krystyna Anne. 1998. Water, Land, and People: The Social Ecology of Conflict over New York City’s Watershed Protection Efforts in the Catskill Mountain Region. PhD Dissertation, NY: Yale University, p. 253.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nolon, John R. 1993. “The Erosion of Home Rule through the Emergence of State Interests in Land Use Control.” Pace Environmental Law Review 10(2):497–562, p. 55.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stave, Krystyna Anne. 1998. Water, Land, and People: The Social Ecology of Conflict over New York City’s Watershed Protection Efforts in the Catskill Mountain Region. PhD Dissertation, NY: Yale University, p. 253.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ad Hoc Task Force on Agriculture and New York City Watershed Regulations. 1991. Policy Group of Recommendations, December (unpublished manuscript), p. 1.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pfeffer, Max J., J. Mayone Stycos, Leland Glenna and Joyce Altobelli. 2001a. “Forging New Connections between Agriculture and the City.” Pp. 419–446 in Globalization and the Rural Environment, edited by Otto T. Solbrig, Robert Paarlberg, and Francesco di Castri, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press;Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pfeffer, Max J. and Linda P. Wagenet. 1999. “Planning for Environmental Responsibility and Equity: A Critical Appraisal of Rural/Urban Relations in the New York City Watershed.” Pp. 179–206 in Contested Countryside: The Rural Urban Fringe of North America, edited by Mark B. Lapping and Owen Furuseth, Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Delaware County Times (DCT) 3/15/94, pp. 1–2, 12.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Finnegan, Michael C. 1997. New York City’s Watershed Agreement: A Lesson in Sharing Responsibility. Pace Environmental Law Review 14:577–644. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stave, Krystyna Anne. 1998. Water, Land, and People: The Social Ecology of Conflict over New York City’s Watershed Protection Efforts in the Catskill Mountain Region. PhD Dissertation, NY: Yale University, p. 179Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stave, Krystyna Anne. 1998. Water, Land, and People: The Social Ecology of Conflict over New York City’s Watershed Protection Efforts in the Catskill Mountain Region. PhD Dissertation, NY: Yale University, p. 295.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Watershed Management for Potable Water Supply: Assessing the New York City Strategy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). 1997. January (unpublished manuscript), Article IV, Para. 97, p. 35.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pfeffer, Max J., Linda P. Wagenet, John Sydenstricker-Neto, and Catherine Meola. 2005. “Reconciling Different Land Use Value Spheres: An Example at the Rural/Urban Interface.” Pp. 186–201 in Land Use Problems and Conflicts: Causes, Consequences and Solutions edited by Stephan Goetz, James Shortle and James Bergstrom, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Catskill Mountain News (CMN), 10/02/96, p. 16.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Delaware County Times (DCT), 11/17/95, p. 2.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Catskill Mountain News (CMN), 4/11/94, p 1.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Delaware County Times (DCT), 4/01/96, p. 1.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Delaware County Times (DCT), 8/04/00, p. 1.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Delaware County Times (DCT), 11/10/95, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Development SociologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations