Full Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education, Issue ...

Journal of ContemporaryWater Research & EducationIssue No. 135Integrated Water Resources Management: New Governance, Tools,and Challenges—Selected International PerspectivesContentsIntegrated Water Resources Management: Governance, Best Practice,and Research ChallengesBruce Hooper............................................................................................................................................1IWRM: STRENGTHENED CONCEPTUALIZATIONSIntegrated Water Resources Management: Definitions and Conceptual MusingsHal Cardwell, Richard Cole, Lauren Cartwright, and Lynn Martin..............................................................8Integrated Water Resources Management in The Netherlands: How Concepts FunctionErik Mostert.............................................................................................................................................19Exploring the Government, Society, and Science Interfaces inIntegrated Water Resources Management in South AfricaPeter Ashton, Anthony Turton and Dirk Rous..........................................................................................28Trajectories in Australian Water PolicyKaren Hussey and Stephen Dovers........................................................................................................36IWRM: EMERGING INTERNATIONAL PRACTICEDecember 2006IWRM in Practice: Lessons from Canadian ExperienceBruce Mitchell..........................................................................................................................................51Organizational Dynamics of Watershed Partnerships: A Key to Integrated WaterResources ManagementKen Genskow and Stephen Born............................................................................................................56Implementing the Water Framework Directive: How to Define a “Competent Authority”Colin Green and Amalia Fernández.........................................................................................................65A Comparison of IWRM Frameworks: The United States and South AfricaJeff Ballweber..........................................................................................................................................74Water Governance at the European UnionAna Barreira............................................................................................................................................80Integrated Water Resources Management in New Zealand: Legislative Frameworkand ImplementationMatthew Davis and John Threfall............................................................................................................86

1UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONISSUE 135, PAGES 1-7 DECEMBER 2006Integrated Water Resources Management:Governance, Best Practice, and Research ChallengesBruce HooperDHI Water and Environment, Brisbane, AustraliaThis collection of invited papers published inthis issue of the Journal of ContemporaryWater Research and Education examinesthe theme of governance in integrated waterresources management (IWRM). Governance isa suite of procedures that use decision-makingprocesses at different levels and among differentsectors, stakeholders, and jurisdictions to enact,in this case, water resources management. Muchhas been said about governance in the water sector,with one foundational explanation provided by theGlobal Water Partnership (undated):• Governments to establish water policies, lawsand regulatory frameworks, devolve decisionmaking,and encourage better service deliveryby autonomous public sector agencies andprivate sector operators.• Governments to set policies and establishinstitutional structures for managing riverbasins and aquifers and processes to overcomeconflict over water allocation.• Governments to facilitate the realignment ofeconomic and financial practices, includingfull cost pricing for water services—withappropriate mechanisms to protect the poor.• Governments, with the help of internationalpartners, to establish mechanisms forstrengthening river basin management andestablishing transboundary water agreementsallowing for equitable utilization of sharedwaters.This functionality emphasizes the role of thepublic sector and sees governance comprising thecore elements of water policy, water laws, waterpricing mechanisms, river basin organizations andinternational and intra-national (cross-jurisdiction,cross-boundary) agreements. These elements do notexist in an institutional vacuum, rather they relateto the broader democratic functions of governmentand civil society. Indeed, good governance occurswhen societies establish democratic freedoms (freeelections), robust economies, low unemployment,state-of-the-art technological development, financialand resource security, human rights, and lackof civil unrest. Poverty, insurgence and nationalsecurity work against good governance and the wayto implement IWRM in struggling economies willrequire the simultaneous elimination of civil unrestand poverty. These form the precursor to effectivewater governance. This expansive governancemandate, more than one focusing solely on thewater sector, suggests a number of elements arerequired: transparency, accountability, anticorruption,citizen participation, and a workingjudiciary.Issue OutlineThe papers are grouped into two themes:concepts and practices. The first theme comprisesfour papers that discuss the conceptual complexityof IWRM and its expression in emerging waterpolicies. In a refreshing exploratory discussion,Cardwell et al. present an innovative framework,using the axes of time, space, institutions, andobjectives, for examining the nature and degree ofmanagement integration relevant to water resourcesmanagement, comparing this with both U.S. andinternational IWRM conceptualizations. Theymaintain the need for spatial, objective (goals),JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

2Bruce Hooperinstitutional, and temporal integration. Mostertuses the experience of the Netherlands ThirdNational Water Policy to explore the dimensionsof IWRM, and how this has now been eclipsed bythe EU Water Framework Directive that requirespreparation of river basin management plansto reach a “good water status” of all EU basinwaters by 2015. Ashton et al., working from SouthAfrican experiences, explore the complex multidimensionalityof water governance, calling foran approach that adheres to guiding ethics andvalues to incorporate the attitudes, values, andpractices of society while also giving meaningto society’s aspirations and objectives. Finally inthis first theme, Dovers and Hussey outline newconceptualizations derived from Australian andEuropean Union experiences. They discuss the newAustralian water policy directions made explicit inAustralia’s (2004-2014) National Water Initiativewhich is a multi-component national-level policyframework.The second theme of the issue is a larger groupof papers that also provide a purposive sample ofexperiences in IWRM. Like the first theme, theseexperiences were selected based on the substantialdegree of implementation that has occurred inthe representative countries. By and large theseexperiences reflect increasing maturing of thewater sector in each country. Mitchell’s paperprovides lessons learned from Canadian experiencein IWRM implementation: the importance of avision, the need for a tighter focus of an integratedinterpretation, the importance of spatial scale (basin,sub-catchment, tributary, environmental site) andthe role of partnerships. Genskow and Born examinethe highly dynamic organizational character andfunctioning in time and space of IWRM, using U.S.watershed management examples. They call for amore expansive view of the organizational space inwhich integrated initiatives take place, one whichrequires understanding the contextual dynamics ofthe watershed management context. This is poorlyunderstood and the authors call for further researchin this arena.Green and Fernández suggest that framingIWRM frequently occurs, meaning differentprocesses in specific circumstances create anIWRM approach that is unique to its situation,such as conflict resolution, consensus building,future search, social learning, and learningalliances. As a result, they maintain that thesuccess of evaluating IWRM must “focus uponprocess rather than outcomes, and the key processcharacteristic is change: the nature and extent ofthe changes, particularly in the understandings ofeach stakeholder of each other.”Ballweber compares U.S. and SouthAfrican IWRM approaches. While the U.S.has emphasized a bottom-up approach throughwatershed initiatives, and no national consensus,South Africa’s approach has been from a nationalframework coupled to local initiatives. From thisreview, he maintains that the process of IWRM ismore important than the product, as both bottom-upand top-down approaches are fraught with danger.So it is not necessarily the framework rather thanthe procedural activities that enhance IWRM. Onecritical issue is to “market IWRM by having asuccessful IWRM institution that has measurablyimproved the local quality of life or brought in neweconomic development opportunities.” Thus herecommends that IWRM actions be “boot strapped”onto water resources development projects.Barreira’s paper outlines the Water FrameworkDirective of the European Union. This includes thedevelopment and implementation of river basinmanagement plans and of programs of measures asimplementation tools. Her outline demonstrates theinnovation of European work based on an IWRMapproach. Davis and Threlfall outline the nationalimplementation of IWRM in New Zealand, onelargely controlled through national and regionalpolicy statements, broadly similar to a “nationalframework” approach used in other countries. Theyshow how this approach is worked out uniquelyin New Zealand through regional councils thatdevelop single (water) and multiple issue (water,air, land) plans. They claim that results havevaried, due to lack of guidance through nationalwater policy statements.Van Steenbergen and Lamoree’s paper is quitedifferent to those already discussed. They focus onwho finances IWRM. They challenge the notion ofwater as an economic good (use of markets andcost-recovery mechanisms) and call for a broaderfinancial strategy for IWRM. They maintain thatwater has many aspects, functions and values, eachof them important to a different set of legitimateUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM: Governance, Best Practice, and Research Challenges3stakeholders, using case studies from around theworld to illustrate their argument. They call for a“values and finances” framework. This will involvenew efforts to quantify a broader set of values,extending the emerging research and practice inthis field.Bourget’s paper reports the results of a nationalsurvey of training needs in IWRM in the USA,and progress in the development of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Advanced DegreeProgram in IWRM. The paper reveals the varietyof IWRM experiences in USA, one in whichthere is quite disparate interpretations of IWRM,very different expectations of what is requiredfrom IWRM training, and the positives, negativesand ambivalent results of IWRM education andpractice. An interesting finding is the commentthat activist rather than rigorous scientificunderstanding characterizes some water resourcesmanagement graduates’ thinking today; while thereexists a significant tension between constructivistand positivist paradigms. The paper calls for morework nationally to develop IWRM curricula.Finally, in the second theme of this issue,McKay outlines paradigmatic development of theAustralian water sector and comments on the mostrecent work of the National Water Initiative in thatcountry.This focuses on national water planning andcalls for greater cooperation between nationaland State governments to achieve this end. In thispaper, she also reports the results of a survey ofCEOs’ responses to changes in paradigms in recentAustralian water policy.CommentaryThe strength of this issue lies is its diversityof representative IWRM experiences from theU.S., the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia,New Zealand, United Kingdom and the EuropeanUnion. The weakness of this selection is the limitedrepresentation of substantial work in governanceand water resources management of developingcountries (Walmsley and Hasnip 1997, Rogers andHall 2003, Saleth and Dinar 2004, Shah, Makin etal. 2004). It is difficult to capture in one journal issuethe fundamental differences in water governancewhich occur in developing economies (Table 1),but van Steenbergen and Lamoree’s paper flags anapproach that could be applied beyond the contextof these economies.Another strength of this issue is the repeatedTable 1. Differences between developing countries and developed countries basin realities.High transaction costs for monitoring water use and collect-ing water chargesDeveloped CountriesTemperate climates, humid,higher river-stream densityPopulation concentrated inthe valleys, downstreamWater rights based on ripariandoctrine and prior appropriationFocus on blue surface water:water found in rivers, and lakesMost water users get water fromservice providers; most water provisionis in the formal sectormakingwater resources governancefeasibleSmall numbers of large-scale stakeholdersLow transaction costs for monitoring wateruse and collecting water chargesDeveloping CountriesRainfall low, climate extreme, higher mean temperatures,lower stream density, water scarcity an emerging constraintDensely populated in both valleys and catchment areas;population high both upstream and downstream of damsWater rights based on rights to rainfall or ground water;people’s notions of ownership relate more easily to rain thanto large-scale public diversionsFocus on green water: water stored in the soil profile or bluewater stored in aquifersMost water users get their water directly from rain and fromprivate or community storage without any significant media-tion from public agencies or organized service providersBecause the bulk of water provision takes place in the informalsector, it is difficult to pass enforceable water legislationVast numbers of small-scale stakeholdersSource: Modified from (Shah et al. 2004) and http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/home/integrated_river_basin.htm, accessedNovember 2004; as reproduced in (Hooper 2005).JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

IWRM: Governance, Best Practice, and Research Challenges7Australia’s water aid program. He provided policiesto improve the adoption of salinity management andcatchment management information exchange in theMurray-Darling Basin, also in the 1990’s. He hasdeveloped the core dimensions of integrated waterresources management and integrated river basinmanagement through his career, now published inIntegrated River Basin Governance. Learning fromInternational Experiences (IWA Publishing, London,2005).White, G. F. 1963. Contribution of geographical analysisto river basin development. Geographical Journal129, 412-436.White, G. F. 1997. The River as a System: A geographer’sview of promising approaches. Water International22(2), 79-81.ReferencesGlobal Water Partnership (undated). Managing Water.Four things to make water governance effective.Available at: http://www.gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?chStartupName=_managing_water. AccessedOctober 23, 2006.Hooper, B. P. 2005, Integrated River Basin Governance:Learning From International Experiences. London,IWA Publishing.Hooper, B. P. 2006, River Basin OrganizationPerformance Indicators. Technical Note[Forthcoming]. Alexandria, Virginia, US ArmyCorps of Engineers.Howe, C. 2005, The return to the river basin: Theincreasing costs of jurisdictional externalities.Journal of Contemporary Water Research andEducation 131, 26-32.Newson, M. 1992. Land, Water and Development: Riverbasin systems and their sustainable management.New York, USA, Routledge.Rogers, P. and A. W. Hall. 2003, Effective WaterGovernance. Stockholm, Global Water Partnership.TEC Background Papers.Saleth, R. M. and A. Dinar. 2004, The InstitutionalEconomics of Water: A cross-country analysis ofinstitutions and performance. Cheltenham, UK, TheWorld Bank/Edward Elgar.Shah, T., I. Makin, and R. Sakthivadivel. 2004. Limits toLeapfrogging: Issues in transposing successful riverbasin management institutions in the developingworld. International Water Management Institute.Colombo, Sri Lanka.Walmsley, N. and N. J. Hasnip. 1997. Case Studies onWater Resource Planning: Lessons learned and keysto success. Department for International DevelopmentReport OD 138, TDR Project R6061.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

8UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONISSUE 135, PAGES 8-18 DECEMBER 2006Integrated Water Resources Management:Defi nitions and Conceptual MusingsHal E. Cardwell, Richard A. Cole, Lauren A. Cartwright, Lynn A. MartinInstitute for Water Resources, US Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, VirginiaIntegrated Water Resources Management(IWRM) is widely endorsed over thealternative, yet a deeper look at what the termmeans and what it implies has merits This paperderives a working definition that emphasizes aunified process directed toward achievement of acommon goal. An analysis of U.S. Federal policy,specifically that of the Army Corps of Engineers’Civil Works program, suggests that the commongoal for Federal water resources management issustainable development. We present a framework,using the axes of time, space, institutions, andobjectives, for examining the nature and degreeof management integration. Finally, we comparethis simple derivation to definitions of IWRMfrom various institutions, and touch upon therelationship of the term “watershed approach” toIWRM as used in U. S. Federal agencies.Increasing demands on water resources fromgrowing populations, increased concern forenvironmental quality, and greater recognitionof the interrelationships of competing waterresource demands prompted the call for a morecomprehensive, coordinated, unified and integratedapproach to water resource problem-solving. Thisapproach requires consideration of the interactionsamong different natural resource elements, suchas ecology, hydrology, and geomorphology.among different disciplines, such as economics,engineering, and biology, and among differentinstitutions, including federal, state, and nongovernmental.In the most recent U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers Civil Works Strategic Plan,this approach is called Integrated Water ResourcesManagement (IWRM). It draws on a long historyof conceptual development.Water resources are often public resources inthe U.S. where government agencies have longdominated their management. Laws authorizingand regulating water use and management haveproliferated due to growing demands on existingsupplies. Agency compliance inevitably forcesmore interaction with other agencies and nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs), if not moreintegration of action. Many obstacles impedemore effective interaction. Increasing appreciationfor the complexity of water resource managementsystems has been accompanied by increasedrecognition of inter-organizational collaboration,beyond the minimum required by law, as the key tomore effective management, which is increasinglydefined by a sustainable development goal. Witha broadly acceptable goal held in common, thisthesis argues that more integrated, collaborativeapproaches to water resources managementwill result in more sustainable water resourcesdevelopment because they more completelyreflect societal values and scientific knowledge,and focus them on solving complex managementproblems in a more comprehensively satisfyingway. Because future progress depends in part oncommon understanding of the concept, we revisitdifferent definitions of IWRM and propose a simpleconceptual framework for consideration.Integrated Water Resources Management:A Basic DefinitionAlthough concepts of integrated water resourcesmanagement have been promoted for decades,the concept is currently in vogue and connotesUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM: Defi nitions and Conceptual Musings9different things to its users and advocates. Closelyrelated concepts have also come into and outof fashion, often under labels that do not fullyconvey the concept. Examples include river basinmanagement, a watershed approach, a systemsperspective, integrated assessment, and integratedwatershed management. Therefore, we start ourdiscussion by parsing the term “Integrated WaterResources Management,” word by word, to developa foundational working definition.Integrated (v. tr.) Defn: To have made whole bybringing all parts together; unified n.: Integrity—completeness, unityWater (n.; adj.) Defn: A liquid essential for mostlife and a widely used solvent; a body of water includinga sea, lake, river or streamResources (n) Defn: Something that can belooked to for support; and accessible supply; meansthat can be used to advantage or profitably; assetsManagement (n.) Defn: The act, manner, or practiceof managing, handling, or controlling something.Syn: control, handling v.: To manage. Tocontrive or arrange; succeed in doing or accomplishingsomething (objectives/goals implied).Combining the terms, integrated managementimplies unification of all essential actions intothe handling and control of water resources toaccomplish some goal or objective. Here “waterresources” means the physical, chemical, biological,economic, cultural, and many other useful “assets”of the nation’s wetlands, streams, rivers, lakes, andcoastal oceans. Management implies purposefulaction taken to achieve development, regulation,facility operation, and maintenance objectives.Management has full integrity when it is completeand unified in purpose from individual to local tonational and international scales of activity. Thissimplistic look implies a basic working definition:Integrated Water Resource Management is acoordinated, goal-directed process for controllingthe development and use of river, lake, ocean,wetland, and other water assets.Observation I: IWRM is a process; not a goal.Management is not a goal in itself, but the processused to achieve goals.Observation II: IWRM is a goal-directed process.Integrated Water Resources Management can bedirected by any of various goals, but is not tied toany single goal. For example, management can beintegrated to promote agricultural development, topromote economic prosperity, to exercise politicalcontrol, to maximize ecological productivity, or toimprove human welfare. Integrated managementcan be hierarchical; locally directed, for example,at achieving water resources project objectives thatserve national goals.Observation III: IWRM is a matter of degree.Integration is not all or nothing, and is most oftenpartial - there can be various degrees of coordination,cooperation, and communication completenessin collaborative integration of managementactivities. For example, some dredging activitiesadministered by Corps Civil Works may be wellcoordinated with beach nourishment activities, butmay not consider changes in upstream land uses;other dredging activities may consider both in amore complete inter-organizational managementof the regional sediment system.Goals for IWRM in the U.S. and within theCorps of EngineersIf IWRM is a desirable process, we need todetermine the most relevant goal(s) for focusingintegration locally, regionally, and nationally. Inthe U.S., with a patchwork of laws and policies thatguide water resources management, determining anational goal for water management is not clearcutand conclusive, but one good possibility can begleaned from the evolution of resource managementpolicy.As early as 1969, the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA) established a national policyto “encourage productive and enjoyable harmonybetween man and his environment; promoteefforts which will prevent or eliminate damageto the environment and biosphere and stimulatethe health and welfare of man.” This landmarklaw established that human welfare depends uponthe maintenance of environmental quality as wellas opportunities for human endeavor, and forcedfederal agencies to take this into considerationin resource development and other activities thatmight have environmental impact.Other important statutes followed after theJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

10Cardwell. Cole, Cartwright, and MartinNational Environmental Policy Act. Together withNEPA, they provide the U. S. Federal governmentwith a planning framework and enforceablestandards for protecting environment quality andauthority for restoring degraded environmentalquality. Arguably most important of many thatinfluence water resources management are theClean Water Act (which required restoration ofthe physical, biological, and chemical integrityof national waters), the Endangered Species Act(which directs the protection and recovery ofspecies at risk of extinction to a viable, sustainablestate), and various water resource development actsthat prescribe management actions for the nation’swaterways, including restoration of ecosystems inorder to recover damaged environmental quality toa more sustainable condition.At the direction of the 1965 Water ResourcesPlanning Act, a Water Resources Council wascreated to coordinate overarching federal poli-cy. Before it was disbanded in 1983, it wrote thePrinciples and Guidelines for Water and RelatedLand-Resources Management (U.S. Water Re-sources Council 1983), which set forth the federalobjective for water resources project planning. Theobjective incorporated the NEPA principle and thestandards set by other environmental laws to assureenvironmental protection at projects. It di-rected federal water resources investment projectsto “contribute to national economic development(NED) consistent with protecting the Nation’senvironment, pursuant to national environmentalstatutes…” Consideration of environmental qual-ity (EQ), regional economic development (RED),and other social effects is also explicitly allowedthrough additional “accounts.”Meanwhile, an important concept was evolvingprimarily in the international arena of the UnitedNations. With the establishment of the WorldCommission on Environment and Development,also known as the Brundtland Commission, bythe U.N. and the publication of its report entitled“Our Common Future” (World Commission onEnvironment and Development 1987), the termssustainable development and sustainability becamemuch more commonly a part of natural resourceand environmental management vocabulary andthinking. The Commission defined sustainabledevelopment as development “..to meet the needsof the present generation without compromisingthe ability of future generations to meet their ownneeds.” The World Bank incorporated this conceptof sustainable development into its policies anddefined its relationship to concepts of economic,environmental, and social sustainability (Goodlandand Daly 1996). In 1993 the President’s Councilon Sustainable Development (PCSD) was tasked“to develop bold, new approaches to integrateeconomic, environmental and equity issues” andhighlighted sustainable development as a nationalgoal for resource management in its 1996 report(President’s Council on Sustainable Development1996).Within this context of national policydevelopment, evolution of policies and goalswithin the water resource management agenciesis illustrated by the policies of the largest waterresources management program, the Civil WorksProgram of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(Loucks 2003). The goals of the Civil WorksProgram are presented in various documentsincluding the Civil Works Strategic Plan, PolicyGuidance Letter 61, the Environmental OperatingPrinciples, and its Engineering Regulation 1105-2-100 - the implementing guidance for the Principlesand Guidelines and for ecosystem restorationplanning (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2000).Policy Guidance Letter 61 (PGL 61, U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers 1999) presents policy forapplying a watershed perspective to Corps’ waterresources management, including a goal to guideapplication. Although PGL 61 does not mentionIWRM specifically, the policy for applying awatershed perspective aligns with the concept ofIWRM presented above. The goal is to assuresustainable use of water resources, taking intoaccount environmental protection, economicdevelopment, and social well-being. This goalwas derived from the President’s Council onSustainable Development and is consistent with asustainable development goal generally accepted byThe World Bank and achieved through economic,environmental, and social sustainability (Goodmanand Daly 1996).The Environmental Operating Principles (U.S.Army Corps of Engineers 2002) describe how toconduct practices within the Corps with the goalof environmental sustainability, pursued throughUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM: Defi nitions and Conceptual Musings11“a synergistic process whereby environmental andeconomic considerations are effectively balancedthrough the life cycle of project planning, design,construction, operation and maintenance to improvethe quality of life for present and future generations.”The doctrine behind the Environmental OperatingPrinciples recognized the great influence of thesustainable development concept developed by theBrundtland Commission.Thirdly, the Strategic Plan for the Corps’ CivilWorks Program (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers2004) specifically promotes “Integrated WaterResources Management and a watershed focus”as a means to achieve five strategic goals, the firstof which is to “provide sustainable developmentand integrated management of the nation’s waterresources.” The Strategic Plan sets a vision forthe Corps “as the premier public service providerof comprehensive, sustainable solutions for waterchallenges through integrated water resourcesmanagement.”The goals from the U.S. federal policydocuments (Table 1) indicate that the definitionof “sustainable development” as the nationalgoal for water resources management, is fullyconsistent, not only with guidance within theCorps, but also with national goals for naturalresources management outlined by the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act, the President’s Councilon Sustainable Development and the Principlesand Guidelines. However, any law or other clearstatement of national policy that explicitly states sohas yet to emerge. A sustainable development goalis unevenly acknowledged among agencies andits relationship to IWRM remains unclear. Whilethe goal of IWRM within the Corps’ Civil WorksProgram appears to be sustainable development,IWRM is not clearly stated as such in the CivilWorks Strategic Plan. Thus, while the concepts ofsustainable development and IWRM have recentlybecome prominent in U.S. water resources policy,they remain fragmented and evolutionary. Cleardeclaration of the relationship between IWRM andsustainable development could be the next majorstep in advancing water resources managementtoward a more coherent integration into nationaland international visions of a sustainable earth.Table 1. U.S. policy statements that help define a U.S. national goal for Integrated Water Resources Management(organized chronologically from 1969 to 2004).NEPASourcePrinciples and GuidelinesPresident’s Commissionon Sustainable DevelopmentReportPolicy Guidance Letter 61Environmental OperatingPrinciplesArmy Corps Strategic PlanGoalEncourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment;promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environmentand biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; enrich theunderstanding of ecological systems and natural resources important to thenationTo contribute to national economic development consistent with protecting thenation’s environment, pursuant to national environmental statutesA sustainable United States will have a growing economy that provides equitableopportunities for satisfying livelihoods and a safe, healthy, high quality oflife for current and future generations. Our nation will protect its environment,its natural resource base, and the functions and viability of natural systems onwhich all life depends… Sustainability as balancing of three major elements:environmental health, economic prosperity and social well-beingUse of water resources in a manner that is sustainable, taking into account environmentalprotection, economic development, and social well beingSeek balance and synergy among human development activities and naturalsystems by designing economic and environmental solutions that support andreinforce one another.Provide sustainable development and integrated management of the nation’swater resources.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

12Cardwell. Cole, Cartwright, and MartinConceptual Framework for IWRMEven with a definition of IWRM as a goaldirectedprocess and understanding of a possiblenational goal in the U.S., questions remain aboutwhat kind of integration is necessary in waterresources management. Basic hydrology conceptsillustrate the need for integration spatially;most clearly, geographically in the conceptof watershed or water catchments. The manydemands placed on water resources also imply aneed for integration over diverse managementobjectives, and, considering the fragmented natureof water management in the U.S., a need forintegration among institutions. Finally, becausevalues change and knowledge expands, there is aneed to integrate management over time. Hence“integrated” water resources management can andmust consider integration along at least four axes:space, objectives, institutions and time (Figure 1).1. Spatial Integration – coordination of managementfor unified achievement of commonobjectives and goals within a geographic areaand among vertical strata from lithosphere toatmosphere.2. Objective Integration – coordination ofmanagement for some optimum achievementof multiple objectives, such as for agricultural,forest, soil, flood control, navigation, recreation,hydropower, water supply, and environmentalresource improvements.3. Institutional Integration – Coordination acrossmandates, missions, policies, programs, projects,and management measures of governmentaland non-governmental institutions intounified achievement of common objectivesand goals.4. Temporal Integration – coordination ofactivities on different time scales—fromdaily operations to considerations decadesaway—into unified achievement of commonobjectives and goals.These axes place broad dimensions on theimplementation of integrated water resourcesmanagement. What should the spatial extent of ananalysis be to ensure achievement of common goalsand objectives? What objectives need to be consideredto enhance the success of management decisions?What other institutions, policies, programs, orFigure 1. Conceptual framework for IWRM using four axes.UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM: Defi nitions and Conceptual Musings13interests might be incorporated into planningand implementation to improve efficiency andeffectiveness? What are the cumulative long-termimpacts of management in a dynamic environmentand how might they be controlled through moreintegrated long-term planning? Whereas activitieswill differ in the degree of integration that isappropriate over each of these axes, the axes seta context to consider the appropriate degree ofintegration.Spatial Integration – The need to scope aproblem in a geographic or spatial manner is ascommon to project planners as it would be tooperators and regulators. Critical connectionscan be overlooked if a project plan, operatingplan, or regulatory decision limits considerationto interactions immediately upstream anddownstream. Conversely, it would be folly toanalyze interactions 1000 miles upstream ifthey were known not to affect the activity underconsideration. Thus a basic analytical challengefor IWRM is to scope the analysis broadly enoughspatially to consider all important consequencesof all interactions, but narrowly enough to beefficient in making decisions about planning,operations, regulations, and other considerations.In the realm of water resources management, planformulation is most often scoped in a geographydefined by the reach of watershed or coastalprocess into the planning environment, but planevaluation of the economic and environmentalconsequences considers a spatial context definedby business-system interactions that may notalign with the hydrology.Integration of Objectives – Objectives abound inwater resources management, so how do we considerwhich objectives to integrate? The significance ofthe effects on resource condition is a good guide.The effect can be positive or negative. A positiveeffect on resources produces significant benefits,that is, benefits that exceed costs. A negative effectresults in unacceptable environmental or othercosts. If the environmental effect is expected to benegative and significant, National EnvironmentalPolicy Act guidelines require an assessment ofenvironmental impacts and incorporation of thecosts of avoiding, minimizing, and compensatingfor the negative effect in project plans. In this way,environmental and national economic developmentobjectives are integrated for optimal societal result.Environmental assessment under the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act details how proposedmanagement activities affect a larger number ofobjectives. As with scoping spatially, if impactsof the proposed management activity on variousobjectives are not “significant,” then the scope ofintegration over objectives can be narrower. Inaddition to national objectives, water managementmust consider local or regional objectives, whichmay conflict with national objectives. This tensionbetween local and national interests in watermanagement has a long history and helped spurthe development of the Principles and Guidelinesto ensure that Federal water expenditures servednational as well as local objectives.Institutional Integration – Many institutionshave unique authorities and mandates thataffect water resources; hence the commonplaceinvolvement of multiple governmental and nongovernmentalinstitutions in water management.Yet what institutions need to be involved? Againthe issue is one of scope and degree – of whichorganizations to involve and how to involvethem. A rule of thumb would be if the plannedaction may significantly affect (or be affectedby) other institutions, then activities should beintegrated or at least coordinated. Institutions arealso hierarchically organized—internationallyto locally, for example. Generally, broad publicservice goals and objectives, established in lawsand executive orders originating in the top layer ofgovernment, are served via integration of agency,program, and project levels of execution. This interorganizationalvertical integration often shows upmost clearly in annual budget allocation decisions.An organizational strategic plan can facilitate thisintegration or confuse it.Integration over Time – Time pervades theconsideration of the degree of integration overthe other three axes. For example, communitywater-supply planners must consider long-termdemographic, economic or land use trends inthe immediate service area, but also coordinatedoperation of basin-wide infrastructure on a dailyor finer time scale. Objectives also may bedefined on differing time scales—acute waterquality conditions versus flow regimes that woulddepend on rainfall that year, or may change overJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

14Cardwell. Cole, Cartwright, and Martintime based on changing values, parameters orthe knowledge base. Because conditions such asdemographic shifts, economic or societal values,and knowledge of ecosystem interactions changeover time, water resources management must alsochange over time, requiring the incorporation ofadaptive management concepts. This reinforcesthe notion that IWRM is a process that requiresperiodic updates and review.This conceptual framework for IWRM providesa starting point for organizing thinking aboutand discussing IWRM, and thus provides thefoundation for the discussion that follows. Otheruseful frameworks are conceivable. For example,the time and institutional axes could be subsumedinto the objectives axis. Another example mightorganize spatial, temporal, and objective integrationbased on institutional types of integration, suchas functional (various agencies with variousmandates), vertical (local, state, federal), andhorizontal (state to state, local government tolocal government) (Muckleston 1990). Anotherapproach might emphasize integration of objectives(again considered in degrees) from singleobjective to watershed planning for economic andenvironmental objectives, to integration of Corpsactivities for a limited set of purposes along ariver corridor as opposed to the entire watershed,to planning across institutions’ activities formultiple objectives within an entire watershed(Stakhiv 1996). Regardless of approach, an IWRMframework should, minimally, provoke thinkingabout management integration for improved publicservice performance.Other Definitions for IWRMTo ground-truth our basic working definition ofIWRM as a coordinated, goal-directed process forcontrolling the development and use of river, lake,ocean, wetland, and other water assets, we compareit with definitions of IWRM that have been proposedby different agencies or organizations. We startwith the definition that appears to be most widelycited—that used by the Global Water Partnership:The integrated water resources management(IWRM) approach is defined as a process thatpromotes the coordinated development andmanagement of water, land and related resourcesin order to maximize the resultant economicand social welfare in an equitable mannerwithout compromising the sustainability of vitalecosystems (Global Water Partnership 2000: 22).Like our definition above, the Global WaterPartnership defines IWRM as a process. Unlikeour definition, Global Water Partnership extendsthe definition to a specific a goal – that ofmaximizing economic and social welfare to theextent allowed by an “equitable” manner and thesustainability of vital ecosystems. In extendingthe definition to explicitly set goals and constraintson water management, for better or for worse, theGlobal Water Partnership implicitly sets the IWRMconcept within a value system. Note that the goalis consistent with the sustainable developmentconcept.In terms of implementation, the Global WaterPartnership definition does not specify whataspects of management to coordinate, although thefour axes presented above can equally apply withinthe Global Water Partnership definition. TheGlobal Water Partnership also explicitly includeswater development as an aspect of management;our working definition similarly includes water“development” activities as water “management.”A second definition comes from the “water team”of the United States bi-lateral development agency—the U.S. Agency for International Development(USAID):IWRM brings together governments, communities,and other stakeholders to choose among alternativeuses of freshwater and coastal resources. Usinga participatory planning and implementationprocess, these stakeholders identify ways to meettheir diverse water needs without depleting ordamaging water resources and their underlyingecosystems (U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment 2003: 1).For the U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment, IWRM is about the process throughwhich integration should occur, focusing oninstitutional integration and objectives integration.Like the Global Water Partnership, the U.S. Agencyfor International Development definition alsoprescribes a specific goal of meeting diverse waterneeds in its definition of IWRM, and constrains theprocess by forbidding damage to water resourcesand ecosystems. The U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment definition focuses on uses of waterUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM: Defi nitions and Conceptual Musings15and ways for stakeholders to meet their waterneeds. Such a focus may limit the integration tomanagement activities that directly impact wateruse. Like the Global Water Partnership, the U.S.Agency for International Development does notspecify the aspects of management that will beintegrated. Also like the Global Water Partnership,the goal is consistent with the sustainabledevelopment concept.A third source is the World Bank:An integrated water resources perspectiveensures that social, economic, environmental andtechnical dimensions are taken into account in themanagement and development of water resources(World Bank 2003a:1).The World Bank’s integrated water resources“perspective” requires that multiple dimensionsor objectives be considered in water resourcesmanagement. This “perspective” is supplementedby the Bank’s 2003 policy paper that strongly andexplicitly endorses integrated water resourcesmanagement (World Bank 2003b). While the2003 paper does not define IWRM, it does referto it as a goal and, through a reference to “goodIWRM” implies that there are degrees of suchintegration. Although generally regarded as astrong endorsement of IWRM concepts (WorldBank 2003b), the Bank’s 1993 water policy paper(World Bank 1993) does not define or explicitlypromote the term “Integrated Water ResourcesManagement.” Overall, the Bank assumes thedefinition of IWRM is implicit and insteadconcentrates on potential Bank and governmentactions to improve management. This IWRMconcept is primarily procedural and only vaguelyimplies a sustainable development goal through theeconomic, environmental. and social dimensionsthat need to be “taken into account.”The United Nations Development Programme(UNDP):Integrated water resources management is basedon the perception of water as an integral part ofthe ecosystem, a natural resource and social andeconomic good (United Nations DevelopmentProgramme 1990: 22).The use of the term IWRM by the UnitedNations Development Programme emphasizesa broad perception of water having ecological,natural resources, and social and economic aspects.The emphasis is to enlarge the perception of therole of water; a broader perception of the multipleroles of water resources will thus lead to integrationacross objectives such as social, economic, andenvironmental, if not time, institutions and space.This “definition” is more derivative (where theconcept comes from) and is less procedural orgoal-oriented than others presented here.The Inter-American Development Bank (IADB)offers one of the more elaborate definitions:Integrated Water Resources Management: waterresources management where the aim of itsactions and projects also includes the allocationof water and decreasing of conflicts betweencompetitive water resource subsectors and uses,both in quantity and in quality. Sometimes it isalso referred to as comprehensive water resourcesmanagement…It is the process of diagnosing,responding to and resolving water use problems[while] acknowledging their interrelationships(Inter-American Development Bank 1998: 3).The Inter-American Development Bank definesIWRM as a process with the goal of reducing conflictover both water quality and quantity. The definitionexplicitly refers to various uses or objectives forwater management. By defining conflict reductionas the distinctive element of IWRM, the definitionimplies consideration of multiple objectives, thatvarious institutions are involved, that analysis isspatially integrated, and that conflicts might occurover time. The Inter-American Development Banksees integrated water resources management asa change in paradigm—“from development tomanagement and from a sectoral to an integratedapproach” (Inter-American Development Bank1998: 16).The IWRM concepts summarized above goconsiderably beyond the idea of at least someintegration across space, institutions, objectivesand time. The concepts refer to diverse water needs,the perception of water as a social and economicgood, and maximizing economic and social welfarein an equitable manner. Many mandate specificways to achieve integration, such as participatoryplanning and conflict resolution. Others specifygoals of the integration. Most of the definitionsreflect the new consensus that the process of waterresources management needs to consider social,JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

IWRM: Defi nitions and Conceptual Musings17it already has in much of the world.Summary and ConclusionsAs the demands placed on water resources in theU.S. and elsewhere have grown, many organizationsare promoting more collaborative, integratedapproaches to water resources management. Outof that concern, many terms and definitions formore integrated approaches to management haveproliferated with apparently small differencesin core concepts. Clearly, the need for moreintegrated management of water resources is nowwidely stressed, as indicated by the proliferation ofrelated terms and the concepts they represent.Despite general endorsement of IWRMin the U.S., full implementation of IWRM ishampered by inconsistent concept definition anda basic framework for concept implementation.Confusion has been abetted by using the “watershedapproach” in its place, based on a concept thatis much more limited than needed to facilitatemore effective integration. Our contribution tothe debate about how to implement integratedapproaches to water management in the U.S. wasto develop a basic definition of IWRM as a goalcenteredprocess, and a rudimentary framework fororganizing integration in public water resourcesmanagement. We view this as a starting place onlyfor more elaborate definition of IWRM practices inU.S. water resources management, and especiallyin the Civil Works Program of the Army Corps ofEngineers.In reviewing IWRM in the public waterresources management sector of the U.S., anational goal for focusing IWRM is emergingin the concept of sustainable development. Thisconcept has roots in U.S. environmental lawpassed over three decades ago, but has been muchinfluenced by concept development and advocacyin the United Nations and The World Bank. Inthe U.S., the Army Corps of Engineers referred tosustainable development as a basis for its recentpronouncement of Environmental OperatingPrinciples and identified it in one of five goals tobe pursued in the Civil Works Program.To further the discussion of how to integrate, thispaper suggested a conceptual framework for lookingat what to integrate by proposing four axes ofintegration: space, institutions, objectives, and time.These organizational concepts are inadequatelycaptured in the concepts of a “watershed approach”to water resources management, which is the mostrecent emphasis in the U.S. federal perspective.An analysis of other definitions of IWRM, derivedalmost entirely from international organizations,shows that different organizations go considerablybeyond the idea of IWRM as a process operatingthrough spatial, institutional, objective. and temporalintegration to touch on goals reflecting organizationalvalues. They reflect the consensus that the processof water resources management needs to considersocial and environmental aspects of water resourcesystems. They endorse a democratic concept thatthe public must be involved in decision-making.Author Bios and Contact InformationHAL CARDWELL (Ph.D.) has been with the U.S. ArmyCorps’ Institute for Water Resources since Dec 2002, andpresently leads a national interagency program on collaborativemodeling for water conflict resolution(www.sharedvisionplanning.us). He also works on IntegratedWater Resources Management policy, strategic planning,and public involvement issues. Prior to comingto the Corps, Hal spent eleven years with Oak RidgeNational Laboratory’s Environmental Sciences Division,including five on loan to the US Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID), three years stationedin Panama. Dr. Cardwell co-teaches water resourcesmanagement in the Part-Time graduate program atJohns Hopkins. Correspondences can be sent to Hal.E.Cardwell@usace.army.mil.RICHARD A. COLE (Ph.D.) is an ecologist and SeniorEnvironmental Planning with the Institute for WaterResources, US Army Corps of Engineers, and ProfessorEmeritus at the Department of Fishery and WildlifeSciences, New Mexico State University, where hedid interdisciplinary research and development focusedon sportfishery management planning models. Sincejoining the Institute, Dick has been involved in policyand planning studies concerning ecosystem-restoration,wetlands management, watershed planning and management,freshwater biodiversity, and nuisance species.A common theme in his recent work is improvementof environmental benefits analysis and how those projectbenefits contribute to national benefits and to theachievement of environmental sustainability.LAUREN A. CARTWRIGHT received her M.S. inAgricultural and Applied Economics from VirginiaTech in Blacksburg, Virginia in 2002. At this time herresearch and work focused on collaborative simulationmodeling for water demand forecasting on a river basinJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

18Cardwell. Cole, Cartwright, and Martinlevel. Since then she has worked with the US ArmyCorps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources whereshe became interested in the nation’s flooding problemsand related policies. Currently she works with theNatural Resources Conservation Service in Columbia,Missouri as part of an interdisciplinary team developingand evaluating flood damage reduction projects forwatersheds in Missouri.LYNN A. MARTIN is an Environmental Planner at theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources.Past work includes range of Civil Works policyand environmental program implementation issues. Hercurrent work focuses on system approaches through watershedstudies, integrated water resources management,regional sediment management, and integrated coastalmanagement. Lynn has served on assignments to Corpsheadquarters, and the Office of the Assistant Secretaryof the Army (Civil Works), developing Civil Works ecosystemrestoration policy and implementation guidance.Degrees: B.S. in Biology (Virginia Tech, Blacksburg,VA), M.S. in Environmental Planning (George MasonUniversity, Fairfax, VA).ReferencesGlobal Water Partnership. 2000. Integrated WaterResources Management Policy. TAC BackgroundPaper #4. Stockholm.Goodland, R and H. Daly. 1996. Environmentalsustainability: Universal and non-negotiable.Ecological Applications 6:1002-1017.Inter-American Development Bank. 1998. IntegratedWater Resources Management in Latin America andthe Caribbean Technical Report No. ENV-123.Loucks, D. P. 2003. Managing America’s rivers:Who’s doing it? International Journal of RiverBasin Management 1(1):21-31.Muckleston K. W. 1990. Integrated watermanagement in the United States. In B. Mitchell.(Editor). Integrated Water Management:International experiences and perspectives.Belhaven Press, New York.President’s Council on Sustainable Development.1996. Sustainable America: A New Consensus.Government Printing Office, Washington, DC20402-9328. Online at http://Clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/overview/.Stakhiv E. 1996. Perspectives on Corps watershedplanning. A briefing on 4 April 1996. Institute forWater Resources, Alexandria, Virginia.United Nations Development Programme. 1990. SafeWater 2000. New York.U.S. Agency for International Development. 2003.Onlice at http://www.usaid.gov/environment/why_protect_water.html.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999. PolicyGuidance Letter 61, “Application of WatershedPerspective to Corps of Engineers Civil WorksPrograms and Activities”. CECW-AA, HQUSACE,Washington, DC 20314.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2000. EngineeringRegulation (ER) 1105-2-100, “Guidance forConducting Civil Works Planning Studies (a.k.a.“Planning Guidance Notebook (PGN).” CEW-P,HQ-USACE, Washington, DC 20314.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. EnvironmentalOperating Principles. USACE EnvironmentalOperating Principles and ImplementationGuidance. HQUSACE, Washington, DC 20314.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Civil WorksStrategic Plan Fiscal Year 2004 – Fiscal Year 2009.CECW-Z, HQUSACE, Washington, DC 20314.U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department ofCommerce (National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration), U.S. Department of Defense, U.S.Department of Energy, U.S. Department of theInterior, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Tennessee Valley Authority and U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers. 2000. Unifi ed Federal Policy for aWatershed Approach to Federal Land and ResourceManagement; Notice, Federal Register 65(202),October 18, pp. 62565-62572. Online at http://www.cleanwater.gov/ufp/UFP_final_FR.pdf.U.S. Water Resources Council. 1983. Economicand Environmental Principles and Guidelines forWater and Related Land Resources ImplementationStudies. U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington, DC.World Bank. 1993. Policy Paper : Water ResourcesManagement. Washington, D.C.World Bank. 2003a. Online at http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/ardext.nsf/18ByDocName/WaterResourcesManagement.World Bank. 2003b. Water Resources Sector Strategy:Strategic Directions for World Bank Engagement.Washington D.C.World Commission on Environment and Development.1987. Our Common Future. Oxford UniversityPress, New York.UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

19UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONISSUE 135, PAGES 19-27, DECEMBER 2006Integrated Water Resources Management in TheNetherlands: How Concepts FunctionErik MostertRBA Centre, Delft University of Technology, The NetherlandsSince the early 1990s (Mitchell 1990, DublinStatement 1992, Global Water Partnership2000, 2005). IWRM calls for a holisticmanagement of watersheds. It emphasizes the needto give full consideration to surface and groundwater, to quantity and quality issues, to ecology,to the relation between land and water resourcesand to the different socio-economic functions ofthe watershed.IWRM has received a lot of attention, butimportant questions still remain. For instance,what should be the objectives of IWRM? ShouldIWRM promote nature conservation, economicdevelopment, or the interests of the poor? And howshould IWRM be implemented; through top-downcomprehensive planning or bottom-up adaptivemanagement (Mitchell 2005, Jeffrey and Gearey2006)? Should all water-related competencies beintegrated in one organization (Biswas 2004a, b),or is improved co-operation the key to IWRM(Mostert et al. in press)? And what about largedams, privatization, and water pricing?This article aims to stimulate reflection on theIWRM concept using a country with a long IWRMhistory, The Netherlands, as an example. First, itintroduces Dutch water management and thendiscusses the introduction of the IWRM concept inDutch water management. Moreover, it discusseshow IWRM was interpreted and the impact it hashad on water management institutions, researchand practice. In addition, the article concludes thatIWRM is highly political. IWRM professionalshave to decide whom and what they want to serve.Dutch Water ManagementThe Netherlands is a small, densely populatedcountry with an area of 37,400 sq km (includinginland water) and a population of 16.3 million. Thecountry lies in the delta of the three major North-West European rivers: the Rhine, the Meuse andthe Scheldt. It is a very flat country. More than halfof the country is prone to sea or river floods or towater logging (Huisman 2004). Average annualrainfall is about 800 mm, with a deficit in thesummer months. Due to climate change, floodingand water scarcity problems may increase in thefuture (Können 2001).Industrial and urban water pollution has beenreduced drastically since 1970, but there is still alot of historical pollution in the form of pollutedsediments. Major problem substances nowadays arenitrate and phosphate from agriculture (Ministerievan Verkeer en Waterstaat 2005). Dutch agricultureis very intensive and uses about two-thirds of allthe land.Water management in The Netherlands is quitecomplex. Originally, water management wasthe responsibility of individual land owners andlocal communities. However, from around 800CE onwards, many swamps were drained. Thisresulted in soil subsidence and necessitated supralocalflood protection and drainage works fromaround 1100 onwards. To supervise these works,regional waterboards were established. Moreover,from around 1400 onwards, small polder boardswere established to drain small polders by means ofwind mills (Ven 2004). Together with the regionalwater boards, they are the ancestors of the presentUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

20Mostert26 water boards responsible for management ofmost surface water and for sewage treatment. Thesewers themselves are the responsibility of 458municipalities.At the regional level there are 12 provinces. Theysupervise the water boards and the municipalities;make water, environmental and land-use plans andregulate ground water withdrawals. In addition,they have an important role in nature protection.At the national level, three ministries deal withwater management. The Ministry of Transportationand Public Works coordinates the preparation ofnational water policy and national water legislation.Through Rijkswaterstaat (the State WaterManagement Agency) this ministry is responsiblefor the management of the major rivers and canals.The Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and theEnvironment is in charge of drinking water policyand legislation, environmental policy, and land-usepolicy. The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature andFood Security is, as the name suggests, responsiblefor national policy and legislation in the field ofnature protection and agriculture.Drinking water supply is the responsibility of15 drinking water companies. Their legal status isthat of private companies, but they are owned bymunicipalities and/or provinces.The Netherlands is one of the foundingmembers of the European Union (EU). The EU hasa profound effect on water management, directlythough its many water directives, which are bindingfor the EU Member States, and indirectly throughits Common Agricultural Policy.Systems ThinkingThe term IWRM (“integraal waterbeheer”)was first used in Dutch water management in1980 in the Province of Gelderland (CommissieBestudering Waterhuishouding Gelderland 1980).The term became well known following thepublication in 1985 of the report Living with Water;Towards integral water policy, and in 1989, IWRMbecame national policy (Ministerie van Verkeer enWaterstaat 1985, 1989).IWRM in the first years can be summarizedin two phrases: systems analysis and ecologicalapproach. Systems analysis was first practiced inthe Province of Gelderland. In 1970, the ProvincialGovernment had set up a commission that was toprovide a scientific basis for an optimal managementof surface and ground water quantity and quality(Commissie Bestudering WaterhuishoudingGelderland 1975, CHO TNO 1976).At the same time, Rijkswaterstaat wasstruggling with the problem of balancing thedifferent functions of the Dutch waters. ProfessorToebes from Purdue University (Indiana, USA),on sabbatical in The Netherlands, suggested that“what you need is system analysis: it solves lotsof problems in the States” (Blumenthal 1989, p.18). Systems analysis was subsequently used in thepreparation of the Second National Water Policy,published in 1985 (Rijkswaterstaat and RandCorporation 1978, Wisserhof 1994).In the same year, the report Living with Water;Towards integral water policy was also published.This report introduced the water system approach.It defined water systems as “the geographicallydemarcated, interrelated and functioning whole ofsurface waters, ground water, water beds, banksand technical infrastructure, including the existingecosystem and all the accompanying physical,chemical and biological features and processes. The(boundaries) of a water system … are determined inthe first instance on the grounds of morphological,ecological and functional relationships” (Ministerievan Verkeer en Waterstaat 1985, p. 35). Thewater systems approach “gives priority to thewater system …. The approach aims at optimalcoordination of the wishes of society with regardto the functions and the functioning of the watersystems … by means of an integral considerationof (these wishes and) the potential of the systems…” (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 1985).The water system approach thus involvedthe identification of water systems and the“balancing” (matching) of the social demandson and the potentials of these systems. Watersystems were supposed to be physical entitieswith fixed boundaries. This approach did makesense for the large state-managed water bodies inthe southwestern part of The Netherlands, wherethe approach was first developed (see the nextsection). It made less sense for the many smallcanals and ditches in the Dutch polders: half of TheNetherlands would be a water system (Kuijpersand Glasbergen 1990). Therefore, an alternativeapproach developed, seeing water systemUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM in the Netherlands21boundaries as flexible, depending on the functionalrelationships that are relevant in a specific case (e.g.the relevant systems are very different in the caseof shipping, eutrophication or flooding). Currently,water (management) systems are defined briefly as“an interconnected whole of surface and groundwaters” (art. 1 Water Management Act).The Ecological ApproachInitially, IWRM had a strong ecologicalemphasis. The term was used in relation to issuessuch as eutrophication, polluted sediments, activeecological management and nature-friendly banks(Rijkswaterstaat 1987, Bijlsma 1988, Roijackers etal. 1992). This emphasis has its roots in the 1970sas well.Around 1970, Rijkswaterstaat was planning theclosure of the Eastern Scheldt as one of the lastparts of the Delta Works, developed after the 1953flood disaster to improve safety in the southwesternpart of The Netherlands. A negative side-effectof these works was the loss of tidal area and ofa profitable oyster culture. Previously, these sideeffects had not received priority. However, by 1970environmental concern had grown considerably.At first, Rijkswaterstaat did not respond tothe new environmental concerns. This changedafter the 1973 elections, which had brought acentral-left government to power. Rijkswaterstaatwas forced to re-evaluate its plans. In the end, itdeveloped a very innovative but very expensivesolution with minimal environmental impacts: theEastern Scheldt storm surge barrier. In addition,Rijkswaterstaat attracted many biologists for itsDelta Works department (Disco 2002, Brugge etal. 2005).The ecological approach to IWRM was as mucha political as a scientific approach (cf. Disco 2002).New issues came on the agenda and new solutionswere proposed. The First National Water Policyof 1968 had focused exclusively on increasingwater supply through large scale infrastructure.The Second National Water Policy of 1985 hadintroduced an economic approach to water supplyand had touched upon the water quality issue. Onlythe Third National Water Policy of 1989 consideredsurface and ground water quantity and quality inan integrated fashion, but with a strong emphasison nature protection (Table 1).The ecological approach lasted approximatelyten years. During the 1989 national elections,attention to environmental issues was at its peak(Nas et al. 1997). In the late 1990s, the deputyminister responsible for water management toldher staff members not to pay much attention toecological issues (personal communication). Partlyas a result of (near) floods in 1993 and 1995 (Silva etal. 2004), flooding and water logging had receiveda much higher priority. The current Fourth NationalWater Policy from 1998 espouses IWRM as its basicphilosophy, but gives IWRM a far less ecologicalinterpretation and contains less ambitious goals(Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 1998).InstitutionsAlready Living with Water from 1985 mentionedpossible implications of IWRM for the Dutch watermanagement institutions. IWRM requires close cooperationof all authorities with competency overor influence on the water system, well-developedlegislation, and well-developed financing systems.In all respects there were problems. The number ofauthorities was large and their competencies wereoften overlapping. Water legislation had developedin a piecemeal and not very well coordinatedfashion and there were still important gaps. Finally,the financing system was complex, with differenttaxes and charges and narrowly defined spendingpurposes.Several institutional developments had alreadystarted before 1985. The number of water boardshad decreased from 2500 in 1953 to 255 in 1985and national water legislation was gradually beingcompleted. In 1989, the Water Management Actwas enacted, which introduced a planning systemfor surface and ground water quantity and quality.In theory, this planning system is coordinated withland use planning and environmental planning,but in practice it does not work well because ofdifferences in planning frequencies, planningprocedures and status of the plans (Kuijpersand Glasbergen 1990, Brussaard et al. 1995).At the moment an integrated water act isbeing discussed in parliament (Heer et al. 2004).This act will replace the existing water acts andaims to improve coordination with land useplanning, environmental management and natureconservation. It will not make Dutch waterJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

22MostertTable 1. Third National Water Policy (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 1989, 1990).Main goal: “To have and maintain a safe and habitable country as the prior condition and to develop and maintainhealthy water systems that guarantee sustainable use”Subsidiary goal: Integrated water management based on the water system approach“Target situations”Ground water in the dunes and upper parts of the Netherlands:• no desiccation• no ground water pollution• dunes as storage place for drinking water• botanical quality of dune valleys unique in Western EuropeSprings, streams and meres:• natural gradients, banks and drainage• oligotrophic and isolated meresRivers:• transport arteries• salmon in the Rhine and Meuse in 2000• green ribbons winding through the landscapeGround water in the lower Netherlands:• responsible management of ground water level• sustained use of peaty soilsLakes:• “away with the green soup” (no eutrophication)• sanctuary for fish, birds, otters and anglersDug waters (canals, ditches):• not only for drainage, water supply and shipping, but also for migration of animals• ditches as a richly spread table for stork and heronEstuaries:• ocean shipping without problems, creative use of spoil• seal and porpoise return to deltaic area• attractive for anglers, swimmers and surfers and for sailingSeas:• healthy fish and seals in a healthy sea• North Sea source of raw materials and energy• tourist attractionStrategic goals to reach main goal (“tracks”)• Protection against pollution, e.g. reduction of emissions between 50 and 90% and restoration ofpolluted water beds• Hydraulic design of rivers, floodplains and banks, serving both human goals and ecology• “Guided use”: no new water supply and drainage infrastructure, retention of rainfall,prioritization in times of shortage, sustainable groundwater use for economy, nature, forestsand landscape• Organization and instrumentation, regional waterboards based on hydraulic units, quantityand quality management under single control, policy instruments and financing system facilitate IWRM,transboundary issuesInterim goals for 1995 for each strategic goal (often more specific and far less ambitious)Supportive policies to reach the (interim) goalsUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM in the Netherlands23management simple. For example, for most areasthere will still be three water policy plans, threeor four water management plans, three land useplans, two or three environmental plans, and so on.If institutional development were only amatter of expediency and efficiency, simpler andmore transparent institutions would have beenachieved a long time ago. As it is, institutionaldevelopment affects many vested institutionalinterests and is highly political in nature (cf.Klijn and Koppenjan 2006). In this arena,IWRM has played an active, instrumental role.As discussed, environmental management andwater resources management in The Netherlandsare institutionally separated, but in practiceboth policy fields overlap. This has resulted incompetency struggles between the two ministriesinvolved, especially concerning water qualitymanagement, ground water management and theissue of polluted water sediments. IWRM wasdeveloped at the water management ministry, butaround the same time the environmental ministrydeveloped its own integrated approach, calledintegrated environmental management. Analysis ofthe chronology of events suggests that the differentapproaches were developed, at least partly, in orderto claim or defend authority over the overlap oftheir policy fields (Betlem 1998, p. 162). In asimilar vein, the notion of IWRM has been usedby the water boards to claim competencies andlegitimate their existence as specialized watermanagement bodies.AcademiaFrom the very beginning IWRM has had anoticeable impact on water management researchand education. In 1986-1990, the University ofUtrecht and the Delft University of Technologyconducted contract research for the State WaterManagement Agency to support the preparationsfor the Third National Water Policy (Glasbergen etal. 1988, Kuijpers and Glasbergen 1990). Moreover,from 1993 onwards, part-time professors in IWRM,funded by Rijkswaterstaat were appointed at fourDutch Universities, Three professors came fromRijksinstituut voor Integraal Zoetwaterbeheer enAfvalwaterbehandeling (RIZA), the freshwaterresearch institute of Rijkswaterstaat (including itsdirector), and the fourth one was the director of aregional branch of Rijkswaterstaat. In their courses,they presented the development and background ofDutch water management, with a strong emphasison the Third National Water Policy. At the DelftUniversity of Technology, much emphasis was puton the systems approach in water management.At this university a second part-time professor inIWRM was appointed, coming from the researchinstitute WL | Delft Hydraulics.Research for IWRM was typically interpreted asinterdisciplinary research (Wisserhof 1994). Severalinterdisciplinary Ph.D. projects were set up,funded by Rijkswaterstaat, the Dutch Foundationfor Fundamental Research and university funds, inwhich Ph.D. students from different disciplines cooperatedon one water system, usually one of themajor Dutch rivers. Several interesting Ph.D. thesescame out of these projects (Nollkaemper 1993,Dieperink 1997, Verlaan 1998, Dieperink 1999,Lorenz 1999, Meijerink 1999, Veeren 2002, Timmermans2004). The Ph.D. students co-operated alot, but sooner or later their projects drifted apart.The IWRM concept could not sufficiently counterbalancethe strong tendency in The Netherlandstowards mono-disciplinary research. No interdisciplinarytheoretical framework was used and thesupervisors of the Ph.D. students had limited or noexperience with interdisciplinary Ph.D. research.Frameworks that might have been helpful include“social learning” and “action research” (Ridder etal. 2005, Pahl-Wostl et al. in press.)A number of Dutch researchers have criticallyreviewed the IWRM concept (Rooy and Jong1995, Ast 1999, Slobbe 2002). Typically, theyequated IWRM with the Third National WaterPolicy and its implementation. In their eyes,IWRM was eco-centric and technocratic, had anarrow water management focus and paid toolittle attention to the relation between land andwater management, to public participation andto the societal and economic aspects of watermanagement. Some of these researchers havedeclared the end of the IWRM phase in Dutchwater management and the start of a new phase,called “total water management” (Rooy and Jong1995) or “interactive water management” (Ast1999). Others more modestly called for valuebaseddiscussion and action (Slobbe 2002).JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

24MostertImplementationThe ambitious goals of the Third NationalWater Policy have not been achieved completely,but significant progress has been made (Ministerievan Verkeer en Waterstaat 1996, 2005). Tostimulate IWRM, several projects were initiated byRijkswaterstaat in the 1980s and 1990s (Glasbergen1992). Moreover, subsidies were given for IWRMpilots at the regional level. As discussed, theseprojects were generally ecologically oriented.Several factors were identified constraining theimplementation of IWRM (Kuijpers and Glasbergen1990, Rooy 1995). They can be summarized undertwo headings: limited process management andcontextual constraints.Process management (or “network management”)refers to how co-operation and decision-making isorganized. It refers to issues such as the type of projectorganization, facilitation of the process and in- andexclusion of stakeholders. Process managementis often contrasted with hierarchical steering byone government body who sets directions andensures implementation through legal and othermeans (Klijn and Koppenjan 2000, Bruijn et al.2002). In IWRM there is usually no governmentbody with sufficient resources to fulfill this role.Instead, direction setting and implementation hasto be a joint activity involving a lot of cooperationbetween all stakeholders. Several approaches andtechniques exist to promote this (Gray 1989, Ridderet al. 2005, Pahl-Wostl et al. in press).Several contextual factors complicate cooperationand decision-making. These include the formalinstitutional structure, discussed above, thepolitical and scientific culture and environmentalawareness. In Dutch politics, individual initiativesare often rewarded more than collaboration. Thereis still a lot of resistance against truly interactiveapproaches and sharing of responsibility. Governmentbudgets are under pressure and increasinglylegal accountability gets priority over efficacy andinnovation. As a result, many individuals and organizationsfocus exclusively on their own tasksinstead of taking a broad, integrated view. Manytechnical experts focus exclusively on their area ofexpertise and pay less attention to communicationand co-operation with other disciplines, with watermanagers and with the other stakeholders. Finally,over the years water and environmental awarenesshave fluctuated. This has had repercussions for thesocial, political, and financial support for IWRM.IWRM is still official government policyand the concept will be incorporated in thenew integrated water act. However, the popularityof IWRM has decreased (see Figure 1).This can be partly attributed to the difficulties4.00%3.50%3.00%2.50%2.00%1.50%1.00%0.50%0.00%1980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004Figure 1. Percentage of Dutch water management reports, books and articles with “integrated water” in the title(based on the Hydrotheek database: http://library.wur.nl/hydrotheek).UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM in the Netherlands25of putting the Third National Water Policy intopractice. As far as water quality and ecology areconcerned, the importance of the Third and FourthWater Policy has been eclipsed by the EuropeanWater Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) from2000. This directive requires the EU MemberStates to prepare river basin management plansand reach a “good water status” of all its waters by2015 (Kallis and Butler 2001, Kaika 2003, Kaikaand Page 2003). In case of non-compliance theywill eventually be fined by the European Courtof Justice. A huge amount of attention in TheNetherlands is now going to the implementation ofthe Water Framework Directive.DiscussionWhat do the Dutch experiences tell us aboutIWRM? First of all, they tell us that IWRM iscontext specific. In The Netherlands, the IWRMconcept emerged in a specific water managementcontext, was interpreted and used in this context andin turn exerted some influence on this context. Thesame will be true in other countries. Consequently,IWRM cannot be evaluated independently from itscontext.Secondly, the Dutch experiences show thatIWRM functions ideologically. IWRM emphasizesthe need to consider all aspects and all functionsof water. At the same time, the concept hides thefact that in practice priorities are set and politicalchoices are made. In The Netherlands, IWRM wasdefined in neutral terms (“system,” “co-ordination,”and so forth), but in practice it promoted, at leastinitially, ecology and nature protection and wasused to defend the interests of the water sector.The ideological functioning of IWRM is notprimarily due to intentional, strategic behavior(although strategic behavior does occur). Rather,the case is that if IWRM is to function at all, it has toappeal to influential individuals and organizations.It has to fit in or link up with the world view andthe values of individuals and organizations who caninfluence public opinion, research agendas, policyagendas and implementation. Thus, social andpolitical relations influence whether and how theIWRM concept is used and how it is interpreted.At this point it may be worthwhile to emphasizethat this article has not analyzed IWRM as a specifictype of water management. The problem withthis is that there is no agreement on what type ofwater management IWRM exactly is. Instead, thisarticle has analyzed the functioning of the IWRMconcept in a specific country. It has described how“IWRM” was introduced, used, interpreted and reinterpretedin The Netherlands. This has resultedin a richer picture of water management and therole that concepts, social relations, and power playin it (cf. the notion of symbolic power: Bourdieu1991).The current analysis is quite critical, but onecan draw a positive lesson from it. If it is true thatIWRM is inevitably ideological, the work of IWRMprofessionals cannot be neutral. They always servesomeone or something. Their role is not limitedto delivering technically and scientifically soundinformation. In addition, they have to listen andgive a voice to all stakeholders, including theunderprivileged. Or they can make another choice,but a choice has to be made.Author Bio and Contact InformationERIK MOSTERT has been director of the RBACentre of the Delft University of Technology since1995, where he teaches integrated water resourcesmanagement and water law. His research interestsinclude social learning, international cooperationand water management institutions. He has beeninvolved in several research projects for the EuropeanCommission, the Dutch government, UNEP,UNESCO and several other institutions. Moreover,he has been a member of the European Commission’sand Member States’ drafting group on PublicParticipation and the Water Framework Directive.ReferencesAst, J. A. v. 1999. Trends towards interactive watermanagement: Developments in international riverbasin management. Physics and Chemistry of theEarth (B) 24:597-602.Betlem, I. 1998. Relationships between water policy andenvironmental policy. In F. N. Correia, (ed.) WaterResources Management in Europe: Institutions, Issuesand Dilemmas. 143-179. Balkema, Rotterdam.Bijlsma, A. 1988. Integraal waterbeheer; een nieuweaanpak; symposium 1986, stand van zaken 1988.Nederlands Instituut van Biologen, Utrecht.Biswas, A. K. 2004a. Integrated water resourcesmanagement: A reassessment. Water International29:398-405.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

26MostertBiswas, A. K. 2004b. Response to Commentsby Mitchell, Lamoree, and Dukhovny. WaterInternational 29: 398-405.Blumenthal, K. P. 1989. Hoe beleidsanalyse inNederland kwam. In Beleidsanalyse voor hetNederlandse waterbeheer; uitgave ter gelegenheidvan het afscheid van K.P.Blumenthal, 3-36. BureauSAMWAT, ‘s-Gravenhage.Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and symbolic power.Polity, Cambridge.Brugge, R. v. d., J. Rotmans, and D. Loorbach. 2005.The transition in Dutch water management. RegionalEnvironmental Change 5:164-176.Bruijn, H. d., E. ten Heuvelhof, and R. in ‘t Veld. 2002.Process management; Why project managementfails in complex decision making processes. KluwerAcademic, Dordrecht.Brussaard, W., M. v. d. Velde, and C. J. v. As. 1995. Eenbrede kijk op waterbeheer: een juridisch-bestuurlijkeevaluatie van het instrumentarium van de Wet op dewaterhuishouding. Projectteam NW4, Den Haag.CHO TNO. 1976. Systeembenadering voor hetwaterbeheer. Central Organization for AppliedScientific Research in The Netherlands, Den Haag.Commissie Bestudering Waterhuishouding Gelderland.1975. Modelonderzoek 1971 - 1974 ten behoevevan de waterhuishouding in Gelderland; deel 1:Onderzoek in relatie tot beleidsvoorbereiding.Commissie Bestudering Waterhuishouding Gelderland.1980. Een systeembenadering voor de waterhuishoudingvan Gelderland; eindrapport;. z. uitg., Arnhem.Dieperink, C. 1997. Tussen zout en zalm lessen uit deontwikkeling van het regime inzake de Rijnvervuiling.Thesis Publishers, Amsterdam.Dieperink, C. 1999. From open sewer to salmon run:Lessons from the Rhine water quality regime. WaterPolicy 471-485.Disco, C. 2002. Remaking “nature”: The ecological turnin Dutch water management. Science, Technology &Human Values 27:206-235.Dublin Statement. 1992. The Dublin Statement andReport of the Conference. International Conferenceon Water and the Environment: Development issuesfor the 21st century, 26-31 January 1992, Dublin,Ireland.Glasbergen, P. 1992. Comprehensive policy planningfor water systems. International Journal of WaterResources Development 8:45-52.Glasbergen, P., J. Wessel, J. H. P. Baltissen, C. J.Compaijen, M. C. Groenenberg, and C. B. F. Kuijpers.1988. Samenhang en samenspel in het waterbeheer;het streven naar integraal waterbeheer het strevennaar integraal waterbeheer. DUP, Delft.Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating : Finding common groundfor multiparty problems, 1st edition. Jossey-Bass,San Francisco.Global Water Partnership. 2000. Integrated WaterResources Management. Global Water Partnership.Global Water Partnership. 2005. Toolbox IntegratedWater Resources Management. Global WaterPartnership.Heer, J. d., S. Nijwening, S. D. Vuyst, M. v. Rijswick, T.Smit, and J. Groenendijk. 2004. Towards IntegratedWater Legislation in The Netherlands; Lessons fromother countries. Twijnstra Gudde/ Royal Haskoning.Huisman, P. (ed.). 2004. Water in the Netherlands:managing checks and balances. NetherlandsHydrological Society, Netherlands HydrologicalSociety (NHV).Jeffrey, P., and M. Gearey. 2006. Integrated waterresources management: Lost on the road fromambition to realisation? Water Science & Technology53: 1-8.Kaika, M. 2003. The Water Framework Directive: ANew Directive for a Changing Social Political andEconomic European Framework. European PlanningStudies 11.Kaika, M., and B. Page. 2003. The EU Water FrameworkDirective: Part 1. European Policy-making andthe changing topography of lobbying. EuropeanEnvironment 13: 314-327.Kallis, G., and D. Butler. 2001. The EU water frameworkdirective: measures and implications. Water Policy3: 125-142.Klijn, E.-H., and J. F. M. Koppenjan. 2000. Publicmanagement and policy networks; Foundations of anetwork approach to governance. Public Management2: 135-158.Klijn, E.-H., and J. F. M. Koppenjan. 2006. Institutionaldesign; Changing institutional features of networks.Public Management Review 8:141-160.Können, G. P. 2001. Climate Scenarios for ImpactStudies in The Netherlands. Royal NetherlandsMeteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt.Kuijpers, C. B. F., and P. Glasbergen. 1990. Perspectievenvoor integraal waterbeheer; een bestuurskundigeanalyse ten behoeve van de uitwerking van integraalwaterbeheer. SDU Uitgeverij, ‘s-Gravenhage.Lorenz, C. M. 1999. Indicators for sustainableUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM in the Netherlands27management of rivers. PhD thesis. Vrije Universiteit,Amsterdam.Meijerink, S. V. 1999. Confl ict and cooperation on theScheldt river basin a case study of decision makingon international Scheldt issues between 1967 and1997. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. 1985. Living withwater: Towards an integral water policy.Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. 1989. Derde notawaterhuishouding; water voor nu en later. SDUUitgeverij, ‘s-Gravenhage.Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. 1990. Derdenota waterhuishouding; water voor nu enlater; regeringsbeslissing. SDU Uitgeverij, ‘s-Gravenhage.Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. 1996. Toekomstvoor Water; nota watersysteemverkenningen.Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Den Haag.Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. 1998. Vierde notaWaterhuishouding Regeringsbeslissing. Ministerievan Verkeer en Waterstaat, Den Haag.Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. 2005. Waterin Beeld 2005; Voortgangsrapportage over hetwaterbeheer in Nederland. Ministerie van Verkeeren Waterstaat, Den Haag.Mitchell, B. 1990. Integrated water management;international experiences and perspectives. BelhavenPress, London.Mitchell, B. 2005. Integrated water resourcesmanagement, institutional arrangements, and landuseplanning. Environment and Planning 37: 1335-1352.Mostert, E., M. Craps, and C. Pahl-Wostl. in press.Social Learning: the key to integrated water resourcesmanagement? Water International.Nas, M., P. Dekker, and C. Hemmers. 1997.Maatschappelijke organisaties, publieke opinie enmilieu. VUGA, Den Haag.Nollkaemper, P. A. 1993. The legal regime fortransboundary water pollution: between discretionand constraint. Nijhoff/ Graham & Trotman,Dordrecht/ London.Pahl-Wostl, C., M. Craps, A. Dewulf, E. Mostert, D.Tabara, and T. Taillieu. in press. Social learning andwater resources management. Ecology and Society.Ridder, D., E. Mostert, and H. A. Wolters (eds.). 2005.Learning Together To Manage Together; ImprovingParticipation in Water Management. University ofOsnabrueck, USF, Osnabrueck.Rijkswaterstaat. 1987. Integraal waterbeheer; standvan zaken december 1986. Rijkswaterstaat DienstBinnenwateren/ RIZA, Lelystad.Rijkswaterstaat, and Rand Corporation. 1978. PolicyAnalysis for the Water Management of the Netherlands(Pawn): A Progress Report. Santa Monica.Roijackers, R. M. M., P. J. T. Verstraelen, and L. v. Liere,editors. 1992. Integraal (water)beheer in de praktijkgebracht. Commissie voor Hydrologisch OnderzoekTNO, Delft.Rooy, P. T. C. J. v., and J. d. Jong. 1995. Towardscomprehensive water management in The Netherlands(1): Developments. European Water Pollution Control5:59-65.Rooy, P. T. C. J. v. 1995. Towards comprehensive watermanagement in The Netherlands (2): Bottlenecks.European Water Pollution Control 5:33-40.Silva, W., J. P. M. Dijkman, and D. P. Loucks. 2004.Flood management options for The Netherlands.International Journal of River Basin Management2:101-112.Slobbe, E. v. 2002. Waterbeheer tussen crisis envernieuwing; Een studie naar vernieuwingsprocessenin de sturing van regionaal waterbeheer. Ph.D. thesis.Wageningen University, Wageningen.Timmermans, J. 2004. Purposive Interaction in Multi-Actor Decision Making: Operationalizing Coleman’sLinear System of Action for Policy Decision Support.EBURON, Delft.Veeren, R. J. H. M. v. d. 2002. Economic analyses ofnutrient abatement policies in the Rhine basin. Ph.D.thesis. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.Ven, G. P. v. d., Ed. 2004. Man-made lowlands historyof water management and land reclamation in theNetherlands, 4th edition. Matrijs, Utrecht.Verlaan, P. A. J. 1998. Mixing of marine and fl uvialparticles in the Scheldt estuary. S.n, S.l.Wisserhof, J. 1994. Matching research and policy inintegrated water management. DUP, Delft.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

28UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONISSUE 135, PAGES 28-35, DECEMBER 2006Exploring the Government, Society, and Science Interfacesin Integrated Water Resource Management in South AfricaPeter J. Ashton, Anthony R. Turton, and Dirk J. RouxCouncil for Scientifi c and Industrial Research, Natural Resources and the Environment, Pretoria, South AfricaMost modern approaches to water resourcemanagement acknowledge that theentire river basin or catchment shouldform the basic management unit if water resourcesare to be managed effectively and efficiently. Inaddition, since surface and ground water areinextricably linked via the hydrological cycle, it isalso logical for water resource managers to seekto manage all forms of water as a single resourcewithin the management unit. These two technicalprinciples form the foundation for integrated waterresource management (IWRM), and it is widelyaccepted that if they are implemented effectively,the outcome should be prudent water resourcemanagement within the river basin (Biswas et al.2005).Another important component of the IWRMphilosophy is the need to engage all stakeholdersin decision-making processes (Global WaterPartnership 2000). Indeed, while effective andefficient water management institutions areusually regarded as “technocratic,” they rely ongood governance processes to ensure that allgovernment and civil society stakeholders areengaged effectively 1 . In its ideal form, therefore,the IWRM approach to catchment or river basinmanagement comprises a guiding philosophy, apractical and agreed framework for action, and aset of desired outcomes. These three characteristicsare inclusive rather than exclusive, therebyreinforcing and extending the suite of advantagesto be gained from the practical implementation ofIWRM (Ashton in press).Importantly, very few of the stakeholdersor roleplayers that are engaged in technical,social or economic activities within a river basinacknowledge that IWRM decision-making is apolitical process (Allan 2005). In addition, muchof the IWRM decision-making tends to ignore thesocial, cultural and political context, as well as thehistorical aspects within which these are embedded(Ashton in press). Taken together, these processesand contexts shape the dimensions of governanceand determine the success or failure of IWRMinitiatives. This paper reviews the evidence thatnew and more supportive government, society,and science interfaces and processes are helping toensure the effective allocation and management ofwater resources in South Africa.Drivers of ChangeIn 1994, the South African government starteda comprehensive process of reform throughoutthe water sector; this process will still continuefor several years. The focus for the South Africanwater sector reform is driven by the need to redressthe inequities of previous political dispensations,coupled with the urgent need to ensure thatsufficient supplies of wholesome water continueto be made available to meet the rapidly growingneeds of communities that are fueled by increasedrates of urbanization and industrialization. Thearid to semi-arid nature of much of South Africaand the growing scarcity of water resources makethe resolution of these problems particularly acute(Basson et al. 1997).Despite these challenges, South Africa’sNational Water Act (Republic of South Africa 1998)is widely regarded as one of the most progressivepieces of environmental legislation in the worldUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Government, Society, and Science in IWRM In South Africa29(Postel and Richter 2003). The new and enablinglegislative framework presents stakeholders andauthorities with a clear vision of equity, efficiency,and sustainability in the allocation and use ofwater, as well as the goods and services that arederived from or linked to such water use (VanWyk et al. 2006). The focus on greater equitywithin South Africa’s new water policy requiresstakeholders to shift away from rights-based waterallocations to a system where water allocationdecisions are interest-based (Dent 2001). Thismove towards a negotiation-driven process ofwater allocation represents a dramatic change fromprevious procedures, requiring a fundamental shiftin both mindset and practice, based on a mutualunderstanding of each group’s resource needs andpreferences, and acceptance that these needs aredynamic over space and time (Van Wilgen et al.2003).These objectives are ambitious and unprecedentedand it should not come as a surprise that,at this early stage of the process, the objectives ofequity, efficiency, and sustainability in the allocationand use of the country’s water resources remainelusive (Van Wyk et al. 2006). Part of the reason forthis lies in the varied interpretations among differentstakeholders as to what constitutes IWRM andhow its goals and objectives can best be achieved.Another, perhaps even more important, reason islinked to the different levels of understanding ofand familiarity with the governance processes thatare needed in different situations, and how thesecan be best achieved. In South Africa, the shift inmanagement approaches to embrace the principlesof IWRM has been accompanied by processes ofinstitutional decentralization and democratizationdesigned to facilitate and strengthen localstakeholder participation in decision-making forwater resources management (Pegram et al. 2005).These institutional changes are most easily visiblein the emergence of Catchment Councils, WaterUser Associations and Catchment ManagementAgencies.Conceptually, the degree to which waterDevelopinginfrastructure(First order focus)Centralized managementWater is not anEconomic ResourceASupply-sideoptionsWater is an EconomicResourceBDemand-sideoptionsDecentralized managementWater is a Social and anEconomic ResourceCDevelopinginstitutions(Second orderfocus)Figure 1. Conceptual model illustrating the general trend of change as the focus of water resource managementbroadens to include increasingly decentralized approaches (A), (B) and (C), while management options expandfrom purely supply-side options to include more demand-side options (redrawn from Turton et al., in press).JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

30Ashton, Turton, and Rouxresource management is centralized and the degreeto which management focus is directed towardssupply-side or demand-side options are importantdrivers of change within the water sector. Thesedrivers can be represented as axes on a matrix(Figure 1), where the general trend of change isshown as a progressive broadening of the scope ofwater resource management envelopes from (A)to (C) over time. The upper left-hand quadrantrepresents the early phases of development, wheremanagement is highly centralized, with a primaryfocus on supply-side options that can provide waterwith a high assurance of supply (envelope “A”).Since most emphasis is placed on the constructionand operation of engineering structures to deliverwater (the first order resource), the institutionalneeds reflect this importance and the managementcadre consists predominantly of engineers andhydrologists.As management becomes progressively moredecentralized over time, the changes can berepresented by envelopes “B” and “C” in Figure1, with increasing emphasis being placed on theeffectiveness of decentralized institutional structuresand efficiencies of water utilization patterns,shown on the horizontal axis. More attention is alsopaid to new policy applications such as inter-sectoralwater allocation and efficiency measures such asintra-sectoral allocative incentives, institutionbuildingand the efficiency and effectiveness ofoperational procedures. This requires a muchsofter approach, seen as a second-order focus,where the principal resource being mobilized issocial capital or social adaptive capacity (Ohlsson1999). Now, effective water resource managementrequires a much wider range of skills, and includespolicy specialists, social scientists, economists,lawyers, engineers, hydrologists, and ecologists, toname but a few specialist disciplines.It is important to note that South Africa’s originalfocus on water supply infrastructure has not beenabandoned since this infrastructure still forms thebackbone of all water supply measures (Basson etal. 1997). As additional measures are adopted overtime, this is reflected as a widening managementenvelope, whose shape at any given time dependson several external factors. Particularly importantamong these factors are the physical nature andavailability of water resources, and the level ofpolitical “maturity” of South African society.Some Views on GovernanceA key part of the current global and nationaldebates around governance relates to the lackof agreement as to what governance comprises(European Union 2001). Even a cursory reviewof the recent literature will reveal that the term‘governance’ has been used to describe a widearray of situations or conditions that include theroles and responsibilities of government, laysociety and the business sector, decision-makingprocesses, management actions at all levels,the behavior of individuals and communities,institutional structures and settings, legal andstatutory instruments, and idealized processes ofparticipation or collaboration (Ashton in press). Insome cases, the word “governance” simply appearsto have been appended to a particular descriptor ofa system or situation as if it’s presence in the nowexpandedterm could provide greater “legitimacy”or “public acceptability.” This unfortunate featureis one that is also shared by inappropriate use ofthe word “sustainable”—again appended as if itcould confer some form of authenticity or validityto a particular situation or activity.Many descriptions of governance have also beenlinked to specific considerations, where governanceis considered to be a process, a structure, a systemof values or a specific outcome. While each ofthese applications are no doubt entirely appropriateand legitimate within their specific contexts, thesheer variety of these uses has created considerableconfusion about the underlying concept andmeaning of governance and, in particular, theconcept of “good governance” (Ashton in press).In the context of IWRM, it is therefore importantto understand and properly contextualize the use ofthe term governance so that it helps to clarify andguide decisions and actions, rather than adding tothe existing confusion.The South African emphasis on broadening theparticipation of stakeholders in IWRM seeks toensure that prudent water resource managementcan enhance the quality of life of all citizens whilesimultaneously ensuring the long-term viability ofthe water resources upon which all developmentdepends (Department of Water Affairs and Forestry1997). Clearly, this approach mirrors the conceptUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Government, Society, and Science in IWRM In South Africa31of sustainable development and reflects thefundamental inter-dependence between economicdevelopment, the natural environment, andpeople (World Commission on Environment andDevelopment 1987). Importantly, this approachrequires all segments of society to co-operate withina governance system that reflects their values,principles, aspirations, imperatives, and objectives(Folke et al. 2002). Significantly, this recognitionalso means that government, civil society—or thelay public—and scientists or technology providersmust co-operate closely and share a common visionof the future. This view provides strong supportfor the so-called “Trialogue” model of governancethat links government, civil society, and sciencein a set of partnerships, and that promotes closecollaboration and interactions between each ofthese sectors (Figure 2). In this view, particularemphasis is placed on the interfaces betweenthe three sectors and their contribution to goodgovernance.Here, it is important to recognize that whilethe “government” and “science” clusters in theTrialogue represent components of the broader“society” cluster, they also represent discretegroupings of individuals and institutions that mustperform specific actions on behalf of society. Inthis conceptual system, the “science” clusterrepresents technology providers that direct theirefforts to improve the quality of life in society andassist government to deliver on its mandates. Inturn, the “government” cluster represents thoseindividuals and institutions that have been selectedby society to provide leadership and direction onits behalf. In an ideal situation, the three clustersare inter-dependent and mutually supportive andtheir interactions are guided and underpinned byagreed sets of principles and values that combineto deliver good governance as a desirable outcome(Figure 2) (Ashton in press).In practice, the contextual components ofgovernance systems are often misunderstood, orit is assumed that everyone shares a common setof values, goals, and ideals. This is seldom truein reality, where people living within the samecommunity may differ widely in their abilities,views, and aspirations. Similarly, the effectivenessof governance systems can be hampered by thePublicGovernment– PublicInterfaceGoodGovernancePublic –ScienceInterfaceGovernmentGovernment–ScienceInterfaceScienceFigure 2. Conceptual diagram illustrating the linkages and interfaces between government, science, and the lay public,and their collective partnerships and contributions to “good governance” (modified from Ashton, in press).JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

32Ashton, Turton, and Rouxassumption that all stakeholders can be engagedand informed in a uniform way regardless of theircultural and historical background, social structuresand preferences, educational levels, and literacyand linguistic abilities. The situation is aggravatedin those communities that are plagued by historicaldisadvantages and pervasive poverty. Externalinterventions are needed to “level the playingfield” before these individuals and communitiescan participate effectively and equitably withtheir peers in decision-making processes (Ashtonin press). Where no provision is made to enabledisadvantaged stakeholders to participate effectivelyin decision-making processes, this situationis often referred to as “the illusion of inclusion”(Ashton and Chonguiça 2003).In the end, an ideal governance system has toensure that stakeholder engagement at all levelsis carefully balanced and integrated to enable thebest and most sustainable outcomes to be agreedupon and achieved (Ashton in press). However,despite clear evidence of the benefits to be gainedby ensuring that the broader public are correctlyengaged in decision-making processes, there isstill surprisingly little guidance available on howbest to achieve this ideal.Given the complex and multi-dimensionalnature of governance, it is important to ensure thatall participants clearly understand their roles andresponsibilities, and adhere to a set of commonprinciples that define “good governance” (EuropeanUnion 2001). To achieve this, stakeholdersmust first agree on the roles and responsibilities ofevery group and individual participant, the rulesand procedures that will guide and govern theinteractions between them, what form the anticipatedoutcomes of the decision-making process will takeand how these will be implemented. The prioradoption of such an agreed set of procedural andbehavioral guidelines provides a strongly cohesiveforce that helps all participants to accept ownershipof both the participatory process and the finaloutcomes of that process (Ashton in press).Adherence to the guiding ethics and values thatcharacterize “good governance” will help to ensurethat a governance system within a particular contextis effective, efficient, and socially relevant (Ashtonin press). Clearly, therefore, good governancehas to be based on, and incorporate, the attitudes,values, and practices of society while also givingmeaning to society’s aspirations and objectives.The European Union (EU) has presented a usefulset of five principles of good governance as thebasis for attempts to improve its performance(European Union 2001). These principles are:••••Openness – where governance institutionsare transparent and inclusive, communicatingfreely about what they do and the decisionsthat are taken, using language that is accessibleand understandable to all stakeholders;Participation – where the quality, relevance,and effectiveness of policies, legislation,regulation, and practice depend on publicparticipation from conception to implementation,to create greater confidence in the institutions ofgovernance and the outcomes of policy;Accountability – where every role in thelegislative, administrative, and executiveprocesses is made clear, and where there isappropriate clarity and responsibility fromeveryone who is involved in developing andimplementing policy at every level;Effectiveness – where policies are timelyand appropriate, delivering what is needed,based on decisions made during participativedecision-making processes; and• Coherence – where policies and implementationactions are consistent with otherinitiatives, and are clearly aligned and wellunderstood by all participants.In an African context, the first three of theseprinciples require special prominence to ensure thatall stakeholders are able to participate equitably.This necessity is driven by the need to deal withproblems related to low levels of literacy and alack of familiarity with technical terminology,widespread poverty that is often sustained bycontinuing inequalities in terms of access toresources and finance, and a lack of familiaritywith democratic processes—often accompaniedby mistrust of unfamiliar representatives and “selfappointedleaders.” Resolution of such inequalitiesinevitably takes time to achieve and, unfortunately,can also lead to some dissatisfaction among certainUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Government, Society, and Science in IWRM In South Africa33stakeholder groups. However, this is unavoidableif the final outcome is to be sustainable in the longterm.It is also important to note that good governancerequires a systems approach that is based on theinclusion and inter-dependence of all its componentsand every segment of society (Figure 2). Eachof the principles listed above needs to be includedand integrated into a coherent system; none ofthem should be ignored, avoided, or diminished.The effectiveness of a given governance systemdoes not depend on the extent to which one or moreof these principles are included, but rather on thedegree to which each principle can be customizedto suit local circumstances and then integratedinto a coherent whole.DiscussionIt is significant that the IWRM approaches incountries with more mature democracies tendto include a wider range of positions locatedtowards the lower right-hand quadrant of Figure1; countries with less mature or emergingdemocracies tend to occupy narrower positions,located closer to the upper left-hand quadrant.This distinction also emphasizes the differencesbetween the needs of developing countries, orthose with fledgling democracies—where the levelof infrastructural development may be inadequatefor sustainable development to take place—andthose of more developed countries with moremature democracies, where the transition froman agricultural or resource-based economy to anindustrialized economy has already taken place.The key role of the science cluster within theproposed Trialogue model (Figure 2) is to gather,interrogate, and integrate knowledge and informationinto forms that provide useful and practicalguidance to society and government. Importantly,the science cluster is seen to include the naturalsciences, life sciences, and social sciences, togetherwith their underpinning disciplines and philosophies.Taken together, the effective structuringand functioning of the science cluster provides thetechnical core of human ingenuity that underpinsthe abilities of society and government to adapt towhatever circumstances prevail in their environment(Homer-Dixon 1995, Ohlsson 1999). This isperhaps most clearly seen as the technology baseof a country’s economy, allowing it to become locallyrelevant and globally competitive.ConclusionsThose societies that are characterized byeffective and harmonious interactions between thescience, society, and government clusters appearto be more likely to achieve the ideals of IWRMin socially acceptable ways that promote politicalstability. Clearly too, the success of the interactionsbetween each of these clusters depends on effectiveand trustworthy inter-personal relationshipsbetween individuals within each of the clusters,where individuals and institutions share theirknowledge and experiences in a unified learningsystem (Roux et al. 2006). This will allow allparticipants to move beyond their traditional rolesof knowledge provider and knowledge consumer,to a true partnership where inter-dependencies arerecognized, and all parties can negotiate feasible,desirable and acceptable outcomes (Roux et al.2006).The proposed ‘Trialogue’ model of governance(Figure 2) provides a useful conceptual modelthat highlights the need for lasting partnershipsbetween government, civil society, and scienceto promote shared understanding, responsibledecision-making, and collective responsibilityfor prudent water resource management—thehallmark of IWRM. These partnerships alsorequire each group to accept the need for formalgovernance structures, processes and instrumentsthat complement and strengthen an underpinningphilosophy of co-operation. In turn, for these tobe truly effective, all stakeholders must understandthe multidimensional nature of governance andtheir individual roles and responsibilities. Takentogether, the five principles of good governancepromoted by the European Union (2001) provide auseful ‘blueprint’ for building and guiding effectiveand responsible interactions between stakeholders.This blueprint forms the core of South Africa’sapproach to IWRM.The water sector reforms in South Africaprovided the catalyst for the government to adoptnew and more inclusive approaches to IWRM,based on a long-term vision of the equitable andsustainable use of the country’s water resources.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

34Ashton, Turton, and RouxEffective implementation of IWRM now requiresall sectors of South African society to work togetherto achieve the shared vision of peaceful economicdevelopment.Author Bios and Contact InformationPETER ASHTON obtained his PhD degree at RhodesUniversity, South Africa. He is a Principal Researcherin the Water Ecosystems Research Group of SouthAfrica’s Council for Scientific and Industrial Research(CSIR), and an Honorary Professor of Water ResourcesManagement at the University of Pretoria. He hasover thirty-five years of experience on water researchprojects, specializing in integrated managementapproaches for shared (transboundary) river systems insouthern and central Africa. He has a particular interestin the governance processes that influence complexsocial-ecological systems and shape effective decisionmakingto ensure that natural resource managementis sustainable. Contact address: pashton@csir.co.za.ANTHONY TURTON obtained his PhD in PoliticalScience at the University of Pretoria. He is a PrincipalResearcher and Head of the Water Governance ResearchGroup at the South African Council for Scientific andIndustrial Research, and serves on several internationalbodies. Anthony has a keen interest in trans-disciplinaryapproaches to water resource management, especiallythe political and governance issues that underpinthe management of transboundary water resources.His professional background in strategic planningand risk management complements his focus onmanaging water resources in those areas where watershortages constrain future economic development andpolitical stability. Contact address: aturton@csir.co.za.DIRK ROUX obtained his PhD from the University of Johannesburg.He is a Principal Researcher in the WaterEcosystems Research group at South Africa’s Councilfor Scientific and Industrial Research. Dirk has overfifteen year of experience on research and managementof freshwater ecosystems, spanning the fields oflimnology, aquatic toxicology, environmental monitoringand reporting, systematic conservation planning,policy and strategy development, and institutionallearning and knowledge processes. His current workincludes the integration of conservation objectiveswithin an integrated water resource management context,and understanding and developing capacity forthe effective management/governance of ecosystems.Contact address: droux@csir.co.za.Endnotes1.This paper draws considerably from ideas presentedin Ashton et al. (in press) and Turton et al. (inpress).ReferencesAllan, J. A. 2005. IWRM: A new sanctioned discourse?SACIWater Paper, Online at www.soas.ac.uk/waterissues as Occasional Paper #50. Accessed July2006.Ashton, P. J. In press. The role of good governance insustainable development: Implications for integratedwater resource management. In Governance asa Trialogue: Government – Society – Science inTransition, edited by Turton A. R., J. Hattingh, G. A.Maree, D. J. Roux, M. Claassen and W. F. Strydom,354. Water Resources Development and ManagementSeries, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Ashton, P. J. and E. Chonguiça. 2003. Issues and trendsin the regional harmonization of E.I.A. processesin southern Africa, with special reference totransboundary and cumulative impacts. In Assessingthe Need for a Regional Approach to EnvironmentalImpact Assessment in Southern Africa, edited byChonguiça E. and R. Brett. IUCN Regional Officefor Southern Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe.Basson, M. S., P. H. Van Niekerk, and J. A. Van Rooyen.1997. Overview of Water Resources Availabilityand Utilization in South Africa. DWAF Report No.P RSA/00/0197. Department of Water Affairs andForestry and BKS (Pty) Ltd., Pretoria, South Africa.Biswas, A., O. Varis, and C. Tortjada (Eds.) 2005.Integrated Water Resources Management in Southand South-East Asia. Water Resources ManagementSeries. Oxford University Press, Delhi, India.Dent, C. M. 2001. Installed water resource modellingsystems for catchment management agencies. WaterSA 27(3): 333-340.Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. 1997. WhitePaper on a National Water Policy for South Africa.Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria,South Africa.European Union. 2001. European Governance: A WhitePaper. Commission of the European Communities,Brussels. Online at : http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/governance/white_paper/index_en.htm. Accessed June2006.Folke C., S. R. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. H. Gunderson,C. S. Holling, B. H. Walker, J. Bengtsson, F. Berkes,UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Government, Society, and Science in IWRM In South Africa35J. Colding, K. Danell, M. Falkenmark, L. Gordon,R. E. Kasperson, N. Kautsky, A. P. Kinzig, S. Levin,K. G. Mäler, F. Moberg, L. Ohlsson, P. Olsson, E.Ostrom, W. V. Reid, J. Rockstrom, H. H. G. Savenije,and U. Svedin. 2002. Resilience and SustainableDevelopment: Building Adaptive Capacity in a Worldof Transformation. Scientific Background Paper forthe World Summit on Sustainable Development.Environmental Advisory Council, Stockholm,Sweden.Global Water Partnership. 2000. Towards Water Security:A Framework for Action. Global Water Partnership,The Hague.Homer-Dixon, T. F. 1995. The Ingenuity Gap: Can poorcountries adapt to resource scarcity? Population andDevelopment 21(3): 587-612.Ohlsson, L. 1999. Environment, Scarcity and Confl ict:A Study of Malthusuian Concerns. Department ofPeace and Development Research, University ofGöteborg, Sweden.Pegram, G., G. Mazibuko, C. Von Der Heyden, A.Anderson and B. H. Hollingworth. 2005. StrategicReview of Current and Emerging GovernanceSystems Related to Water in the Environment in SouthAfrica. WRC Report No. K5/1514. Water ResearchCommission, Pretoria, South Africa.Postel, S. and B. Richter. 2003. Rivers for Life:Managing Water for People and Nature. Island Press,Washington D.C.Republic of South Africa. 1998. National Water Act (ActNo. 36 of 1998). Pretoria, South Africa.Roux, D. J., K. H. Rogers, H. C. Biggs, P. J. Ashtonand A. Sergeant. 2006. Bridging the sciencemanagementdivide: Moving from unidirectionalknowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing andsharing. Ecology and Society 11(1): 14. Online athttp://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art4.Turton, A. R., J. Hattingh, M. Claassen, D. J. Roux,and P. J. Ashton. In press. Towards a model forecosystem governance: An integrated waterresource management example. In Governance asa Trialogue: Government – Society – Science inTransition, edited by Turton A. R., J. Hattingh, G. A.Maree, D. J. Roux, M. Claassen and W. F. Strydom.Water Resources Development and ManagementSeries, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Van Wilgen, B. W., C. M. Breen, J. J. Jaganyi, K. H.Rogers, D. J. Roux, T. Sherwill, and E. van Wyk. 2003.Principles and Processes for Supporting StakeholderParticipation in Integrated River Management:Lessons from the Sabie-Sand Catchment. WRCReport No. 1062/1/03. Water Research Commission,Pretoria, South Africa.Van Wyk, E., C. M. Breen, D. J. Roux, K. H. Rogers, T.Sherwill and B. W. van Wilgen. 2006. The ecologicalreserve: Towards a common understanding for rivermanagement in South Africa. Water SA 32(3): 403-409.World Commission on Environment and Development.1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press,New York.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

36UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONISSUE 135, PAGES 36-50, DECEMBER 2006Trajectories in Australian Water PolicyKaren Hussey 1 and Steve Dovers 21 National European Union Centre, Australian National University;2 Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies,Australian National University.This paper discusses past and currentAustralian water policy and management,with comparison to trends in the EuropeanUnion and United States. Particular attention is paidto the policy directions made explicit in Australia’sNational Water Initiative for the period 2004-2014.To move beyond description toward a strongeranalytical purchase, we begin with a historicalperspective, and use the concepts of policydiscourses and political drivers to identify underlyingmotivations of policy change. The National WaterInitiative is an unprecedented, multicomponentnational-level policy framework, with tensionsbetween major components and associatedimplementation challenges. The National WaterInitiative incorporates regulatory, marketbased,informational and educational policyinstruments, with demands placed at new andrelatively weak administrative scales. Thesetensions and challenges reflect insufficientlyidentified differences in values, rationalities, andpolitical imperatives, the resolution, or at leastnegotiation, of which will need to be attended toin implementation, as they were unresolved inthe policy formulation stage. Recent experiencesin the European Union and United States confirmthat this situation is not confined to Australia,although specifics vary between jurisdictions.The paper concludes that apparent tensions incontemporary water policy should be regardedas predictable manifestations of concurrentexperimentation with different policy styles,consistent with multiple values, contrastingpolitical imperatives, and fundamentally differentunderlying discourses. Accepting this encouragesan adaptive and discursive approach to water policyand management rather than a conflictual one.In an arena such as integrated water resourcesmanagement, the practical manifestations of policyare inevitably political, informed by the range ofvalues held by the many groups and individualscomprising the policy community within andoutside of government. All policy directions areinformed by multiple players who seek to haveweight given to their own values. The reality iswell stated by Davis et al. (1993):Politics is the essential ingredient for producingworkable policies, which are more publiclyaccountable and politically justifiable ... Whilesome are uncomfortable with the notion thatpolitics can enhance rational decision-making,preferring to see politics as expediency, it isintegral to the process of securing defensibleoutcomes. We are unable to combine values,interests, and resources in ways which are notpolitical.A linear, rational-comprehensive view of thepolicy process infers a low degree of uncertainty,and a clear link between government policyand what occurs in practical management. Thisinference is often apparent in the expectations ofsome players, in recent times in the disciplinesof public policy and political science. However,it has been strongly unsettled by theoretical andempirical perspectives describing the far morecommon, messy and contingent nature of policy(Fischer 2003, Hajer and Wagenaar 2003, Howlettand Ramesh 2003, Dovers 2005).A critical realization in the environment andsustainability domain—within which integratedwater resources management sits—is that thechallenge is particularly acute due to the featuresof the policy domain. Although viewed too oftenUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Trajectories in Australian Water Policy37as a policy domain where scientific description ofbiophysical problems can drive policy making inan instrumental manner, recent years have seensignificant shifts in understanding. Broadly, policyand management interventions are seeking toinfluence highly complex, interdependent socialand ecological systems and must do so in a mannerthat appreciates this complexity (Folke 2006). Thefollowing underlying attributes of sustainabilityproblems, integrated water management included,expose the challenge (Dovers 1997):• systemic problem-causes rooted in longstandingpatterns of production andconsumption, settlement, and governance;• broadened and deepened spatial and temporalscales;• cumulative and practically irreversibleimpacts;• high degrees of complexity and strong crossproblemconnectivity;• pervasive uncertainty associated withenvironmental processes, social values, andpolicy efficacy;• emergent moral imperatives and multiple andconflicting values;• poorly defined property rights and policyresponsibilities; and• justified arguments for public participation inpolicy and management.These attributes shape a difficult, contestedpolicy and management domain. In a classicstudy in natural resource management, Lee (1993)saw the politics of river basin management as“bounded conflict”—recognizing the politicalnature of addressing multiple values as well asthe need to render conflict constructive. Central toestablishing constructive and durable trajectoriesin water policy and management—boundingthe conflict—is clear identification and ongoingattention to multiple values. Institutional systemsand policy processes within which such problemsand conflicts are addressed are widely viewed asinadequate. Although rapidly evolving in positiveways, they should be conceived as a generationaltask of comprehension and institutional change(Connor and Dovers 2004). Accordingly, althoughwater policy and management has been a leadingfield of experimentation, it still faces considerabledifficulties in coping with multiple values,uncertainty, and complexity.In this paper, we use the idea of ‘‘environmentaldiscourses” (shared ways of understanding theworld and thus of responding to challenges faced)as proposed by Dryzek (1997). In this way, deepdifferences in perceived ecological, social, andeconomic imperatives can be better understood.If these differences are inadequately understoodand the conflicts between them are papered overin policy process (where ideally they should beaddressed), they will not disappear. Instead, theywill be continual barriers in later implementation.That, we submit, is a feature of contemporarywater policy—expected given the complexity,uncertainty, and time scale of the task—butnonetheless regrettable.This paper examines trajectories in Australianwater policy and management, integratingdescription and analysis of tangible features withanalysis of underlying discourses. In the nextsection, we establish the historical roots and driversof Australian water policy, showing that currentactivities have strong connections to the past.We then describe the current, overarching policyframework, the 2004-2014 National Water Initiative—its mix of imperatives, and the implementationchallenges it presents, before analyzing thesechallenges in terms of underlying discourses andmotives. Then, some brief comparisons are madewith trajectories in water policy in the United Statesand the European Union. These are useful referentsin the form of federal/confederal, liberal democraticpolitical systems described in sufficient secondarysources. The final section discusses the need torecognize more clearly discourses and motivesleft unresolved into implementation stages of thepolicy process, so that management activities canbe more clearly focused and informed, and ongoingpolicy implementation and management regimesmay be conceived as evolving and adapting aroundexplicit, mutually comprehended principles.Historical ContextTo understand the present nature of environmentaland resource management regimes,cognizance of the past is necessary. Environmentalpolicy can be informed by environmental history(Dovers 2000). What is discussed and achievedJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

38Hussey and Doversin water policy now is influenced by knowledgeand constraints constructed in the past. Overall,Frawley’s (1994) overlapping stages in theenvironmental history of Australia can be seenunfolding—pioneering exploitation, wise use fornational development, modern environmentalism,and sustainable development—with as yetunresolved final results 1 .The original and most enduring watermanagement regime in Australia comprised finescale cultural and resource management practicesof hundreds of indigenous nations and languagegroups, adapted to flexible livelihoods in a variableclimate. Although disrupted massively, the regimestill survives in practice, knowledge and law inparts of the continent. The recognition of nativetitles, return of indigenous people to the country andsurvival and resurrection of traditional knowledgeand lifestyle have added indigenous values incurrent resource management debates (Baker etal. 2001, Jackson 2005), providing a backdrop ofmore than 50,000 years.European occupation of Australia from 1788saw the imposition of British water managementideas and rules. Growing understanding of a highlyvariable climate saw much experimentation andstruggle, demonstrating the unsuitability of theBritish tradition of riparian rights. Led by Victorianpolitician and later Prime Minister Alfred Deakinand drawing lessons from domestic experienceand international examples, Australia leading upto and at Federation in 1901 established a systemof state control of water. The following shiftsnotwithstanding, the system proved durable as aninstitutional framework for the following century.Water was a public good, managed through publicpolicy rather than the private sector. The states andterritories, aided by Commonwealth money, workedto drive national development and agriculturalsettlement through public provision of irrigationinfrastructure and settlement schemes, culminatingin a massive dam-building exercise from the 1950-70s. The bulk of Australian water withdrawal was,and still is used in irrigated agriculture. Waterallocation was volumetric, the costs of supplywere not recouped and technical improvementsin efficiency were rarely evident. In the cities,public works and water utility monopolies createda ‘‘big pipe in - big pipe out” system that achievedtremendous public health gains, but overlookedenvironmental and efficiency issues. In remotelocations, abstemiousness was the norm but byand large, water management was a matter ofexpanding supply, with demand management andenvironmental considerations lagging far behind.The wise use movement in resource managementhad impacts on water management, but it wasthe questioning of a few economists, notablyDavidson (1969), of the costs and benefits oflarge works that called this trajectory to account,along with emerging environmental awareness.The global trend toward integration of water withland and vegetation management showed notablyin Australia as integrated or total catchmentmanagement, with particular reference to what wasto become the headline issue of the 1980s to thepresent; salinity (Dore et al. 2003, Ewing 2003).That catchment scale focus has since evolved towhere major resource management programsare delivered largely through regional (mostlycatchment-defined) processes and organizations.Haphazard, drought-driven spasms of informationgathering and policy development came and wentfrom the 1960s on, with an international standardset with the institutional settings and informationcoordination of the Murray Darling Basin initiative.Community-based initiatives became widespreadin water and land management, headlined bythe now famous Australian Landcare movement(Curtis 2003). The era of sustainability from 1992 isknown in Australia as the ecologically sustainabledevelopment era. It emphasized in water aselsewhere, the emerging challenge of integratingenvironmental, social and economic dimensions innatural resource management. The mid-late 1990ssaw a National Land and Water Resources Auditconsolidate previous fits-and-starts in informationgathering episodes.However, it was not resource managementexperience or environmental concern that wasthe impetus for the biggest shift of all, buteconomic policy. Via the Council of AustralianGovernments, comprising the heads of Australianstate, territory and Commonwealth governments,economic efficiency and competitiveness becamethe most pervasive policy shift of recent decades.Supported by significant Commonwealth fundingand intergovernmental agreements and schedules,UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Trajectories in Australian Water Policy39National Competition Policy drove reform in manypolicy domains, and the “Council of AustralianGovernments water reforms” of the 1990s werea leading example. These reforms focused onproductivity, reduction of state subsidies, user-pays,separation of policy and provision, privatizationand corporatization of functions, break-up to allowcompetition, use of market and property rightmechanisms and importantly, provision of flowsto the environment. As significant as they were,and underlined by severe early-1990s drought, theCouncil of Australian Governments water reformswere only a partial construction, and set thescene for the 2004-2014 National Water Initiativediscussed in the next section.We can identify a number of core imperativesand value-sets that have evolved at different times,yet co-exist in current policy debates and manifestin management experiments. While none areparticular to Australia, the combination perhapsis, especially in the context of extreme climatevariability and the specific constitutional and legalsystem.1. Security and predictability of water entitlementsfor consumptive users, in particular irrigatedagriculture. It is useful to separate two relatedyet different imperatives here, which at timesare conflated with ensuing confusion. Thefirst suggests public subsidy and long-termplanning; the latter the primacy of efficiencyand market forces:• the social and equity imperative ofmaintaining water-dependent communities,established purposefully through previousgovernment policy; and• the economic imperative of productivity,competition in export trade, andefficiency in inputs, including of policyinterventions.2. Increasing prospects of water scarcity andthe need for efficiency of use and changeto allocation rules, a product of increasedwithdrawal, greater number of water “users”(including environment), climate changeand variability, and physical and economiclimitations to expanding supply.3. Widening of water policy and managementdebates to (i) create a “national” water policyarena, as opposed to several states or catchmentlimited arenas and (ii) greater awareness ofurban and peri-urban as well as rural waterissues.4. An increasing role for catchment and regionalorganization and delivery of policy objectives,viewed as an efficient and suitable scale whereintegration of resource management canoccur.5. The importance of participatory approachesto resource management, at the catchment/regional scale but also at the local or “district”scale, through numerous programs epitomizedby Landcare. The allowance of publicparticipation in higher order policy formulationis not so apparent.6. Ongoing efforts to rationalize or at leastcoordinate roles and responsibilities forresource management within a federal system.The main debates concern the Commonwealthversus state/territory powers, with the role oflocal government often ignored (Wild River2003).7. Increased emphasis on environmental waterflows, not simply in volume but also qualityand timing of flows to maintain riverineecosystems. 28. Recognition of Indigenous water values anduses, encompassing environmental, cultural,subsistence, health, and economic developmentdimensions.9. As in all areas of public policy, changes inpolicy approaches and management styleswere strongly influenced by dominant neoliberalpolitical philosophy and neo-classicaleconomic theory, manifesting in the Australianterm “economic rationalism,” and managerialstyles termed New Public Management(McLaughlin et al. 2002).The following describes the National WaterInitiative and the ways in which the above arereflected in it and interact in both synergistic andoppositional ways. We should note that consistentwith history, the formulation of the National WaterInitiative coincided with severe drought from2001-04.The National Water InitiativeSigned in June 2004 3and building on theJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

40Hussey and Dovers1994 Council of Australian Governments agenda,the National Water Initiative represents a multicomponent,national-level policy frameworkof unprecedented scale—a “new philosophicalapproach to water management” (Connell et al.2005). It is a major step forward in Australian waterpolicy: first, because important ideas that werepreviously proposals now have official status at thenational level; and second, because the NationalWater Initiative is now the primary statement ofpolicy with which all water-related legislation andpolicy must comply 4 .The National Water Initiative was adopted inrecognition of the continuing national imperativeto “increase the productivity and efficiency ofAustralia’s water use, the need to service rural andurban communities, and to ensure the health of riverand ground water systems by establishing clearpathways to return all systems to environmentallysustainable levels of extraction” ([5]). In doing so,it reflects the policy agendas of a number of majorstakeholders that have been active in the waterreform debate, including advocates of acceleratedwater trading, environmental restoration, indigenousinterests, and regional development (Connellet al. 2005). These interests are in turn reflected inthe main elements of the National Water Initiative,which include provision for environmental flowsallowing for quality and seasonal variability, aswell as volume, the establishment and tradingof water rights, intergovernmental coordinationand institutional development, and regional andcatchment scale planning 5 . However, there are cleartensions between these components and associateddifficult implementation challenges.Reflecting growing public concern for theenvironmental health of Australia’s waterresources, the National Water Initiative requiresthe complete return of all currently over-allocatedor overused surface and ground water systems toenvironmentally sustainable levels of extraction([23(iv)]). Water that has been identified by theStates and Territories to meet agreed environmentaland other public benefit outcomes is to be givenstatutory recognition and “at least the samedegree of security as water access entitlements forconsumptive use” (para 35(i)), and only water thatis not required to meet environmental outcomescan be made available for trading ([35(iii)]). In thisway, the National Water Initiative is a major stepforward in Australia’s approach to environmentalmanagement. In implementing these objectives,there are, however, a number of significantchallenges, which will ultimately test the NationalWater Initiative’s efficacy. The first relates to thedefinition of environmentally sustainable levels ofextraction. In recent years considerable researcheffort has focused on the connections betweensurface and ground water systems (Department ofthe Environment and Heritage 2004 6 ), the impacts ofvarious land-use practices on interception (Dillionet al. 2001, Keenan et al. 2004), and the merits ofvarious approaches to environmental management(Gunningham 1999, Dovers and Wild River 2003,Gunningham 2004). While progress has beenmade, the complexities that exist, particularly indynamic conditions such as those under climatechange, in response to bushfires or as a result ofdifferent land uses and tenures suggest that definingenvironmentally sustainable levels of extractionwill require far more research than is currentlyadvocated in the National Water Initiative.A second problem relates to the number ofregional water systems that will need significantmanagement adjustments to achieve that standard.It is the responsibility of the States and Territoriesto develop water plans that will secure ecologicaloutcomes for water systems ([37 (i)]) and resourcesecurity outcomes for consumptive use ([37 (ii)]).However, the areas to be covered, level of detailrequired, duration and frequency of review, andthe amount of resources devoted in each plan, aredetermined exclusively by the State or Territory([38]). Reading the National Water Initiativesuggests that formal identification of currentlyoverallocated water bodies is likely to be limited(Connell et al. 2005; National Water Initiative[33(ii)]; [43]).A third related problem concerns the tensionsthat will inevitably arise between differentstakeholders when over-allocated water systemsare identified and state water plans emerge toreturn the system to an environmentally sustainablecondition. Experience in the Murray-DarlingBasin, 7 the health of which was so poor as to bedeemed “significantly impaired” and “no longerhealthy,” suggests that even where considerablepressure and financial commitment from theUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Trajectories in Australian Water Policy41Commonwealth has spawned new and progressivepolicy to reallocate water for environmentalpurposes, the resultant policies have been so dilutedby agricultural pressure groups that it has failedto achieve its stated goals. Thus, the tensions thatexisted between different values and rationalitiesin the drafting of the National Water Initiative willpersist through its implementation, likely resultingin further highly politicized and lengthy debate, ifnot legal conflict.If the National Water Initiative represents onthe one hand, the consolidation of “environmentalsustainability” in water resource management,on the other hand it embraces the Australiangovernment’s preference for policies grounded inneo-liberal political philosophy and neoclassicaleconomic theory to achieve that end—in this case,the use of market-based instruments and propertyrights for the management of public goods. It is clearthat the overarching objective in the National WaterInitiative, upon which all other objectives depend,is the establishment of clear, nationally-compatiblewater access entitlements to facilitate the operationof water markets within and between jurisdictions([24], [25], [58(i)]). The wholehearted adoptionof water markets reflects an economic rationalityand the imperatives of efficiency, productivity, alimited role for government and crucially, the needfor well-defined property rights: “environmentalproblems must be understood more as failures bygovernments to specify property rights than asoffshoots of private profit-seeking” (Mitchell andSimmon 1994). However, the implementation ofefficient water markets under the National WaterInitiative is ambitious, and will be enormouslyproblematic and, it has to be noted that the vastmajority of the research agenda in the NationalWater Initiative is focused on water trading, apriori 8 . The main challenge to water trading isalso the reason for its failure hitherto, which isthe extensive jurisdictional fragmentation that hasdeveloped in water entitlements in Australia overthe last 100 years. There are eight jurisdictionscovered by the National Water Initiative andall of them differ in substance and institutionalarrangements for water entitlements, making itvery difficult to trade “like with like.” Connell etal. (2005) suggest that:Given the relatively weak processes that will be inplace to encourage coordination, there is a strongpossibility that the implementation teams in thevarious states will develop new water entitlementproducts, registers and institutional processes thatwill continue to be as incompatible with those oftheir neighbors as they have been in the past.The principles for trading operations are set outin Schedule G of the National Water Initiative, andone of its primary objectives is to promote trade inwater entitlements of more varied levels of securityof supply and across much larger geographical areas.However, a further problem in water trading relatesto the variations in biophysical characteristicsof respective surface and ground water systemsbetween states: how will a proportion of X asestablished by the water plan for one water systemfor example, be translated into a proportion of Yas determined by the water plan that applies to thedelivery site of the purchaser, when the two watersystems have different hydrological characteristics(Connell et al. 2005) While not insurmountable, theknowledge and coordination required to reconcilethese problems is great, and as yet not articulated.A key difference between water trading underthe National Water Initiative and experience todatein the Murray-Darling Basin is the extensionof trading to water bodies of varying hydrologicalcharacteristics and thus varying degrees of securityof supply. The result has been the shift to a frameworkwhere buyers of water access entitlementswill purchase a “perpetual or open-ended share ofthe consumptive pool of a specified water resource,as determined by the relevant water plan” (Gardner2006, 28). The difference is the variation from yearto year of what the consumptive pool will be, thusundermining users’ confidence in how much waterthey will get for their money (Connell et al.2005).Respecting the “environmental sustainability”imperative as a principle objective in the NationalWater Initiative, provision has been made such thata trade can be refused if it is inconsistent with therelevant water plan or will result in sustainableyields being exceeded. Further, trading should not“increase seasonal reversals in flow regimes abovesustainable levels identified in relevant water planssuch that environmental water or water dependentecosystems are adversely affected” (National WaterInitiative Schedule G [5]). However, the means toallow such decisions to be made have all yet to beJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

42Hussey and Doversestablished These include a nationally consistentframework to define the product that is being traded,water registers to record the trades undertaken(water accounting) and the biophysical knowledgeto make judgments on environmental flowthresholds (National Water Initiative Schedule A).The success of the National Water Initiativerelies heavily on coordination of the multilevelsof government within the federal system.At Commonwealth level, responsibility foroverseeing the implementation of the NationalWater Initiative lies with the Natural ResourcesManagement Ministerial Council ([18]; [104]),with significant support from the new NationalWater Commission ([19]), a federally-fundedbody whose Commissioners are dominated by theCommonwealth government 9 . The development ofdetailed water plans are the responsibility of thestates and territories, and the efficacy of a nationaltrading scheme will depend on the coordinationbetween states as much as between the statesand Commonwealth. However, as evidencedby the now century-old Murray-Darling Basincommision, protecting state sovereignty remainsa high priority in the Australian federal system(Pigram and Musgrave 1998, Connell et al. 2005).The only tangible incentive the Commonwealthhas to encourage state cooperation is the A$2billion in funding that states can access inreturn for compliance. However, even whereintergovernmental coordination is politicallysanctioned by the states, the transaction costsincurred remain high with so many jurisdictionsand players involved.Finally, it is implicit in the National WaterInitiative that much of its implementation willbe driven by regional catchment managementauthorities (CMAs). A catchment managementapproach to water resources management isnot new in Australia (Murray Darling BasinCommission 2002) but the National Water Initiativemakes their role far more ambitious, complex andpolitically contentious (Connell et al. 2005). Inthe development of state water plans, it is likelythat catchment management authorities will be theprimary source of information on: the variabilityof water supply in their catchment ([25(viii)]);the needs of indigenous Australians in relationto water access and management ([25(ix)]; theidentification of surface and ground water systemsof high conservation value ([25(x)]); and, finally,the closest level of government able to “protectthe integrity of water access entitlements fromunregulated growth in interception through landusechange” ([25(xi]). Ultimately, there will needto be sufficient institutional capacity-buildingat the catchment management authorities andlocal government level to enable the NationalWater Initiative’s implementation. Currently, theinstitutional, informational, statutory and humanresources of catchment and regional organizationsare widely perceived as insufficient (Ewing 2003,Robins and Dovers in press).Policy Styles and Political DriversThe incorporation of regulatory, market-based,informational and educational policy instruments,together with institutional and implementationdemands placed at new relatively weak regionaladministrative scales, is indicative of the myriadof drivers in the National Water Initiative’sformulation. The consolidation of importantprinciples for water resources management—principally the provision of environmental waterallocations in statutory state water plans — and theelevation of water policy to a national overarchingframework confirms the increased awareness of,and commitment to an ecological imperative.However, the National Water Initiative alsoembodies a number of tensions and challengesthat reflect insufficiently-identified differences invalues, rationalities and political imperatives, theresolution or at least negotiation of which will needto be attended to during implementation, becausethey were not resolved or properly attended to inthe policy formulation stage.A useful framework to understand thesedeep differences in perceived ecological, socialand economic imperatives is the concept of“environmental discourses,” the shared ways ofunderstanding the world and thus of responding tochallenges faced, as delineated by Dryzek (1997):In the last four decades, the politics of the Earth hasfeatured a large and growing range of issues…witha whole range of moral and aesthetic questionsabout human livelihood, human attitudes, and ourproper relation to other entities on the planet…thus the whole environmental area is hometo some heated debates and disputes, rangingUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Trajectories in Australian Water Policy43from the details of the implementation of policychoice in particular localities, to the argumentsof philosophers debating the appropriate ethicalposition to apply to environmental affairs ingeneral.Dryzek classifies the main environmentaldiscourses according to whether they are reformistor radical in nature on the one hand, and prosaicor imaginative on the other. Combining these twodimensions produces nine separate environmentaldiscourses (Table 1). Discontinuity withindiscourses is rare, and while interchange acrossdiscourse boundaries can occur, it can provedifficult. This is borne out by the varied imperativesaddressed in the National Water Initiative andembodied in the policy instruments, which in turncan be seen to draw on a number of the ideas inmultiple environmental discourses. In this sectionwe examine those relationships and concludethat the tensions in the National Water Initiativecan be explained by a blurring of environmentaldiscourses which are then reflected in sometimesconflicting water policy.As already articulated, the National WaterInitiative is the culmination of a long history ofwater reform in Australia, but it is particularlydistinctive owing to the varied ideas and realitiesthat have pushed it forward. The first of theseconcerned the increasing urgency of water scarcityas a result of rising numbers of water “users”including the environment, increased climatevariability and the frequency and intensity ofdrought, and growing cognizance of the physicaland economic limitations to expanding supply. Inthis sense, it relates closely to the “survivalism”discourse with its recognition of the limitedcarrying capacity of natural resources to supporthuman activity. Certainly, a body with someinfluence in the development of the National WaterInitiative—the “Wentworth Group of ConcernedScientists” (TWG)—did much to highlight theurgency and unsustainability of Australia’s naturalresource management practices:Our land management practices over the past 200years have left a landscape in which freshwaterrivers are choking with sand, where topsoil isbeing blown into the Tasman Sea, where salt isdestroying the rivers and land like a cancer, andwhere many of our native plants and animals areheading for extinction (TWG 2002).That these imperatives were persuasive isevident in the National Water Initiative’s emphasison environmentally sustainable levels of extraction.However, the equally persuasive economicrationalism discourse, based on neoliberalphilosophies and neoclassical economics, wasalready permeating Australia’s policy style, acrosspolicy domains. In the context of the NationalWater Initiative, these ideas were focused oneffi ciency of water use and the central role of themarket to achieve it. The result was a frameworkheavily reliant on the establishment of effi cientwater markets, which required revision of thewater allocation regime across jurisdictions. Whileother discourses do not dismiss the role of marketmechanisms, they may be doubtful of them on socialand environmental grounds, see them correctly asan efficient allocation mechanism within a broaderenvironmental constraint, or be sensitive to theimplementation difficulties of a “transformativepolicy option” which shifts the logic of resourceallocation from the social and ecological to theeconomic and ecological (Connor and Dovers2004). A more whole-hearted adherent to theeconomic rationalist discourse may inappropriatelysee markets as a social goal rather than a contributinginstrument to that goal (Common 1995).However, the changes to the allocation regimewere in turn subject to significant advocacy inthe formulation stages, stressing the need forsecurity and predictability of water entitlementsfor consumptive users, in particular for irrigatedagriculture. The influence of Australia’s strongfarmers’ lobby and irrigators’ councils can be seenhere. It is useful to separate two related yet differentimperatives in the allocation aspects of the NationalWater Initiative. The first, a social imperative,relies on public subsidy and long term planning;the second, an economic imperative, advancesthe primacy of efficiency and market forces. Theformer is the social imperative of maintainingwater-dependent communities even where they“will never be economically viable but need tobe maintained to meet social and public healthobligations” ([66(v)]). The second relates to theeconomic imperative of productivity, competitionin export trade, and efficiency in inputs. Both ofthese provisions reflect the ideas embedded in theJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

44Hussey and DoversTable 1. Typology of Environmental Discourses.EnvironmentalDiscourseSustainabilityProblem SolvingSustainableDevelopmentEcologicalModernizationAdministrativeRationalismDemocraticPragmatismEconomicRationalismDescriptionReinforces capitalist economy but economic growth, environmentalprotection, distributive justice, and long-term sustainability are seen to gotogether. Reassures developed societies that no tough choice will be madebetween economic growth and environmental protection.A systems approach which takes seriously the complex pathways bywhich consumption, production, resource depletion, and pollution areinterrelated. Emphasizes the need for partnerships between governments,business, moderate environmentalists, and scientists to restructure thecapitalist political economy along green lines.Seeks to organize scientific and technical expertise into bureaucratichierarchy in the service of the state, treated in monolithic terms. Strongemphasis on regulation. Strong conception of the nature of government asthe administrative state.Stresses the importance of interactive problem-solving involvingparticipants from within government and outside it. Like administrativerationalism, it takes the structural status quo of liberal capitalism asgiven, but government is seen not as the administrative state, but rather asa multiplicity of decision processes populated by citizens and driven byliberal democracy.Relies exclusively on the deployment of market mechanisms to achievepublic ends. Opposes regulation. No role for government except toestablish the basic parameters (property rights, infrastructure etc) ofdesigned markets. There are no citizens in economic rationalism, onlyconsumers and producers.Survivalism Survivalism Recognizes and emphasizes the resources upon which human beingsdepend. Stresses that human demands on the carrying capacity ofecosystems threaten to explode out of control. Population seen as anaggregate entity to be managed by elites. Rich in metaphors based on“limits to growth” theory.GreenRadicalismThe PrometheanGreenRomanticismGreenRationalismSource: Adapted from Dryzek (1997).Denies the existence of natural resources, ecosystems, and nature itselfand therefore denies that there could be a limit to them. Humans areseen to dominate everything else, and together with energy, competition,technology and markets nature can be totally controlled (once it is fullyunderstood).Considers that industrial society involves and induces a warpedconceptions of persons and their place in the world. Emphasizes the needfor new kinds of human sensibilities that are less destructive to nature.Two conceptions of nature captured in this discourse: “inner nature”and “outer nature.” Founded on the belief that governments, market andpolicies are of no consequence to the environment—the key to changingthe world is through ideas.Recognizes that nature is a series of complex ecosystems whosewellbeing requires change in human behavior. Social, political andeconomic structures are recognized as having important influence thatcannot be reduced to the sensibilities of the individuals inhabiting them(such as in Green Romanticism). Humans are set apart from nature byvirtue of their reasoning capacities, but they are not seen to dominate. Astewardship relationship between humans and nature is advocated.UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Trajectories in Australian Water Policy45environmental discourse on “sustainable development.”One of the key recommendations of the “WentworthGroup” in the formulation of the NationalWater Initiative was that the role of regional, catchment-based institutions should be consolidated as thepreferred approach to natural resource management:Management must be local, because socialand environmental conditions vary and statelevel structures are not sufficiently connectedto the farmers and irrigators who mustimplement the strategy through their actions.Distant authorities do not have access to thelocal knowledge required to develop anddeliver innovative strategies (TWG 2003).The decentralization of government policy andits implementation is not a new idea (Hutchcroft2001) and it has been widely promoted as amechanism to promote democratic and developmentobjectives. The National Water Initiative’semphasis on participatory approaches to resourcemanagement, at the catchment and local scalesthrough programs such as Landcare, reflects theshared problem-solving approach encapsulatedin the “democratic pragmatism” discourse.A further theme in the National Water Initiative,and indeed in Australian natural resourcemanagement policies more broadly, is the potentialrole of “stewardship.” While not made explicitin the National Water Initiative, the appointmentof environmental water managers to achieveenvironmental and other public benefit outcomes([78(ii)]), together with recent scholarship on thesubject within policy circles 10 reflects the notionclosely. There has also been increasing debateabout the potential role of indigenous Australiansto act as environmental stewards in return forfinancial compensation (Altman 2006). Theseideas insert the discourse of “green radicalism”into the National Water Initiative agenda.The objectives of the National Water Initiative,and the choice of policy instruments to achievethem reflect the divergent influences of various,often competing ideas that have evolved overmany years and now culminate in contemporarywater policy. The two key imperatives ofenvironmental sustainability and economicrationalism have been enshrined in the NationalWater Initiative, but as we saw in the previoussection, the inability to reconcile many of theconflicting rationalities between them has resultedin significant challenges for the successfulimplementation of the National Water Initiative.The difficulties of implementation have beenrecognized through a research agenda developedby leading policy and research and developmentfigures (Land and Water Australia 2005).Comparative Perspectives: Water Policy inthe European Union and the United StatesThe European Union, United States andAustralia share a number of challenges in waterresource management: all are characterized bymulti-jurisdictional and multi-level governancestructures with often significant fragmentation;all rely on shared water resources between statesfor agricultural and industrial production; andall have influential agricultural interests thatinevitably advocate strongly for that sector inpolicy formulation. In this section, we brieflyexamine the contrasts and similarities between theEuropean Union and United States water policy,in relation to Australia’s National Water Initiative.In September 2000, after a decade of politicalstruggle, the European Union adopted a newframework for Europe’s water legislation,known as the Water Framework Directive. Whenthe European Commission formally drafted aproposal for the Water Framework Directivein February 1997, the then European UnionEnvironment Commissioner hailed it as a triumph:This important proposal is on the cutting edgeof environmental protection. All water usesnecessary to life and society—from drinkingto bathing to agriculture to industry—will becarried out with a respect that ensures that wateris fit and sustainable into the next century… 11Like the National Water Initiative, the WaterFramework Directive represents a major advancein water policy with three concepts included inEuropean water legislation for the first time:the need to protect and improve the aquaticenvironment and its ecosystems (Article 1); theorganization and regulation of water managementat the level of river basins (Article 3); and thatwater pricing should be determined on thebasis of full cost recovery (Article 9). The mainelements of the Water Framework Directive are:1. an ecological and holistic water statusJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

46Hussey and Doversassessment approach2. river basin management3. a strategy for elimination of pollution bydangerous substances4. public information and consultation5. the use of financial instruments.As is obvious, there are many similaritiesbetween the European Union’s Water FrameworkDirective and Australia’s National WaterInitiative, not least in the fact that both entities,unlike the United States, have opted for anoverarching, federal framework for water resourcemanagement. Similarly, the power and influence ofthe environmental lobbies in achieving ecologicalobjectives can be seen in each, and the strengthenedrole of regional, catchment-based institutions isalso evident in both.However, an important difference between thetwo initiatives is the type of policy instrumentsadopted. Unlike Australia, the European Unionhas not pursued water trading, instead focusingon the “full cost recovery concept for determiningwater prices” which must, by definition, includeproduction as well as environmental and resourcecosts. This instrument clearly reflected theEuropean Union’s requirement that all policiesoperate according to both the polluter pays principleand the precautionary principle. The inclusion ofthe full cost-recovery principle was a coup for theenvironment lobby in the European Union, as thepowerful Council of Ministers had demanded it bedropped in the preparatory phase, to be replacedby an “adequate contribution” to the recovery ofthe costs of water services and further, policies thatprovide “adequate incentives for users to use waterresources efficiently” (Kaika 2003, Kaika andPage 2003). It should be noted, however, that theCouncil of Ministers did manage to “water down”the full cost recovery for water pricing principlesuch that member states are now only requiredto ensure that the price charged to consumers forfresh water and for the treatment of wastewaterwill “take into account” the full environmentalcosts (Page 2003).Three other issues are outstanding in the WaterFramework Directive and will pose considerabledifficulties in its implementation: first, it is unclearhow strict the penalties for non-compliance willbe, or how stringently any potential loopholesmay be tightened; second, while environmentalpolicy integration into other sectors of theeconomy is a mainstay of the European Union’s5th Environmental Action Program, it is unclear inthe document how the Water Framework Directivewill impact on the Common Agricultural Policy.Finally, there is speculation that the enormouscosts imposed on the member states to implementthe Water Framework Directive will force memberstates to outsource those costs to the private sector,with the result that water might become significantlymore privatized and thus “commodified,” despitethe Commission’s claims that “water is not acommercial product” (Kaika and Page 2003).Unlike in Australia and the European Union,the United States has not developed a nationalframework for the management of water resources.Water policy and law in the United States issignificantly fragmented with the eastern statespredominantly governed by the doctrine of riparianrights, while the western states have a systemthat treats water as a kind of private property orcommodity, known as prior appropriation. Thereis a third system known as regulated riparianismwhich shares characteristics with the Australianlegal system, whereby the withdrawal of waterrequires prior approval and the use of permitsand licenses. There are a number of deficienciesin United States water law that have not beenaddressed at the national level, which is arguablywhy they are unlikely to be resolved in the nearfuture.First, there are jurisdictional barriers whichhave hindered attempts to successfully legislatefor both human and environmental needs in theUnited States to date (Arnold 2005). In particular,jurisdictional fragmentation exists both betweenlevels of government and within the same levelof government. For instance, while most pointsourcepollution control is federal in originthrough the Environmental Protection Authority,the responsibility for regulating non-point sourcepollution lies in State hands. Further, wetlandregulation is the province primarily of the UnitedStates Army Corps of Engineers, whereas theenforcement of the Endangered Species Act ininland waters belongs to the United States Fish andUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Trajectories in Australian Water Policy47Wildlife Service. Moreover, while pollution lawand the protection of biodiversity reside largelyin Federal hands, water quantity, by contrast, isa matter of state law – and land use managementis generally the domain of local government. AsAndreen (2006) warns, successive United Stateslegislators:have spent decades creating… separate legalsystems to govern land use, water use and waterpollution, and it will take considerable effort todemonstrate to voters, economic interests, anddecision-makers at all levels of governmentprecisely how land use and water are inextricablyconnected throughout the whole of a watershed.Such jurisdictional fragmentation leads toa second significant problem of regulatoryfragmentation between water rights and landrights. In the United States, there is a considerableproblem with coordination both vertically withrespect to Federal law, state water law, and localland use management, and horizontally withrespect to the various agencies and political entitiesthat have responsibilities within each subject area.As in Australia, there have been attempts in theUnited States to overcome these jurisdictionalbarriers, including the public trust doctrine and theintroduction of environmental impact assessments.However, unlike in Australia and the EuropeanUnion—where environmental impact assessmentshave been incorporated into all state and memberstate legislation—in the United States it has onlybeen enacted into 15 state statutes (Andreen 2006),in addition to the Federal statute. In an effortto overcome this “multi-layered jurisdictionalpuzzle” there have been calls for the developmentof watershed institutions, much like the catchmentbasedinstitutions in the National Water Initiativeand Water Framework Directive. However, to datethere has not been a comprehensive Federal pushfor this kind of regime change.There are, however, aspects of United Stateswater policy that are very similar to those of Australiaand the European Union. The use of financialincentives or economic instruments is extensive inthe United States, and they are captured in Federaland state agri-enviromental schemes such as theconservation programs in the United States FarmBill, and vary in substance across the states. Watertrading has been implemented in some states suchas California where water is scarce but there are nosuggestions that this would become national in extent.Indeed the extensive jurisdictional fragmentationacross levels of government would makethat particularly difficult. In the main, however,the United States policy style in the water domaincould be characterized on the one hand as administrativerationalism par excellence, and on the otherhand as economic rationalism owing to the choiceof policy instruments, if not in terms of the role ofgovernment.In relation to water quality, there is nationallegislation in the form of the Clean Water Act,although it is focused primarily on point-sourcepollution from industry and manufacturing. Fornon-point source pollution, such as that created byagriculture, the United States Congress instructedstates to develop water management plans but thepolicy was “watered down” such that it permittedthe states to use exclusively non-regulatoryavenues such as technical assistance, education,training, and demonstration projects to implementthe management plans (Andreen 2006). In UnitedStates agri-environment policy, dual emphasisis placed on both economic incentives, andparticipatory approaches to problem-solving.ConclusionThis paper has established that the apparent“framework” represented by Australia’s NationalWater Initiative—and by European Union andUnited States equivalents—contains unresolvedtensions:the demand for a national, property-rights-basedwater management system and recognition of theneed to hold Australia’s freshwater systems to“environmentally sustainable levels of extraction”have resulted in a framework that is weakened byunresolved tensions between the two (Connell etal. 2005).This should not surprise, as framework policies,especially in federal systems and in complexpolicy domains such as water, by definition are theproduct of political compromise, accommodatingthe aspirations of multiple players. The danger liesin forgetting that unresolved differences and discoursesremain to be negotiated during implementation ofthe policy, and in the construction and maintenanceof water management arrangements consistent withJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

48Hussey and Doverspolicy goals.Beyond recognition of this situation, whatmight constructively be done? First, residualtensions and challenges can be made explicitrather than concealed in communications and inimplementation planning. That way, managersinvolved in implementation can appreciate thenature of their task, and hopefully avoid being“ambushed” by conflict and constraints. Second,those entrusted with implementation—such asregional organizations, stakeholder representatives,state policy officials, etc—can be supported in theirtask through provision of information, decisionsupport skills and human resources needed toproperly acquit the challenging and complex tasksthey have been assigned. Third, the iterative andnecessarily adaptive nature of integrated watermanagement can be advanced by exposing clearlythe nature of the task, accepting uncertainty,long time scales and multiple values. While thatshould be accepted as normal, it is not clear thatgenuinely adaptive, experimental-yet-purposefulapproaches to water management, and to the policyand institutional underpinnings of management,are anywhere perfected as an art and craft. Theannouncement of a framework policy, such as theNational Water Initiative, becomes the beginningof the hard work, not the end. The National WaterInitiative, the Water Framework Directive andapproaches in the United States are evidence ofhow far we have come, but also invite reflection onhow far there is yet to travel.Author Bios and Contact InformationKAREN HUSSEY is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the NationalEuropean Union Centre, The Australian NationalUniversity and Chair of the ANU Water initiative, anda PhD Candidate at the University of Melbourne, withresearch interests in comparative water policy analysis.Email karen.hussey@anu.edu.au.STEVE DOVERS is a Professor with the Center for Resourceand Environmental Studies, The Australian NationalUniversity, and Adjunct Principal Research Fellow,Charles Darwin University, with research interests inthe policy and institutional dimensions of sustainabledeveleopment. Email dovers@cres.anu.edu.au.Endnotes1.This historical sketch draws on Smith (1998);Powell (2000); Connell (in press).2.3.4.5.In the 1970-80s, consistent with the longer standingUnited States policy and legal debate, the term used inAustralia regarding environmental water allocationswas “instream flows,” inclusive of environmentalbut also recreational, cultural, aesthetic, and othervalues. By the 1990s, the narrower construct of“environmental flows” has become dominant. Thisshift bears closer examination.Signed between the Commonwealth of Australiaand the Governments of New South Wales, Victoria,Queensland, South Australia, The AustralianCapital Territory and the Northern Territory. TheGovernments of Tasmania and Western Australiahave since signed the National Water Initiative(Tasmania in June 2005, Western Australia in April2006) Tasmania signed in June 2005.Other initiatives and policies that affect sustainablewater management include the National Action Planfor Salinity and Water Quality, the National WaterQuality Management Strategy and the NaturalHeritage Trust. To the extent of any inconsistencybetween these and the National Water Initiative, theNational Water Initiative prevails.The key elements of the National Water Initiativeare (National Water Initiative [24]):••••••••Water access entitlements and planningframework;Water markets and trading;Best practice water pricing;Integrated management of water for environmentaland other public benefit outcomes;Water resource accounting;Urban water reform;Knowledge and capacity building; andCommunity partnerships and adjustment.6. National Groundwater Committee, Integratedgroundwater—surface water management IssuePaper 1.7. The Murray-Darling river system providescritically important water resources for Australia’sagricultural sector. Through the use of dams andwater diversions the river system provides waterfor irrigation in Queensland, New South Wales(NSW), and South Australia. Unfortunately, theenvironmental costs associated with these alteredflows have been very large. In response, there havebeen a number of intergovernmental agreements onwater reform for the Murray-Darling, most recentlythe “Living Murray Initiative” established by theMurray Darling Basin Council in 2002 with the aimto “create a healthy working river that assures us ofcontinued prosperity, clean water and a flourishingenvironment” (Department of Environment andHeritage 2004). In light of the Expert Panel’sUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Trajectories in Australian Water Policy49recommendation, the Living Murray Initiative aimsto reallocate 500 Giga liters per annum to the riverfrom the expenditure of $500 million, commencing2004-05. In addition to the reallocation of 500Giga liters, the Living Murray Initiative focuseson maximizing environmental benefits for sixsignificant ecological assets, and meeting specificecological objectives and outcomes for each ofthese assets.8. National Water Initiative [61].9. The National Water Commission will compriseup to seven members, appointed for up to 3years and eligible for re-appointment subject toagreement. Commissioners will be appointed onthe basis of experience in audit and evaluation,governance, resource economics, water resourcemanagement, freshwater ecology and hydrology.The Commonwealth can appoint four members(including the Chair) and the States and Territoriesmay appoint three. (See National Water InitiativeSchedule C).10. See Binning and Young (1997) and Curtis and DeLacy (1998).11. Bjerregaard (1997) cited in (Kaika, 2003)page 317.ReferencesAltman, J.C. 2006. In search of an outstations policy forIndigenous Australians. Working paper 34. Centre forAboriginal Economic Research, Australian NationalUniversity, Canberra.Andreen, W. 2006. Developing a more holistic approachto water management in the United States. TheEnvironmental Law Reporter 36: 10277-10289.Arnold, C. A. 2005. Is wet growth smarter than smartgrowth?: The fragmentation and integration of landuse and water. The Environmental Law Reporter 35:10156-10158.Baker, R., J. Davies and E. Young. (Eds.). 2001. Workingon country: Contemporary Indigenous managementof Australia’s lands and coastal regions. OxfordUniversity Press, Melbourne.Binning, C. and M. Young. 1997. Motivating people:Using management agreements to conserve remnantvegetation. Environment Australia, Canberra.Common, M. 1995. Sustainability and policy: Limits toeconomics. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.Connell, D., S. Dovers, and R.Q. Grafton. 2005. ACritical Analysis of the National Water Initiative.The Australasian Journal of Natural Resources Lawand Policy 10(1): 81-107.Connell, D. (in press). The history and politics of theMurray-Darling Basin. Federation Press, Sydney.Connor, R. and S. Dovers 2004. Institutional change forsustainable development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.Curtis, A., and T. De Lacy. 1998. Landcare,stewardship and sustainable agriculture in Australia.Environmental Values 7: 59-78.Curtis, A. 2003. The landcare experience. In Dovers,S. and S. Wild River. (Eds.). Managing Australia’senvironment pp. 442-460. Sydney: Federation Press.Davidson, B. R. 1969. Australia wet or dry? Thephysical and economic limits to the expansion ofirrigation. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.Davis, G., J. Wanna, J. Warhurst and P. Weller. 1993.Public policy in Australia. Allen and Unwin,Sydney.Dillion, P., R. Benyon, P. Cook, T. Hatton, S. Marvanekand J. Gillooly. 2001. Review of research onplantation forest water requirements in relation togroundwater resources in the southeast of SouthAustralia. Centre for Groundwater Studies ReportNo 99.Dore, J., J. Woodhill, K. Andrews and K. Keating. 2003.Sustainable regional development: Lessons fromAustralian efforts. In Dovers, S. and S. Wild River.(Eds.). Managing Australia’s environment pp.154-180. Federation Press, Sydney.Dovers. 1997. Sustainability: Demands on policy.Journal of Public Policy 16: 303-318.Dovers, S. 2000. On the contribution of environmentalhistory to current debate and policy. Environmentand History 6: 131-50.Dovers, S. 2005. Environment and Sustainability Policy:Creation, implementation, evaluation. FederationPress, Sydney.Dovers, S. and S. Wild River, 2003. (Eds.). ManagingAustralia’s Environment. Federation Press, Sydney.Dryzek, J. 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmentaldiscourses. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Ewing, S. 2003. Catchment management arrangements.In Dovers, S. and S. Wild River. (Eds.). ManagingAustralia’s Environment pp 394-412. FederationPress, Sydney.Fischer, F. 2003. Reframing Public Policy: Discursivepolitics and deliberative practices. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford.Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: The emergence of aperspective for social–ecological systems analyses.Global Environmental Change 16: 253-267.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

50Hussey and DoversFrawley, K. 1994. Evolving visions: Environmentalmanagement and nature conservation in Australia. InDovers, S. (Ed.). Australian Environmental History:Essays and cases pp 53-78. Oxford University Press,Melbourne.Gardner, A. 2006. Environmental water allocationsin Australia. The Environmental Law ReporterXXXVI(4): 10319-10336.Gunningham, N. and Grabosky, P. 1998. Smartregulation: designing environmental policy. Oxford:Clarendon Press.Gunningham, N. and Sinclair, D. 2004. Curbing Non-Point Source Pollution: Lessons from the Swan-Canning Environment and Planning Law Journal,21: 181-199.Hajer, M. and H. Wagenaar. (Eds.). 2003. DeliberativePolicy Analysis: Understanding governance inthe network society. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.Howlett, M. and M. Ramesh. 2003. Studying PublicPolicy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. OxfordUniversity Press, Don Mills, Ontario.Hussey, K. 2006. Sustainable water management inAustralia, European Union, and the United States.The Environmental Law Reporter XXXVI(4):10259-10263.Hutchcroft, P.D. 2001. Centralization and decentralizationin administration and politics: assessing territorialitydimensions of authority and power. Governance. 14:22-53.Jackson, S. 2005. Indigenous values and water resourcemanagement: A case study from the NorthernTerritory. Australasian Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 12: 136-146.Kaika, M. 2003. The Water Framework Directive: ANew Directive for a Changing Social, Political andEconomic European Framework. European PlanningStudies. 11: 299-316.Kaika, M. and Page, B. 2003. The European WaterFramework Directive: Part 1. European policymakingand the changing topography of lobbying.European Environment. 13: 314-327.Keenan, R. J., M. Parsons, E. O’Loughlin, A. Gerrand,S. Beavis, D.Gunawardana, M. Gavran and A. Bugg.2004. Plantations and water: A review. Reportprepared for Forest and Wood Products Researchand Develeopment Corporation. Bureau of RuralSciences, Canberra.Land and Water Australia. 2005. Water perspectives:Outcomes of an expert workshop scoping socialand institutional research questions in support ofimplementation of the National Water Initiative.Land and Water Australia, Canberra.Lee, K. N. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integratingscience and politics for the environment. IslandPress, Washington.McLaughlin, K., S. P. Osborne and E. Ferlie. (Eds.).2002. New Public Management: Current trends andfuture prospects. Routledge, London.Mitchell, W.C. and Simmons, R.T. 1994. BeyondPolitics: Markets, welfare and the failure ofbureaucracy. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Murray Darling Basin Commission. 2002. IntegratedCatchment Management: Learning from theAustralian experience for the Murray-Darling Basin.Murray Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.Murray Darling Basin Commission. 2002. The LivingMurray: A discussion paper on restoring the healthof the River Murray. MDBC, Canberra.Pigram, J. J. and W. F. Musgrave. 1998. Sharing thewaters of the Murray-Darling Basin: Cooperativefederalism under test in Australia. In Just, R. andS. Netanyahu. (Eds.). Confl ict and Cooperationon Trans-boundary Water Resources pp 130-151.Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Dordrechtand London.Powell, J. M. 2000. Snakes and cannons: Watermanagement and the geographical imagination inAustralia. In Dovers, S. (Ed.). Environmental Historyand Policy: Still settling Australia pp 47-71. OxfordUniversity Press, Melbourne.Robins, L. and S. Dovers. (2007). NRM regions inAustralia: The haves and the have nots. GeographicalResearch in press.Smith, D. I. 1998. Water in Australia: Resources andmanagement. Oxford University Press Melbourne.TWG (The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists).2002. Blueprint for a living continent. WWFAustralia, Sydney.TWG (The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists).2002. Blueprint for a national water plan. WWFAustralia, Sydney.Wild River, S. 2003. Local government. In Dovers,S. and S. Wild River. (Eds.). Managing Australia’sEnvironment. pp 338-362. Federation Press, Sydney.UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

51UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONISSUE 135, PAGES 51-55, DECEMBER 2006IWRM In Practice: Lessons FromCanadian ExperiencesBruce MitchellUniversity of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, CanadaIn Canada, IWRM has evolved fromcomprehensive river basin management in the1940s, as an explicit way to integrate economic,social and environmental considerations, toincorporate the perspectives of stakeholders.IWRM is also designed to overcome ‘edge’ effects(overlap of responsibility and authority betweentwo or more public agencies) as well as verticaland horizontal fragmentation.In this article, highlights from Canadianexperience are provided, based on a review ofinternational experience with IWRM to be publishedby the World Meteorological Organization in 2007(Mitchell, in press).ContextIn Canada, the roots or predecessors of IWRMare based on at least two initiatives: OntarioConservation Authorities, and comprehensive riverbasin planning and management.Ontario Conservation AuthoritiesThe Ontario Conservation Authorities wereestablished through legislation in 1946. ConservationAuthorities were created to be river basinorganizations, based on a partnership ofmunicipalities and the provincial government(Ontario 1967, 1987, Richardson 1974, Mitchelland Shrubsole 1992). The motivation came froman appreciation that individual municipalitiesdid not normally have the resources or authorityto undertake basin-wide initiatives, such asconstruction and operation of upstream damsand reservoirs for flood damage protection, tobenefit an individual municipality as well as otherdownstream communities. In 2006, there were36 conservation authorities in Ontario, coveringareas in which over 90 percent of the people in theprovince live.The following principles underlie theConservation Authorities: (1) the watershed as themanagement unit, (2) local initiative is essential—a Conservation Authority can be established onlywhen two or more municipalities in a watershedagree to collaborate with each other and theprovincial government, (3) provincial-municipalpartnership is a core aspect, (4) a healthy economybased on a healthy environment, (5) a comprehensiveperspective is required, and (6) coordination andcooperation are to be pursued. For more than 60years, the Conservation Authorities have operatedunder these principles to manage land, water, andrelated resources within river basins, and haveaccumulated considerable experience in facilitatingcollaborative and cooperative approaches as well asovercoming vertical and horizontal fragmentation.Comprehensive River Basin Planning andManagementThe Canadian federal government and severalprovincial governments initiated “comprehensiveriver basin planning” in the late 1960s in order to(1) enhance experience in using river basins as thebasis for planning and management, (2) explicitlyincorporate environmental considerations intoplanning, and (3) incorporate public participationin a systematic manner. Five comprehensive riverbasin plans were completed, which in turn werefollowed by implementation programs (Mitchelland Gardner 1983).Assessment of the experience with the federalprovincialbasin plans revealed: (1) basin plansJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

52Mitchelloften took three to four years to complete,resulting in some people wondering about theirpractical value and whether the time to completethem could be reduced, (2) recommendationsusually were numerous and unprioritized (furtherexacerbated because, once a plan was completed,the team which had prepared it dispersed, leavingfew people who could provide insight aboutpriorities), and (3) insufficient attention was givento implementation. The last point was particularlynoticeable because planning teams normally didnot engage in systematic and ongoing dialoguewith the agencies and others responsible for takingaction regarding the recommendations.Starting from the experience with the OntarioConservation Authorities, and from the federalprovincialcomprehensive basin plans, combinedwith other initiatives across the country, reflectionled to lessons learned. These lessons now providea foundation for IWRM in Canada.Lessons Learned and Their Implicationsfor IWRMImportance of a VisionIWRM is a means to an end. Consequently, itis important to have a clear vision or directionabout a desired end state for a catchment or riverbasin. IWRM then becomes one means to assistin achieving the desired end state.A vision identifies a future state believed to bemore desirable than the present state. Without avision or direction, it is difficult to determine whichparts in the basin need to be brought together into awhole, and who should be working together.Developing a shared vision is normallychallenging because many values, interests andneeds that exist in a river basin or catchment needto be reconciled. Notwithstanding this challenge,if there is no sense of direction or well understoodends, IWRM will not be able to create one. Thus,planners and managers have learned that IWRMwill not be effective without a vision. Worse,IWRM may be discredited because it did notgenerate a vision, something is was never intendedto do.In developing a vision, it has been learned thatwe need to distinguish among what is probable,desirable, and feasible because the most probablefuture may not be the most desirable future. Inaddition, a desirable future may not be feasible.It is exactly in order to determine the desiredand feasible future condition that planners andmanagers create a vision.Sharpening FocusThe long time taken to complete comprehensiveriver basin and similar plans led to rethinkingabout how to interpret a systems, ecosystem orholistic approach. The value of looking at thesystem represented by a river basin, its componentparts, and the relationships among the partswas always understood so that the connectionsamong water, land, and other resources could beaddressed systematically, with attention also givento economic, social, and environmental aspectsof the watershed. However, it was learned that itwas unnecessary to examine every component andevery relationship, since each was not significantin accounting for variability in system behavior.And certainly, each was not amenable to beingmanaged.As a result, while the value of a systems,ecosystem, or holistic approach continued to beappreciated, it was learned that it was neithernecessary nor desirable to take a comprehensiveperspective if that meant studying everycomponent and relationship. Instead, it waslearned that greater value would occur if attentionfocused on the key components and relationshipsaccounting for the greatest variability in systembehavior, provided these are also amenable tomanagement interventions. It was this lessonthat led to increasing reference to an “integrated”rather than a “comprehensive” approach becausethe former maintained the benefits of a systemsapproach (considering the watershed as a system,its parts and their interrelationships), but wasmore selective by focusing on only those parts andrelationships judged to be most significant from amanagement perspective.This shift in interpretation and approach directlyaddressed the concerns that arose in the 1970sabout comprehensive river basin plans strivingto undertake too much by examining all variablesand relationships. Negative consequences of thecomprehensive approach include inordinateamounts of time needed to complete studies andUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM In Practice Canada53develop basin plans. The tighter focus of anintegrated interpretation, it is believed, increasesthe likelihood that analysis and planning can becompleted in a shorter period of time, and generatea smaller set of more relevant and prioritizedrecommendations.Significance of Spatial ScaleConsistent with taking an integratedinterpretation, analysts, planners and managershave learned that different levels of detail shouldbe sought, depending on spatial scale. Thisis exemplified by the approach that emergedin Ontario as a result of assessing catchmentand subcatchment planning experiences in thatprovince (Credit Valley Conservation, GrandRiver Conservation Authority, and Toronto RegionConservation Authority 2002). The conclusion wasthat planning and management should focus on oneof four different scales: watershed, subwatershed,tributary, and site. In moving across scales, thekinds and amount of data to be collected shouldchange, “with the level of detail increasing asthe size of the planning area decreases.” Ideally,what is done at each stage provides “direction andinformation” for the next lower level.The four spatial levels of planning, reflectingdifferent levels of detail for information, are:1. Basin or catchment plans: Covering largeareas, these plans include goals, objectives,and targets for the entire basin, and documentresource and environmental problems. They alsoprovide catchment-wide policy for protectingsurface and ground water, natural features,fisheries, open space systems, terrestrial andaquatic habitats, and other important features.If resources are degraded, restoration needsare addressed. These plans usually also specifywho will do what by when, how it will be done,and what reporting will occur.2. Subcatchment plans: Relative to basinplans, enhanced detail is provided to allowlocal environmental issues to be addressed.Goals, objectives, and targets to managethe subcatchment are identified. In addition,plans give attention to the form, function,and linkages of the natural system;environmentally sensitive or hazard lands;3.4.areas where development may be permitted;Best Management Practices such as aggregateextraction, development servicing of wood lotsfor agriculture; direction and consistency forapproval of development for municipalities;cumulative impacts of changes on the naturalenvironment; and, implementation andmonitoring plans. Subcatchment IWRM plansare custom-designed for local conditions andconcerns. Recommendations may subsequentlybe incorporated into official land use plans,secondary plans, growth management plans,or other municipal planning instruments.Tributary plans: These are prepared to guideproposals for significant land use changessuch as proposals for subdivisions, intensiveagriculture or industrial estates. These usuallycover an area between 2 to 10 sq km. Ideally,the boundaries of a tributary plan match thedrainage basin of a tributary, but in practicethis does not always occur. Tributary plansnormally document the environmentalresources; establish environmental protectiontargets for ground and surface water, aquaticand terrestrial communities and streammorphology; identify Best ManagementPractices, including those for stormwatermanagement; define or refine areas to beprotected and/or restored; identify locationsfor future stormwater management facilities;and identify future site-specific studies andmonitoring needs. Recommendations fromtributary plans usually appear in secondaryland use plans, and in official land use planamendments.Environmental site plans: These provide detailson proposed environmental and stormwatermeasures, and are usually submitted alongwith other plans for grading, erosion/sedimentcontrol and site servicing. Typical features aredetailed designs for stormwater managementfacilities; detailed designs for environmentalrestoration works (e.g., stream protectionworks); identification of constraints such assignificant wood lots, wetlands or hazardlands; sediment and erosion control plans;detailed geotechnical and water resourcereports; delineation of grading limits andJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

54Mitchelltree preservation plans; revegetation andlandscaping plans; and landscape featuresincluding trails and other recreation facilities.Recommendations from site plans normallyappear in engineering design drawings for draftplans for a subdivision or industrial estate.The progression from basin to site plans isideal. However, various constraints can lead tosubbasin or subwatershed plans being preparedbefore basin plans, which then later have to beintegrated into a basin or catchment IWRM plan.In a similar way, tributary plans may be completedbefore the subcatchment plans. Nevertheless,the differentiation among four spatial scales hashelped to avoid collecting inappropriate data for agiven scale.PartnershipsAs already noted above, IWRM is intended toensure a holistic or ecosystem approach, and tofacilitate the coordination of initiatives by differentstakeholders. With regard to the latter, a strongmotivation is to break down the “silo effect,” orthe tendency of agencies to take decisions withregard only to their own mandates and authority.By using partnerships to overcome the silo effect,there is a reasonable expectation that IWRM willbe more effective and efficient relative to a nonintegratedapproach.However, in promoting a holistic approach,IWRM can experience tension with arrangementsfor including participatory mechanisms. Manyindividuals, communities, or stakeholder groupsdo not consider the entire system, but rather focusonly on the subpart related to their own needsand interests. Thus, individuals often concernthemselves with the impacts of catchmentmanagement on their own property, and municipalgovernments frequently worry only about the areaunder their jurisdiction. As a result, if participatorymethods are to be a key component of IWRM,care has to be taken to understand not only thestrengths and limitations of IWRM, but also thoseof participatory approaches.Collaboration allows stakeholders to cometogether to share views regarding different aspectsof a problem, and then explore differences andsearch constructively for solutions. This way, theycan share resources, enhance each other’s capacityfor mutual benefit and achieve a common vision bysharing risks, responsibilities, and rewards (Gray1989, Himmelman 1996).To achieve effective partnerships, Mitchell(2002) and Gunton and Day (2003) note that thefollowing attributes deserve attention: (1) sharedvision; (2) compatibility between participantsbased on integrity, mutual trust and respect, aswell as patience and perseverance by all partners;(3) adaptability and flexibility; (4) inclusiverepresentation; (5) benefits to all partners; (6)equitable power for partners (not the same asequal power); (7) clear ground rules; (8) processaccountability; (9) sound process management;(10) clear communication channels; (11) realistictime lines and (12) well articulated implementationand monitoring processes.In addition, Gunton and Day (2003) highlightthat it is essential to determine if a collaborativeapproach should be pursued in a specific situation.To determine when participatory approaches areappropriate, they identified five pre-conditions:(1) commitment of decision-making agenciesto a participatory approach; (2) commitment ofall stakeholders; (3) urgency for resolution ofan issue or issues; (4) absence of fundamentalvalue differences; and (5) existence of feasiblesolutions. In their view, the challenge is whetherpre-conditions are met sufficiently to allow aparticipatory process to begin.ConclusionCanada has accumulated significant experiencewith what is now called IWRM. Key lessonslearned, if IWRM is to be a useful tool to help facilitateeffective action, are the necessity to preparea shared vision for a desired future, to interpret anecosystem or holistic approach in a focused mannerto ensure planning and implementation occurin a timely manner, to recognize the importance ofvarious spatial scales in determining the kind andamount of data to be collected, and to develop robustpartnerships among the many stakeholders ina catchment.Author Bio and Contact InformationBRUCE MITCHELL, Ph.D., is Professor of Geographyand Associate Provost, Academic and Student Affairs,at the University of Waterloo. He has over 35 yearsUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM In Practice Canada55of experience conducting research in Canada andin developing countries related to integrated waterresources management. He is a Fellow of the RoyalSociety of Canada, a Fellow of the International WaterResources Association, and a Past President of theCanadian Water Resources Association. He can becontacted at: Needles Hall, University of Waterloo, 200University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada,N2L 3G1, or at mitchell@uwaterloo.ca.to 1970. University of Toronto Press: Toronto.ReferencesCredit Valley Conservation, Grand River ConservationAuthority and Toronto Region ConservationAuthority. 2002. Watershed Management in Ontario:Lessons Learned and Best Practices in WatershedPlanning, Implementation and Monitoring in theCVA, GRCA and TRCA. Credit Valley Conservation:Mississauga, Ontario.Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding CommonGround for Multiparty Problems. Jossey-Bass: SanFrancisco.Gunton, T. I., and J. C. Day. 2003. The theory andpractice of collaborative planning in resource andenvironmental management. Environments 31( 2):5-19.Himmelman, A. T. 1996. On the theory and practiceof transformational collaboration: From socialservice to social justice, Pages 19-43 In: E. Huxham(Ed.). Creating Collaborative Advantage, SAGEPublications: Thousand Oaks, CA.Mitchell, B. 2002. Resource and EnvironmentalManagement. 2nd edition, Prentice Hall: Harlow,England.Mitchell, B. in press. Guide to Hydrological Practices,Sixth Edition.Mitchell, B., and J. S. Gardner (Eds.). 1983. River BasinManagement: Canadian Experiences. Department ofGeography Publication Series No. 20. University ofWaterloo: Waterloo, Ontario.Mitchell, B. and D. Shrubsole. 1992. OntarioConservation Authorities: Myth and Reality.Department of Geography Publication Series No. 35.University of Waterloo: Waterloo, Ontario.Ontario, 1967. Report of the Select Committee onConservation Authorities. Queen’s Printer: Toronto.Ontario, 1987. A Review of the Conservation AuthoritiesProgram. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources:Toronto.Richardson, A. H., 1974. Conservation by the People:The History of the Conservation Movement in OntarioJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

56UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONISSUE 135, PAGES 56-64, DECEMBER 2006Organizational Dynamics of Watershed Partnerships:A Key to Integrated Water Resources ManagementKenneth D. Genskow and Stephen M. BornDepartment of Urban and Regional PlanningUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, USAOne of the most significant institutionalinnovations in natural resources andenvironmental management over the pastdecade or so has been the widespread emergenceand growth of collaborative and partnershipbasedwatershed initiatives (John 1994, Griffin1999, National Research Council 1999, Sabatieret al. 2005). These initiatives vary from traditionalapproaches and are used across multiple watermanagement scales. Their distinguishing hallmarksare: decentralized and shared, devolveddecision-making; collaboration; participatoryengagement of a wide array of stakeholders; andexpanded goals concerned with broader ecosystemsustainability (Born and Genskow 2000, Weber2000, Koontz et al. 2004). In many cases, thesewatershed initiatives form a place-based nexusfor multiple actors attempting to address complexnatural resource management issues, and they havebecome governance mechanisms for implementingintegrated water resource management. As watershedplanning and management evolves to accommodatemultiple interests working in partnershipto achieve more integrated and coordinatedmanagement, challenges have emerged with regardto predicting success and evaluating effectivenessof these initiatives (Bellamy et al. 1999, Kenney2000, Leach and Pelkey 2001, Lubell et al. 2002,Conley and Moote 2003).We would like to focus attention on one aspectof many watershed initiatives—their highlydynamic organizational character and functioningin time and space. In many instances, the effortsand results related to watershed management arenot simply the result of the workings of a singularentity or partnership, but rather are the aggregationof activities within an organizational field ornetwork over time (Godschalk 1992, Alexander1993, Korfmacher 2000). As noted by Imperialand Hennessey (2000):every watershed is ‘managed’ by a wide rangeof governmental and non-governmental actors,whose decisions influence the health andintegrity of ecological systems.The challenge fora watershed governance program is to get thisportfolio of actors and programs to work togethermore effectively. Watershed management shouldtherefore be viewed as an effort to build, manage,and maintain inter-organizational networks;in other words, to develop an institutionalecosystem...Failure to fully understand and assess this broaderinstitutional landscape or “ecosystem”—that is,the organizational field that may evolve throughtime versus a specified partnership entity—willimpair evaluations. Without a better understandingof organizational dynamics, erroneous conclusionscan be reached regarding the effectiveness and successof partnership initiatives in watersheds. A casedeemed to have resulted in failure may in reality bea success or vice versa. Institutional support providedby prior partnerships significantly enhancesthe number and activity level of later partnershipswithin a watershed (Lubell et al. 2002). While apartnership may have ended “unsuccessfully,” itsrole in building social capital and capacity for futureproblem-solving (Korfmacher 2000, Putnam 2000,Chess and Gibson 2001) can only be appreciated bya contextual understanding of the watershed institu-UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Organizational Dynamics of Watershed Partnerships57tional ecosystem.After presenting a summary characterizationof “new” collaborative watershed approachesand a brief review of efforts to evaluate them,we argue that those concerned with integratedwater resource management should take a moreexpansive view of the organizational space in whichintegrated initiatives take place. We conclude withimplications for integrated management effortsand future research.Watershed Partnerships as Vehicles forIntegration and GovernanceWatershed initiatives have grown rapidlyover the past decade (Kenney 2000, Moore andKoontz 2003). Partnership and collaborativeefforts have come to refer to a wide variety ofinstitutional arrangements that include informal,ad hoc coalitions, formally structured interagencyagreements, loosely configured citizen-dominatedefforts, and formally incorporated non-profitorganizations. These initiatives differ significantlyfrom traditional single-agency-dominated effortsthat may have solicited limited or token advisoryinput from stakeholders. Although represented byvaried institutional arrangements, contemporarywatershed partnerships generally share thefollowing characteristics (Born and Genskow2001):1. They use watershed boundaries (at variousscales) as units for analysis and management.2. They address a more comprehensive scope ofissues, including water quality, water use, habitat,and goals related to healthy ecosystems.3. Multiple local and non-governmental interestsparticipate meaningfully and share influenceover decisions.4. Their decision making processes draw upon biophysicalscience as well as social and economicinformation and local knowledge, includingperspectives on previous management effortsand site specific contextual information.5. They are oriented toward collaborative planningand problem solving, which promotes consensual,negotiative discussions and specific situationappropriatemanagement actions.What is “new” about contemporary watershedpartnerships is the combination of thesecharacteristics and features. Watershed partnershipapproaches have roots in more than a century ofexperimentation and learning and draw uponthe evolution and “lessons learned” from waterresources planning, collaborative environmentalplanning, and citizen involvement processesin natural resources management, placebasedmanagement, ecosystem management,decentralization, and devolution of governmentaldecision-making processes (Kenney 1999, Koontzet al. 2004, Sabatier et al. 2005).As with integrated approaches generally,contemporary watershed initiatives have beenwidely heralded for their potential to leverageresources, gain wide-ranging support, and addresscomplex resource management challenges thatdefy unilateral action (John 1994, Hooper et al.1999, Weber 2000). Partnership approaches havealso been challenged for their inefficiencies andtheir potential to co-opt local resource managementdecisions (McCloskey 1996, Amy 1997, Getches1998, Walker and Hurley 2004). Numerousresearchers have identified the need for a betterunderstanding of the phenomenon, includingConley and Moote (2003) who state:As proponents of collaborative approachesto resource management, we are unnerved bythe ways in which these processes have beenportrayed as a cure-all. We are similarly troubledby knee-jerk criticisms of collaborative processesthat are based on an opposition to collaborationin principle rather than evaluation of specificprocesses and outcomes. Thoughtful evaluationof the effectiveness of different collaborativeprocesses is central to understanding what canand cannot be expected of such processes and howthey can be integrated with existing institutions.Evaluation ChallengesWe agree that developing and testing systematicevaluation approaches for assessing the efficacyof the growing watershed partnership movementis essential if we are to learn from experience andextend the concept of “adaptive management” toinstitutional design for watershed management. Agrowing body of research addresses the emergence,characteristics, support needs, and impacts ofwatershed partnerships, yet systematic andthoughtful evaluations of their effectiveness presentJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

58Genskow and Borna series of challenges and evaluation dilemmas.One significant challenge is conceptualizingthe criteria for measuring successes and accomplishmentsof watershed and related integratedpartnerships. Solutions to watershed problems or thedeployment of watershed protection measures aremore likely to be measured in decades than years,and it is unlikely that measurable improvementsin environmental quality—an explicit goal ofmany efforts—will be evident in the short term(Born and Genskow 1999, Coughlin et al. 1999,National Research Council 1999, Huntington andSommarstrom 2000). Recognizing this, researchershave explored precursory steps to demonstratedenvironmental quality improvements relatedto organizational processes (Imperial 1999,Margerum and Born 2000, Margerum 2002),social capital (Mullin and Allison 1999, Leach etal. 2002, Leach and Sabatier 2005), and requisitemanagement practices (Bellamy et al. 1999).Further, participants’ perceptions of success vary,and incorporating multiple goals into watershedinitiatives can translate to varied expectations andlevels of satisfaction with outcomes (Leach 2000,Moore and Koontz 2003).A second challenge relates to attributingaccomplishments to the watershed initiative.Watershed settings include many confoundinginfluences and the complexity of contextual factorslimits the ability to ascertain causality betweenpartnership actions and water resource policyoutcomes (Born and Genskow 2000, Sabatier et.al 2005). Even when considering intermediatemeasures, researchers must consider how benefitscan be attributed to the integration versus individualagency or organizational action (Bellamy et al.1999, Conley and Moote 2003). Additionally,the intermediate measures themselves may not belinked definitively to desired outcomes.A third formidable challenge lies in determiningwhat to evaluate. What constitutes a watershedpartnership or integrated effort, and at what point ismeaningful assessment possible? Evaluation mustaddress the issue of partnership age, longevity, ormaturity—differentiating immature or emergentefforts from established or mature ones (Born andGenskow 2000). There is no agreement on theexpected duration of watershed partnerships—are they short-term or long-term, temporaryor permanent entities? (Lubell et al. 2005).Evaluation is difficult where the partnership to beevaluated is not a long-term, continuous endeavor(Leach and Pelkey 2001), and thus efforts tendto focus on mature durable partnerships, viewingthose that have met a relatively early demise as“failures.” Most evaluation efforts treat the groupor collaborative entity as the unit of analysis(Conley and Moote 2003). However, in thesearch to apply statistical analysis using large-nstudies, definitions of watershed partnerships canbecome overly restrictive. Necessary filteringand focusing only on mature, long-term, definedpartnerships risks losing the contextual richnessof the changing institutional setting—therebymissing the precursors of successful watershedmanagement over time.The diverse forms of watershed partnershipscommonly change as time passes and the pathof metamorphosis can lead to highly varied,multi-modal watershed management institutionalarrangements. These entities and their outputscan confound the evaluation of a narrowlyconceived,tightly-specified watershed partnership.Recognizing and understanding the organizationaldynamics of watershed initiatives providesimportant insights for integrated management andevaluation.Dynamic Watershed OrganizationsThe fact that watershed partnerships changeand evolve from their formative stages over timeis certainly not new. Partnerships often focuson one initial problem before expanding theirinterests to other issues (Selin and Chavez 1995,National Research Council 1999). They mayincrease the scope of their activities or geographicconcern (Huntington and Sommarstrom 2000),and composition and participation change (Selman2001). Watershed management partnerships maymove across an organizational spectrum fromloosely organized and unfocused to very formallystructured and focused with a charter, bylaws,nonprofit status, officers and committees, andstaff (Margerum and Born 2000). Such increasedformality may be necessary for recognition,legitimacy, and receiving financial support(MacKenzie 1996, Born and Genskow 2000), yetnot all partnerships will progress incrementallytoward more formal structural arrangements. Aswe have noted elsewhere (Born and GenskowUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Organizational Dynamics of Watershed Partnerships592000):Watershed partnerships, particularly with regardto the non-governmental and citizen dimensions,generally do not have the comparatively enduringand stable character of governmental agenciesand units...they are dynamic and nonlinear; theyebb and flow, become dormant or extinct, andresurface with old and new participants under newnames and organizational forms. Furthermore,the balance of responsibility within the watershedpartnership between governmental and nongovernmentalparticipants can shift markedlyduring the evolution of the partnership and theexecution of its programs...Partnerships may form or undergo change as theresult of new governmental programs, new fundingopportunities, or the emergence of new leaders.Changes in variables such as organizational name,structure, degree of formalization, mission, scope,and breadth of participation can frustrate evaluation.However, as suggested by Figure 1, it is the totalarray of activities occurring and evolving withinthe space over time that comprises a watershedmanagement effort. Attempts at integrationdepend on effectively understanding, connecting,and coordinating actions within this dynamicinstitutional space (Born and Sonzogni 1995,Imperial and Hennessey 2000). Although globallyrelevant, we briefly introduce three examplesfrom Washington and Wisconsin, United States,to illustrate dynamic partnership configurationsin both large and small watersheds (see Table 1).DungenessA series of temporally and spatially overlappingpartnerships and planning initiatives in theDungeness River Watershed over the past twodecades aptly demonstrates the concept of a dynamicinstitutional space. Contemporary partnershipsfor this watershed, located on Washington’sOlympic Peninsula, trace to the mid 1980’swhen a group of stakeholders, including countyand tribal governments, convened in response toa funding opportunity to address water qualityissues in a coastal bay. Intending to build uponthat successful experience, the county governmentpassed a resolution creating the Dungeness RiverManagement Team (DRMT) to address a broaderset of water resource issues, including irrigationwithdrawals and in-stream flows for fish. This“first” Dungeness River Management Team stoppedfunctioning within a few years because of a lack ofprogress addressing key issues and because newopportunities drew participants to other planningefforts. Those efforts were associated with newlydeveloped regional water quality goals and a pilotstate watershed planning program. The state pilotlinked the Dungeness with a neighboring watershedand involved a combined consensus-buildingFigure 1. Watershed initiatives are comprised of the full array of activities over time.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

60Genskow and BornTable 1. Watershed examples of organizational dynamics.Dungeness River Watershed, Washington, USAArea: 300 mi 2Major Issues: Water allocation, fisheries, minimum in-stream flows, habitat, water qualityTransitions: Several significant shifts based on planning and issue-identification processes. Efforts between 1987and 2000 include two incarnations of the Dungeness River Management Team (DRMT), a Dungeness River AreaWatershed Management Committee, the Dungeness-Quilcene Regional Planning Group, the Dungeness RiverRestoration Work Group. DRMT has also served as “lead entity” for additional state-funded habitat protection andplanning efforts.Precipitators: Water use conflict and funding opportunities for planning and management efforts.Additional Information: Born and Genskow 2000Tomorrow-Waupaca River Watershed, Wisconsin, USAArea: 290 mi 2Major Issues: Resource protection, ground water qualityTransitions: Citizen initiation of a multi-interest Tomorrow-Waupaca Watershed Association, which transitionedinto an advisory and oversight “steering committee” for a government funded watershed management project.Precipitators: Initial perception of threat and opportunity for project funding.Additional Information: Born and Genskow 2000Yakima River Watershed, Washington, USAArea: 6,155 mi 2Major Issues: Water allocation/use, fisheries, minimum in-stream flows, water quality.Transitions: Multi-interest initiated watershed council developed consensus plan. Partners secured funding foradditional work through a key partner, which redirected the effort away from the consensus plan and disempoweredthe council.Precipitators: Water use conflicts and recognition of threats; funding opportunities.Additional Information: Born and Genskow 1999, Genskow 2001, Kent 2004, Woolley and McGinnis 1999.process with formal caucus groups representing avariety of watershed interests.This series of intensive interactions withoverlapping participation led to several importantdevelopments. One of the most significant was anagreement between irrigators and the WashingtonDepartment of Ecology regarding water withdrawalsand in-stream flows. The agreement, which was laterinstitutionalized through a formal Memorandumof Understanding, created trust water rights forthe Dungeness, restored flows to the river, reduceduncertainty regarding tribal claims to in-streamflows, and enabled substantial assistance forirrigation efficiency improvements, partly throughfederal habitat improvement grants through thetribal government. The various planning effortsalso led to the creation of a river and watershededucation center, funded in large part throughprivate donations. Upon completion of the state pilotplanning effort, the county and tribal governmentsreconstituted the abandoned Dungeness RiverManagement Team to oversee implementationof multiple plans and coordinate information andactivities about a wide range of issues related to theDungeness River and watershed, including salmonrestoration, water quality, ground and surface waterflows, development rights, and private propertyrights.Tomorrow-WaupacaThe Partnership for the Tomorrow-WaupacaRiver and watershed emerged from a large meeting,convened by a private citizen, of resource managers,researchers, and other citizens with interests in theriver and watershed. The individual who initiatedthe meeting was a riparian landowner and anglerwho had worked with a local conservation chapter toimprove habitat along stream banks on her property.Interested in working with others in different partsof the river, she began a coordination effort forthe river and watershed that led to the formationof the Tomorrow-Waupaca Watershed Association(TWWA), a group comprised of interested citizenssupported by a broad base of agency and researchadvisors. Through the efforts of its participants,the partnership transformed from its origins as acitizen-driven non-governmental organizationinto a formal, multi-million-dollar watershedUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Organizational Dynamics of Watershed Partnerships61project operated by local government with statefunding, and continued oversight from a multiintereststeering committee. Tomorrow-WaupacaWatershed Association played an instrumentalrole in the watershed’s selection for a projectaddressing non-point source pollution issues,then effectively disbanded and absorbed into theproject’s official steering committee. Throughthe project, partners address water quality, leadwatershed and conservation educational efforts forkey target audiences, provide financial assistancefor landowners and municipalities, monitor andresearch, and provide technical assistance. Overtime, as the watershed project has become less ofa partnership, a new river group has formed to reengagebroad citizen interest.YakimaDuring its four years of activity, the YakimaRiver Watershed Council (YRWC) was considereda model of highly successful, grassroots,collaborative, watershed interaction for the 6,000square mile river basin (Born and Genskow 1999,Woolley and McGinnis 1999). Within a very shortperiod, the council and its related partnershipssuddenly imploded and partially reconstituted asa new planning initiative with a reduced set ofinterests. While many individual and overlappingefforts continued, the breadth of coordinative andintegrated elements diminished greatly.Yakima River Watershed Council formed in1994, following a drought in an irrigation-dependentbasin considered critical to the restoration of theColumbia River Basin fishery, with the intention ofdeveloping and implementing a consensus-basedwatershed management plan (Genskow 2001). Thecouncil was inclusive, consensus-driven, and servedas a forum for raising and debating substantiveissues in watershed management among a broadand diverse group of interests. Yakima RiverWatershed Council raised more than $600,000 inprivate contributions, supported a four-person staff,engaged more than 100 people on committees thatmet frequently for three years, and made significantadvances in generating consensus on recommendedactions for basin water management. As part ofthis process, the Yakima River Watershed Councilcatalyzed formation of the Tri-County WaterResource Agency as an entity to coordinate thethree watershed counties’ interactions with respectto watershed council deliberations and to facilitateadoption of the Yakima River Watershed Councilplan by watershed counties.Toward the end of its existence, the YakimaRiver Watershed Council worked with Tri-Countyand other partners to successfully secure a sizeable,multi-year planning grant made available througha new state watershed law intended to supportcollaborative efforts such as those in the YakimaRiver Watershed. Partners had expected that thefunds would enhance and finalize the council’songoing three-year planning efforts and movetoward implementation of their consensus product.Tri-County was the official grant applicant, and ina move that surprised most partners, when selectedto receive grant funds, they by-passed the YakimaRiver Watershed Council, established a newplanning entity, and hired a consultant to begin theplanning process anew. Their decision undercutthe Yakima River Watershed Council which,without the expected funds, immediately endedtheir operations. These actions alienated many ofthe key participants who had been active in theYakima River Watershed Council efforts, includingleaders from Native American, agribusiness,and environmental communities, leading totheir withdrawal from any further collaborativeinteractions. In a very brief period of time, thesense of trust and optimism that had developedthrough the watershed council had evaporated. Afinal plan was released in 2003 without the supportof key interests. Since its publication and the endof that planning process, several interests havereconvened in separate initiatives (Kent 2004).These examples illustrate organizational andnetwork shifts and their various effects. Eachpartnership functioned effectively in terms ofsetting joint priorities and taking actions. They allpursued integrated approaches to water resourcemanagement. Each developed networks, trust, andreciprocity, thereby creating social capital, whichcan increase or diminish with time (Hutchinsonand Vidal 2004, Putnam 2000). Each effortproduced one or more plans. However, analysesthat excluded contextual dynamics would havemissed key linkages, and may have led to erroneousconclusions about the watershed initiatives. Farfrom the failed effort suggested by demise ofJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

62Genskow and Bornthe first Dungeness River Management Team,partnerships, planning, and implementation effortsin the Dungeness are a model of coordination andhave led to significant accomplishments. Withoutknowledge of the intensive partnership efforts thatset it in motion, the Tomorrow-Waupaca projectcould appear to be a standard agency-drivenmanagement project. The transition in the Yakimafrom a model collaborative initiative to a planningeffort conducted in an environment of mistrustwith a reduced set of participants, sheds light onthe final plan recommendations and challenges ofimplementation.Conclusions and Implications for ResearchCollaborative and partnership-based watershedinitiatives for addressing complex water resourceissues are now commonplace. These efforts areoften perceived as single coordinating basin-wideorganizations, but we have suggested a broaderview of the organizational space in which watershedinitiatives take place. This expanded view recognizesthe ebb and flow of partnership initiatives and looksbeyond individual coordinating bodies to incorporatekey individuals, previous partnership incarnations,and the social capital developed or diminishedby related and previous efforts. Effectivelyaddressing complex environmental managementissues through integrated approaches requiresunderstanding the contextual dynamics shapingthe complex organizational field or “institutionalecosystem” in watersheds. In sum, partnershipsthat form around watersheds are fluid and oftenephemeral, which has implications for howagencies, funding organizations, and local partnersengage, evaluate, and provide resources for theefforts. We recognize the challenge of maintaininga long-term perspective in place and activitiesin an environment of close scrutiny, governmentaccountability, short-term time expectations, andoutcome-focused evaluations.It is clear that more research is needed regardingthe efficacy of this approach, assessing integratedinitiatives, and the influences of their many derivativepieces. Studies involving large sample sizes andstatic cross-sectional cases have been undertaken,and while important for helping understand theeffectiveness of integrated approaches, focus onpoints in time and often overlook critical long-termrelationships and cycles. The difficulty of adequateevaluation absent these factors demonstratesa need for combining methods for careful andcomparative longitudinal case-study research withstatistical analyses of multiple watershed initiativesto accommodate organizational change and itspotential influence on management outcomes.Such studies will be challenging and would benefitfrom coordination and shared approaches amongmultiple researchers.Finally, partnership approaches and integratedinitiatives are applied across the hydrologicalspectrum from very large river basins to smallwatershed systems. Dynamic organizational arrangementsand variations in institutional ecosystemsare relevant across that spectrum, reinforcingthe importance of situational and place-basedassessments. It is important for resource managersand funding organizations to recognize thatformulaic assessments of “success” and inflexibleprescriptive approaches to develop collaborationmay serve most effectively as general “guidance”but have limited use for successfully undertakingintegrated management efforts in watersheds.Author Bios and Contact InformationKENNETH D. GENSKOW is an Assistant Professor inthe Department of Urban and Regional Planning atthe University of Wisconsin-Madison. Dr. Genskowserves as a water resources specialist with Universityof Wisconsin-Cooperative Extension and is affiliatedwith the University of Wisconsin’s EnvironmentalResources Center and the Gaylord Nelson Institutefor Environmental Studies. His research and outreachactivities emphasize watershed management, waterresource planning and policy, and collaborative andparticipatory approaches to resource management. Hecan be contacted at kgenskow@wisc.edu or Departmenttof Urban and Regional Planning, 925 Bascom Mall,Madison, WI 53706.STEPHEN M. BORN is Professor Emeritus in theDepartment of Urban and Regional Planning and theGaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies atthe University of Wisconsin-Madison. Dr. Born focuseshis research, professional and outreach activities onwater and related resource planning and managementissues, and the theory and application of integratedenvironmental management concepts. As a formerWisconsin State Planning Director, he is also involvedwith state, regional and intergovernmental policy andplanning issues.UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Organizational Dynamics of Watershed Partnerships63ReferencesAlexander, E. 1993. Interorganizational coordination:Theory and practice. Journal of Planning Literature7(4): 328-343.Amy, D.J. 1997. The Politics of EnvironmentalMediation. New York: Columbia University Press.Bellamy, J. A., G. T. McDonald, G. J. Syme, and J. E.Butterworth. 1999. Evaluating integrated resourcemanagement. Society and Natural Resources 12:337-353.Born, S. M. and K. D. Genskow. 1999. Exploring theWatershed Approach: Critical Dimensions of State-Local Partnerships. River Network.Born, S. M. and K. D. Genskow. 2000. The watershedapproach: An empirical assessment of innovation inenvironmental management. In National Academyof Public Administration. 2000. Environment gov:Transforming environmental protection for the 21stCentury. Research Papers 7-10, Volume II.Born, S.M. and K.D. Genskow. 2001. TowardUnderstanding New Watershed Initiatives: A ReportFrom the Madison Watershed Workshop. Universityof Wisconsin-Cooperative Extension.Born, S. M. and W. Sonzogni. 1995. Integratedenvironmental management: Strengthening theconceptualization. Environmental Management 19:167-181.Chess, C. and G. Gibson. 2001. Watersheds are notequal: Exploring the feasibility of watershedmanagement. Journal of the American WaterResources Association. 37(4):775–782.Conley, A. and M. A. Moote. 2003. Evaluatingcollaborative natural resource management. Societyand Natural Resources 16: 371-386.Coughlin, C. W., M. L. Hoben, D. W. Manskopf, S. W.Quesada, and J. Wondolleck. 1999. A SystematicAssessment of Collaborative Resource ManagementPartnerships. University of Michigan School ofNatural Resources and Environment.Genskow, K. D. 2001. Critical Factors forWatershed Partnerships: An Analysis of Actionsand Accomplishments. Dissertation. University ofWisconsin-Madison.Getches, D. H. 1998. Some irreverent questions aboutwatershed-based efforts. In Brick, P., D. Snow, andS. Van De Wetering, (Eds.) 2001. Across the GreatDivide: Explorations in Collaborative Conservationand the American West. Island Press: Washington,DC.Godschalk, D. 1992. Negotiating intergovernmentaldevelopment policy conflicts: Practice-basedguidelines. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation 58(3): 368-378.Griffin, C. B. 1999. Watershed councils: An emergingform of public participation in natural resourcemanagement. Journal of the American WaterResources Association 35(3): 505-518.Hooper, B. P., G. T. McDonald, and B. Mitchell, 1999.Facilitating integrated resource and environmentalmanagement: Australian and Canadian perspectives.Journal of Environmental Planning and Management42(5): 747-766.Huntington, C. W. and S. Sommarstrom. 2000. AnEvaluation of Selected Watershed Councils in thePacifi c Northwest and Northern California. Reportfor Trout Unlimited and Pacific Rivers Council.Hutchinson, J. and A. C. Vidal (Eds.). 2004. Usingsocial capital to help integrate planning theory,research, and practice. Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association 70(2): 142-192.Imperial, M. T. 1999. Institutional analysis andecosystem-based management: The institutionalanalysis and development framework. EnvironmentalManagement 24(4): 449-465.Imperial, M. T. and T. Hennessey. 2000. Environmentalgovernance in watersheds: The importance ofcollaboration to institutional performance. InNational Academy of Public Administration.2000. Environment governance: Transformingenvironmental protection for the 21st Century.Research Papers 7-10, Volume II.John, D. 1994. Civic Environmentalism: Alternatives toRegulation in States and Communities. CongressionalQuarterly Press: Washington, DC.Kenney, D. S. 1999. Historical and sociopoliticalcontext of the western watershed movement. Journalof the American Water Resources Association 35(3):493-503.Kenney, D. S. 2000. Arguing About Consensus:Examining the Case Against Western WatershedInitiatives and Other Collaborative Groups Activein Natural Resources Management. University ofColorado, Natural Resources Law Center.Kent, C. A. 2004. Water resource planning in theYakima River Basin: Development vs. sustainability.Yearbook of the Association of Pacifi c CoastGeographers 66: 27-60.Koontz, T. M., T. A. Steelman, J. Carmin, K. S.Korfmacher, C. Mosely, and C. W. Thomas. 2004.Collaborative Environmental Management: WhatRoles for Government? Resources for the Future:JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

64Genskow and BornWashington, DC.Korfmacher, K. S. 2000. What’s the point of partnering?A case study of ecosystem management in the DarbyCreek Watershed. American Behavioral Scientist44(4): 548-564.Leach, W. D. 2000. Surveying diverse stakeholdergroups. Society and Natural Resources 15(7): 641-649.Leach, W. D., and N. W. Pelkey., 2001. Makingwatershed partnerships work: A review of theempirical literature. Journal of Water ResourcesPlanning and Management 127(6): 378-385.Leach, W. D., N. W. Pelkey, and P. A. Sabatier,2002. Stakeholder partnerships as collaborativepolicymaking: Evaluation criteria applied towatershed management in California and Washington.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21(4):645-670.Leach, W. D and P. A. Sabatier, 2005. Are trust andsocial capital the keys to success? Watershedpartnerships in California and Washington. Pages233-258 In Sabatier, P.A., W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z.Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz, and M. Matlock (Eds.)Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches toWatershed Management. MIT Press: Cambridge,Masachusetts.Lubell, M., M. S. Schneider, J. T. Scholz, and M. Mete.2002. Watershed partnerships and the emergence ofcollective action institutions. American Journal ofPolitical Science 46(1): 148-163.Lubell, M, P.A. Sabatier, A. Vedlitz, W. Focht, Z.Trachtenberg, and M. Matlock. 2005. Conclusionsand Recommendations. Pages 261-296 In Pages 233-258 In Sabatier, Paul A and others (Editors). 2005.Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches toWatershed Management. MIT Press: Cambridge,Massachusetts.MacKenzie, S. H. 1996. Integrated Resources Planning:The Ecosystem Approach in the Great Lakes Basin.Island Press: Washington, D.C.Margerum, R. D. 2002. Evaluating collaborativeplanning: Implications from an empirical analysisof growth management. Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association 68(2): 179-193.Margerum, R. D. and S. M. Born. 2000. A co-ordinationdiagnostic for improved integrated environmentalmanagement. Journal of Environmental Planningand Management 43(1): 5-21.McCloskey, M. 1996. The skeptic: Collaboration hasits limits. High Country News 28(9): 7.Moore, E. A. and T. M. Koontz. 2003. A typologyof collaborative watershed groups: Citizen-based,agency-based, and mixed partnerships. Society andNatural Resources 16: 451-460.Mullin, M. W. and B. E. Allison. 1999. Stakeholderinvolvement and social capital: Keys to watershedmanagement success in Alabama. Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association 35(3): 655-662.National Research Council. 1999. New Strategiesfor America’s Watersheds. Washington: NationalAcademy Press.Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse andRevival of American Community. Touchstone/Simon& Shuster: New York.Sabatier, P. A., W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg,A. Vedlitz, and M. Matlock (Eds). 2005.Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches toWatershed Management. MIT Press: Cambridge,Massachusetts.Selin, S. and D. Chavez. 1995. Developing acollaborative model for environmental planning andmanagement. Environmental Management 19(2):189-195.Selman, P. 2001. Social capital, sustainability andenvironmental planning. Planning Theory andPractice 2(1): 13-30.Walker, P. A. and P. T. Hurley. 2004. Collaborationderailed: The politics of “community-based”resource management in Nevada County. Societyand Natural Resources 17: 735-751.Weber, E. P. 2000. A new vanguard for the environment:Grass-roots ecosystem management as a newenvironmental movement. Society and NaturalResources 13: 237-259.Woolley J. T. and M. V. McGinnis. 1999. The politicsof watershed policy making. Policy Studies Journal27 (3): 578-594.UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

65UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONISSUE 135, PAGES 65-73, DECEMBER 2006Implementing the Water Framework Directive:How to Define a “Competent Authority”Colin Green 1 and Amalia Fernández-Bilbao 21 Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, UK; 2 Collingwood Environmental Planning, London, UKThe European Union (EU) Water FrameworkDirective (WFD) has the overall objectiveof achieving good ecological status for allwater bodies by 2015. It is up to the individualMember States to designate a “CompetentAuthority” that will be responsible for preparingand implementing River Basin Management Plansfor each River Basin District, that is, the new unitof management of water resources introduced bythe directive.In addition to environmental standards, theWater Framework Directive requires publicparticipation and cost recovery from primarywater uses, including environmental costs, aspart of the River Basin process. The requirementsfor public participation in the Water FrameworkDirective are not as strong as those contained inthe Aarhus Convention (United Nations EconomicCommission for Europe 1998) which requirespublic participation in environmental matters tobe guaranteed. Active involvement is only to be“encouraged” according to Article 14 of the WaterFramework Directive (European Commission2000).If stakeholder engagement is to be meaningful,it has to include defining priorities. This is inconflict with both economic analysis, whichclaims to be able to determine not only appropriatepriorities but also the optimal outcome, and alsowith the fixed standards defined by the directive.Economic analysis claims to be able to determinewhat the optimum water quality standards are andthis also conflicts with the fixed standards in theDirective (Green 2003). The Water FrameworkDirective consequently embodies a series ofinternal contradictions that had already becomeapparent during the development phase of the text(Kaika 2003).In an attempt to solve these contradictions,the final text of the directive introduces scope forexceptions and derogations. Member States areallowed to take into account the local geographicaland climatic conditions as well as economic,social, and environmental impacts of full pricingpolicies (European Commission 2000). There isalso the option of not applying full cost recoveryto a specific water use (Lanz and Scheuer 2001)and under Article 4.4, the deadlines to achievethe environmental objectives can be extendedto a maximum of two updates of the river basinmanagement plan, that is 12 years, as the plansmust be updated every 6 years. The directivegives a list of reasons such as technical feasibility,disproportionate costs, and natural conditions.Hence, the key principles to improve the state ofEurope’s waters are also the source of importantcontradictions that may cause the implementationof the Water Framework Directive to become anendless process of obtaining derogations andexceptions, which may result in the relaxation ofthe targets defined in the directive.Successful implementation of the WaterFramework Directive could be measured ultimatelyin terms of achieving the environmental objectivesand avoiding delays and relaxation of thosetargets. We argue that in order to be successful,the institution chosen to carry out the RiverBasin Planning (RBP) process needs to be able toinfluence other key stakeholders. The competentauthority will also have to provide a forum inwhich to involve all the stakeholders relevant toriver basin planning.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

66Green and Fernández-BilbaoWithin the United Kingdom (UK), thereare increasing differences between practice inEngland, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,both in terms of institutions and legislation. Theimplementation of the Water Framework Directiveis no exception. Hence, this paper will focus onEngland, where 95 percent of water bodies are atrisk of failing the 2015 objectives. High populationdensities and future development are the mainthreats to England’s water resources.In contrast with the principles of IntegratedWater Resources Management (IWRM) and theWater Framework Directive, England is a verycentralized country. This is reflected in the choiceof the Environment Agency as competent authority.The Environment Agency (EA) is the public bodyresponsible for planning and managing waterresources (Environment Agency 2004) includingwater quality and abstraction licenses. TheEnvironment Agency was established by the 1995Environment Act and it is a non-departmental publicbody of the Department for the Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs (Defra) in England but it has nodirect democratic oversight.England: ContextEngland has a temperate climate where rainfalldoes not vary greatly from month to month.Rainfall is 604 mm/year in the east, compared to1312 mm/year in the west. Although per capitaavailability of water in some parts is similar to thatof Somalia, this is a misleading comparison. Waterscarcity tends to happen in countries were themajor water user is irrigation (Berbel et al. 2005)and only supplementary irrigation is required insome parts of England (Weatherhead et al. 1994).In European terms, English rivers are small,although there is a variety in length, width, andsize. Most of the rivers are lowland, low-energyexcept in upland areas where there are highenergy rivers that flood quickly. Rivers fulfilla variety of functions, including water supply,industry, commerce, irrigation and are also usedfor wastewater discharge from sewage treatmentworks and other sources. There is some veryminor commercial fishing and most fishing is forrecreation. However, the main recreational usesare riverside ones such as walking or enjoyingthe landscape and wildlife (Tunstall and Green2003). Navigation is mainly recreational althoughthere is a long history of commercial navigation(Environment Agency 2001).In terms of quality, the first problem faced ismainly diffuse pollution from both agricultural andurban areas. Secondly, England was the first countryto industrialize and rivers were extensively adaptedduring that process, starting with constructionof weirs and races for water mills, and going onthrough canalization for navigation, and reservoirsto support navigation. Petts and Wood (1988) havesuggested that as a result of all these activities,around 89 percent of United Kingdom’s rivers areregulated or modified to some extent. Rivers arean integral part of the potable water supply systemand of the wastewater treatment system: given thesmall size of the rivers, it is not uncommon forthe outflow of the wastewater treatment worksto constitute 60 percent of the base flow of theriver. Despite a great improvement in the qualityof water bodies since the 1990s (EnvironmentAgency 2002) 95 percent of rivers are currentlyat risk of failing the environmental objectives ofthe Water Framework Directive (Department forthe Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2005).Low-flows caused by over-abstraction of water isan important issue and the Environment Agencyrecently estimated that current abstractions shouldbe reduced by under two per cent in order to avoidenvironmental damage (Environment Agency2004).England has, for Europe, quite high domesticwater usage (150 liters per capita per day) andit is densely populated (343 people per sq km)accounting for 83 percent of the total UnitedKingdom population of 49.1 million. Around21 percent of land is already in some form ofurban usage and the areas covered by some formof environmental designation total 42 percent,including national parks, areas of outstandingnatural beauty, sites of special interest, andgreen belts. Some areas are covered by multipledesignations, so the proportion is somewhatless. By 2020 there will be around 4 million newhomes and much of the growth will take place insouth-east England, which is also the driest partof the country (Environment Agency 2004). Insoutheast England, an area roughly equivalent tothe Netherlands in both population and size, theUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Implementing the Water Framework Directive67population density exceeds 800 people per sq kmand some 80 percent of non-urban land is coveredby one or more environmental designations. Land isa scarce resource in England and in order to reducenew land take, there is a target of 60 percent of newhomes to be built on Brownfield land (Office ofthe Deputy Prime Minister 2004) and to increaseresidential densities which currently average 27dwellings per hectare.Under pressure from reformers at different times,government in England has become progressivelymore centralized. The result was a reduction fromaround 11,000 parish councils, roughly equivalentto 35,000 communes in France, to the current 409district, county or unitary authorities. It is true thatthere are an additional 10,000 or so District orParish Councils, but these have negligible powersand funding. In turn, the powers and funding oflocal authorities have been progressively reduced.Since England has no written constitution, localauthorities have no constitutionally reservedpowers or sources of funding; 52 percent of localgovernment funding is directly through grants fromcentral government and only 26 percent is raisedthrough local taxes (Office of the Deputy PrimeMinister 2005). The local authorities are, however,responsible both for land use or spatial planningand the control of development—and enforcementlevels for development control are high. In thenineteenth century, it was those who wished to seesanitation and water to be introduced by the localauthorities who sought to reduce the number oflocal authorities (Best 1979), notably the abolitionof the parishes which were roughly equivalentto the French communes. In the old rural areasthere are some 220 or so Internal Drainage Boards.Originally, at least some of these were similar innature to the Dutch Waterschappen but they werebrought under the directing authority of centralgovernment in the 1930s. There is also a completeabsence of the Water User Associations found inother countries, notably Germany, France, Spain,and the United States.Wastewater and water services were privatizedin 1989 primarily for ideological reasons so noattempt was made to promote efficiency eitherthrough competition or through the principlesunderlying IWRM (Green 2001). Instead, thethen existing patchwork of combined water andwastewater companies and local water supplycompanies were privatized as they stood. Hence,in some areas one company supplies water andwastewater services, but across the street, the firstcompany may supply wastewater services, with awater supply only company providing the water.While the Environment Agency is theenvironmental regulator, the Office of WaterServices is the economic regulator of the water andsewerage industry in England & Wales. The Officeof Water Services set limits on what companiescan charge and has a duty to ensure that companiescarry out their responsibilities, are efficient, andmeet the principles of sustainable development(Office of Water Services 2005).The Environment Agency has been nominated as“Competent Authority” in England. At no point wasthere any open discussion of possible institutionaloptions for the competent authority; it seems thatan early decision was taken that this would bethe Environment Agency. It is not clear whetherthis was a decision thrust upon the EnvironmentAgency or whether the agency actively sought thisrole. Our suspicion is that it was the latter. Theproblem for the agency is that it has neither thepowers nor the funding necessary to deliver therequirements of the Water Framework Directive.The Environment Agency has a number ofcharacteristics that are relevant:1. It is a scientific bureaucracy with a verystrong public service ethos and a commitmentto enhancing the environment. However,the traditional public service ethos was todetermine what the public (or the environment)need, determine the best course of action tosatisfy that need, and implement that courseof action. It was reported that, immediatelyafter the 1997 election, the incoming Ministersaid to the then Chief Executive of theagency that the institution needed to be moreopen and transparent. The agency went intoshock because it believed that it was openand transparent, and responded as a scientificbureaucracy should be expected: it appointedan expert on a part-time basis to tell them itwas involved in being open and transparent.2. It is an agency of government with Chair,Chief Executive, and Board appointed throughthe public appointments procedure. It is thusJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

68Green and Fernández-Bilbaosubject to only indirect democratic control.3. The agency fulfills a number of overlappingroles.The Agency was created by the Prime MinisterMajor government by amalgamating a number ofdifferent organizations. The discussions at thetime make it clear that a major consideration at thetime was to minimize costs rather than maximizeeffectiveness. The result is a body with two majorregulatory and planning functions:1. All media pollution control, and2. Integrated water resource management coupledto a prime responsibility for constructing andmaintaining flood risk and coastal defenseworks.In financial terms, by far the largest element ofincome and expenditure is on flood risk and coastaldefense works. The agency is essentially fundedthrough grants from central government. Unlikethe French Agence de l’eau, the agency has noreal powers to directly raise revenue: the revenuefrom the water resource and other functions beingintended solely to cover the administrative costs ofissuing abstraction licenses and so on. These threeareas of activity have created a major problem forthe agency in terms of what its institutional structureshould be, particularly when one of its tasks is todeliver the program of investment for a singlefunction. If the catchment is the logical frameworkfor managing water, it is not when consideringeither air pollution or solid waste in an all mediaintegrated approach to pollution management. Ina catchment approach, there is a danger that it willbe captured by the flood risk management functionsimply because that is the one with money. Theinherently multi- and inter-disciplinary natureof these activities makes defining an appropriateinstitutional structure even more difficult.If this sounds critical of the agency, then thisis because learning is the primary requirement forimproving performance. If we do not review ourperformance, identifying successes and failures,then it is unlikely that we will do better. Equally,if we want (as we should) institutions that areboth innovative and adaptive, then some of thoseexperiments will fail. So, the faster we try toinnovate, the greater the number of successfulfailures that we will experience: innovations thatdidn’t succeed but from which we can learn usefullessons. We have, therefore, to accept and evenwelcome failures by our institutions, provided thatthose failures are the result of innovation and donot simply repeat past failures.What is “Competency”?Calling for a “competent” authority raisesthe obvious question of what do we mean bycompetent? In turn, how then should we seekto measure the success of an institution? Thisrequires us to first define an institution and theconventional definition (North 1990, Scott 1995)is adopted here: that an institution is defined by theexistence of a formal or informal system of rules.These prescribe what it must or may do and whatit may not do, and where it can do it. In turn, theserules mean that any institution has both functionaland geographical boundaries.We have more general requirements forinstitutions as well: we need them to be adaptive,able to adjust successfully to changing conditions.We also want them to be innovative: introducingnew and better means of resolving problems. Theymust therefore be capable of changing and learning.Since not all innovations will succeed, we have toexpect institutions to fail on occasions. Indeed, wewant more successful failures, those failures fromwhich we learn how to be more successful or whatis likely to be a successful innovation.Any institution is also constrained by internaland external factors. Young (1999) has arguedthat institutions have to “fit” their context, anddiscussed the problems of scale and interplay.Thus, the external argument is that a competentauthority for delivering IWRM must have ageographical reach over a catchment and combineall water function management as well as landuse management. But this may then conflict withthe internal constraints of an institution as to itsideal geographical and functional spread. Wemay ask: how big should an institution be if it isto function most effectively? This ideal size ofan institution may be argued to occur at the pointwhere the economies of scale and scope run intodiseconomies of scale and scope, particularly thoseof information and communication. There is thenno reason why these internal constraints shouldresult in an institution whose boundaries coincideUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Implementing the Water Framework Directive69with the physical system that it seeks to manage.At the same time, the land/water system isclosely coupled to other systems, each of which hasits own logical boundaries and whose managementis subject to the same problems of economiesversus diseconomies of scale and scope. Watermanagement is often included in institutionsthat have responsibility for agriculture and alsologically for food. It is then logical to includeresponsibilities for fisheries and forestry into thatinstitution, and a general responsibility for ruraldevelopment. There is a similar logic for includingwater supply and sanitation into an institutionresponsible for health; indeed, health was therationale for development of water supply andsanitation in the 19th Century municipalities (Best1979). If everything is related to everything else,then deciding where is the least damaging point todefine boundaries is quite problematic. Seekingintegration through the traditional approach startsto look unpromising. The problem is compoundedif we cannot simply invent a new institution, eitherbecause there is path dependency (Putnam 1993,Cleaver 2000), or constitutional reasons definesome areas of responsibility to specific levels ofgovernment.Instead, we argue that the problem is how todeliver integration through a fragmented mosaic ofinstitutions. This means that a successful institutionis one that is highly successful at influencing theactions of others and that includes an effectivemeans of co-ordinating the actions of differentinstitutions. This approach is also consistentwith the emergent approach to sustainable watermanagement which stresses, for example, demandmanagement rather than providing additionalwater sources, and source control rather than endof pipe treatment. Rather than building floodalleviation schemes, wastewater treatment worksand reservoirs, water management institutions areincreasingly focused on changing the behavior ofothers.Therefore, in defining a “competent authority”under the Water Framework Directive, the logic isfirst to determine which institutions have the powerto undertake, to fund, to regulate or otherwiseinfluence the adoption of particular interventions oractions. These “institutional maps” (Green 2003)are defined by specific actions such as the setting ofwater efficiency standards for water fittings and forwater using equipment. If a different interventionstrategy is invented then it may prove that a newset of institutions are key stakeholders in the rateand success of the take-up of that technology orbehavior. In addition, it may turn out that thereare overlaps or gaps between the functional andgeographic boundaries of the different stakeholderinstitutions. In the case of England, the mostimportant of these stakeholders are:1. Local and regional planning bodies withresponsibility for development control;2. Office of Water Services, the price and qualityregulators, who agree on investment planswith the wastewater and water companies anddetermine the price rises required to fund thoseplans;3. Department for the Environment, Food andRural Affairs as the ministry responsiblefor implementing the Common AgriculturalPolicy, and thus farming practices as theyimpact upon the water environment; and4. The Department for Communities and LocalGovernment (former Office of the DeputyPrime Minister) as the ministry with overallresponsibility for urban development, planning,and building regulation.Population density is the biggest threat to waterresources so perhaps the most critical of thosestakeholders are the Regional Assemblies, madeup of representatives from the constituent localauthorities and others. The Regional Assembliesare responsible for preparing the Regional SpatialStrategy, the overarching land use strategy(Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2004). Itis clearly critical that these strategic land plansembody water management concerns. The worstpossible outcome would be a plethora of plans,and particularly of river basin management plans,which sit beside and outside of the Regional SpatialStrategies. Those Regional Spatial Strategies arethemselves required to be developed through aprocess of stakeholder engagement (Office of theDeputy Prime Minister 2004) as opposed to themere consultative process required for river basinmanagement plans under the Water FrameworkDirective. If the Environment Agency is not able toJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

70Green and Fernández-Bilbaoinfluence these key stakeholders then it will not beable to deliver on the Water Framework Directive(Le Quesne and Green 2005).Absent from this list of key stakeholders are theenvironmental non-governmental organizations.This is because the Environment Agency has acentral commitment to environmental conservation.In particular, the Chief Executive of the agency wassuccessively Chief Executive of the Royal Societyfor the Protection of Birds, the most importantenvironmental non-governmental organization,and then of English Nature, the government agencywith responsibility for environmental conservation.This leaves other environmental non-governmentalorganizations, such as the World Wildlife Fund,without an obvious ecological niche.In seeking to influence these other stakeholders,the agency will have to recognize the asymmetriesof interest among the stakeholders. The localauthorities may have little to gain from workingclosely with the agency and a lot to lose. Thelocal authorities have multiple objectives andconstraints with which they must cope, includingthe needs either of socio-economic regeneration orof accommodating large inflows of development.Taking account of water management issues willadd to their difficulties and will restrict both wheredevelopment can take place and the form of thatdevelopment.The competent authority will have not onlyto be very successful at influencing the otherstakeholders, but also at co-ordinating the actionsof those other stakeholders. Key to both tasks is theestablishment of some form of stakeholder forumfor each catchment; what is at issue is the powerthat would reside in each of those fora and hencein each stakeholder. Each forum could be simplya sounding board and means of liaison betweenthe different stakeholders, the EnvironmentAgency’s original proposal for implementing theWater Framework Directive (Environment Agency2005). Or, it might make recommendations to thedifferent stakeholders as to the actions each shouldtake as part of the program of actions necessaryto deliver the objectives of the Water FrameworkDirective. Finally, it might decide on the riverbasin management plan and the program of actionnecessary to implement it.Given the lack of experience in England of suchapproaches, it would be useful to allow differentforms to emerge in different catchments, as thelocal stakeholders decide. Within each catchmentforum, there would then also be scope for adoptingdifferent processes; that process has been variouslyframed in quite different ways as “conflictresolution” (Acland 1990, Handmer et al. 1991,Priscoli 1996), “consensus building” (Innes 1996),“future search” (Weisbord and Janoff 1995), “sociallearning” (Pahl-Wostl 2002, Craps 2003, Ison et al.2004, HarmoniCOP 2005) and “learning alliances”(Adank et al. 2006). What is required is an overallsystem for evaluating the relative success of eachdifferent forum. In the short run, that evaluationhas to focus upon process rather than outcomes,and the key process characteristic is change: thenature and extent of the changes, particularly in theunderstandings of each stakeholder of each other(Green et al. 2004).We are further faced with the problem ofdelivering integration through functional linebudgets. Some general source of revenue whichcould be used for general purposes to enhance theperformance of the catchment would be a usefullubricant here. In the past, the introduction ofspecific charges for abstractions and discharges tocover the administrative costs for permitting havebeen rejected when they have been considered aspossible economic instruments (Department of theEnvironment, Transport and the Regions 1997,2000). Our proposal here is instead for a levy asa source of revenue rather than any expectationthat such a levy would have any effect upon landand water users. A small charge, the simplest formbeing that of a property tax, would generate fundswhich could then make it easier to put togetherother funding from the line budgets of the differentpublic and private stakeholders. Decisions as tothe appropriate spending of these funds would bedetermined by the stakeholder fora.ConclusionsIntroducing IWRM requires very differentinstitutional practice than we have seen in the past inEngland. It is a challenge for which the centralizedgovernment tradition of England has ill-preparedthe people. Indeed, the adoption without discussionof the Environment Agency as the competentauthority under the Water Framework Directive isUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Implementing the Water Framework Directive71a hang-over from that centralized tradition. If theEnvironment Agency as the competent authority isto be successful, and perhaps even survive, it hasto rapidly become exceedingly good at two tasks:1. Influencing the other stakeholders who havethe power or funding to deliver the objectivesof the Water Framework Directive.2. Building and sustaining those fora ofall stakeholders that enable the differentstakeholders to co-ordinate their actions.These, we argue, are the two key criteria forsuccess of all competent authorities designatedunder the Water Framework Directive. A furthermore general criterion for successful watermanagement institutions is that they have to beboth innovative and adaptive.We consider that a forum of stakeholders foreach catchment, with responsibility for settingout the program of actions necessary to deliverthe objectives of the Water Framework Directiveis a necessary pre-condition for success. But,given the lack of experience in such fora, and inthe processes which such a forum should adopt,it is appropriate to experiment with differentapproaches in different catchments, and comparethe success of each approach.A significant problem in implementing theWater Framework Directive is likely to be that oftrying to do so using functional line budgets. A“catchment conservancy levy” on all land use,which could be used on any action that wouldimprove the ecological and economic performanceof the catchment could be a useful tool in thisregard.Finally, we argue that in a country where landis already being used very intensely, the mostimportant form of integration is between land andwater management. In consequence, it is withinin the Regional Spatial Strategies and LocalDevelopment Frameworks that it is essential toembed water management concerns. If to do so itis necessary to sacrifice river basin managementplans, then this would be a desirable sacrifice.Overall, we argue, it is institutional implementationboth in structure and in process that is the criticalelement in delivering IWRM.AcknowledgementsThe research undertaken for this paper was partlyfunded by the British Academy.Author Bios and Contact InformationCOLIN GREEN is Professor of Water Economics at MiddlesexUniversity. He has acted as advisor to the WorldCommission on Dams; the Global Water Partnership/World Meteorological Office program on IntegratedFlood Management, and was lead author on the UKguidelines on the economic appraisal of flood and coastaldefense schemes. He also advised, among others, theWorld Bank and UNEP; in the UK, the EnvironmentAgency, OFWAT, RSPB, English Nature, the NationalAudit Office, and Defra. Recently, he was responsiblefor the socio-economic appraisal of the Strategic UrbanDrainage Plan for Buenos Aires. He has also workedin China, South Africa, Egypt, Bangladesh, Portugal,France, and Hungary and has been involved in the EuropeanResearch Programs: EUROFLOOD1, EURO-FLOOD2, HARMONICOP, FLOODSITE, SWITCHand SPICOSA. His Handbook of Water Economicswas published in 2003 by John Wiley and in a Chinesetranslation by WaterPower Press in 2004. He was electedto the International Academy of Water in 2000. Hecan be contacted at the Flood Hazard Research Centre,Middlesex University, Queensway, Enfield, EN3 4SA,UK, email c.green@mdx.ac.uk.AMALIA FERNÁNDEZ-BILBAO is an environmental scientistwith a background in flood risk management and socialresearch. She graduated with a BSc in EnvironmentalScience and Geography, Environment and Sustainabilityand also has an MSc in Sustainable EnvironmentalManagement (Water specialism) from MiddlesexUniversity. She has worked in several UK and Europeanprojects including FLOODSITE, during her three yearsat the Flood Hazard Research Centre (MiddlesexUniversity). She is currently working as environmentalconsultant for Collingwood Environmental Planning.She can be contacted at Collingwood EnvironmentalPlanning, 4.2.3 The Leathermarket, Weston Street,London SE1 3ER, UK, email a.fernandez@cep.co.uk.ReferencesAcland, A. F. 1990. A Sudden Outbreak of CommonSense: Managing Confl ict Through Mediation.Hutchinson, London.Adank, M., P. Bury, J. Butterworth, D. Casella, M.Morris, and J. Verhagen. 2006. Report on LearningAlliance Training. IRC, Delft. Online at http://www.eeb.org/.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

72Green and Fernández-BilbaoBerbel, J., J. Calatrava, and A. Garrido. 2005. Waterpricing and irrigation: A review of the Europeanexperience. Paper presented at the Conference ‘LaNueva Cultura del Agua: un espacio compartido’,Santander, Spain, 29 August-2 September 2005.Best, G. 1979. Mid-Victorian Britain 1851-75. Fontana,London.Cleaver, F. 2000. Moral ecological rationality, institutionsand the management of communal resource.Development and Change 31(2): 361-383.Craps, M. (Ed.). 2003. Social Learning in RiverBasin Management. HarmoniCOP WP2 ReferenceDocument Online at http://www.harmonicop.info.Department for the Environment, Food and RuralAffairs. 2005. England Catchment Sensitive FarmingDelivery Initiative Announced. Department for theEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.Department of the Environment, Transport and theRegions. 1997. Economic instruments for waterpollution. Department of the Environment, Transportand the Regions, London.Department of the Environment, Transport and theRegions. 2000. Economic instruments in Relation toWater Abstraction. Department of the Environment,Transport and the Regions, London.Environment Agency. 2001. Water resources for thefuture. A strategy for England and Wales.Environment Agency. 2002. Rivers and estuaries- Adecade of improvement. General quality assessmentof rivers and classification of estuaries in Englandand Wales, 2000.Environment Agency. 2004. Water resources for thefuture. Annual Review, 2004.Environment Agency. 2005. Water for life andlivelihoods: A strategy for river basin planning – aframework for stakeholder engagement. EnvironmentAgency, Bristol.European Commission. 2000. Water FrameworkDirective. Online at http://www.europa.eu.int/eurlex.Green, C. H. 2001. The lessons from the privatizationof the wastewater and water industry in Englandand Wales. In Holzwarth, F. and Kraemer, R. A.(Eds.). Umweltaspekte einer Privatisierung derWasserwirtschaft in Deutschland. Ecoscript, Berlin.Green, C. H. 2003. The Water Framework Directive:A poisoned chalice? Paper given at the AnnualConference of the RGS-IBG, London.Green, C. H., C. Johnson, and E. C. Penning-Rowsell.2004. The journey towards integrated catchmentmanagement. Report to the British Academy, FloodHazard Research Centre, Enfield.Handmer, J. W., A. H. J. Dorcey, and D. I. Smith.1991. Negotiating Water: Confl ict Resolution inAustralian Water Management. Centre for Resourceand Environmental Studies, Australian NationalUniversity, Canberra.HarmoniCOP. 2005. Learning Together to ManageTogether – Improving Participation in WaterManagement.Innes, J. 1996. Planning through consensus building:A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal.Journal of the American Planning Association 62:460-472.Ison, R. L., P. Steyaert, P. P. Roggero, N. Hubert and J.Jiggins. 2004. Social Learning for the IntegratedManagement and Sustainable Use of Water atCatchment Scale. SLIM Final Report, OpenUniversity, Centre for Complexity and Change,Milton Keynes.Kaika, M. 2003. The water framework directive: Anew directive for a changing social, political andeconomic European framework. European PlanningStudies 11(3): 299-316.Lanz, K. and S. Scheuer. 2001. EEB Handbook on EUWater Policy under the WFD.Le Quesne, T. and C. Green. 2005. Can we afford notto? The costs and benefi ts of a partnership approachto the Water Framework Directive. WWF-UK,Godalming.North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Changeand Economic Performance. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. 2004. PlanningPolicy Statement 11: Regional Spatial Strategies.Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. 2005. Localgovernment fi nance key facts: England, NationalStatistics. September 2005. Online at http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/stats/index.htm.Office of Water Services. 2005. Protecting yourinterests. Online at http://www.ofwat.gov.uk.Pahl-Wostl, C. 2002. Towards sustainability in thewater sector – The importance of human actors andprocesses of social learning. Aquatic Sciences 64:394-411.Priscoli, J. D. 1996. Confl ict Management, Collaborationand Management in International Water ResourcesIssues. IWR Working Paper 96-ADR-WP-6, InstituteUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Implementing the Water Framework Directive73for Water Resources, US Army Corps of Engineers,Fort Belvoir, Virginia.Petts, G. E. and R. Wood. (Eds.). 1988. Regulated riversin the United Kingdom. Regulated Rivers: SpecialIssue 2.Putnam, R. 1993. Making Democracy Work. PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton.Scott, R. W. 1995. Institutions and Organizations.Sage, London.Tunstall, S. M. and C. H. Green. 2003. From listenerto talker: The changing social role of the citizenin England and Wales. Online at http://www.harmonicop.info/.United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.1998. Convention on Access to Information, PublicParticipation in Decision-Making and Access toJustice in Environmental Matters. Online at http://www.unece.org/env/pp/.Weisbord, M. R. and S. Janoff. 1995. Future Search.Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.Wheatherhead, E. K., A. J. Price, J. Morris andM. Burton. 1994 Demand for irrigation water.National Rivers Authority R & D Report 14, HMSO,London.Young, O. 1999. Science Plan: Institutional Dimensionsof Global Environmental Change, IHDP.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

74UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONISSUE 135, PAGES 74-79, DECEMBER 2006A Comparison of IWRM Frameworks: The UnitedStates and South AfricaJeffery A. BallweberDepartment of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State UniversityThere is increasing global interest in IntegratedWater Resources Management(IWRM) as an approach to address a myriadof water resources issues in a more effective andefficient way. Although there are a growing numberof individual IWRM and watershed managementsuccesses that reflect technical cooperation on aregional or local scale, broader, international andnational efforts to implement IWRM are oftenhampered by inadequate or inefficient politicaland institutional environments. Accordingly, itis helpful to compare alternative national IWRMapproaches to better understand the strengths andweaknesses of different political and institutionalenvironments for IWRM. This paper examines twonational IWRM approaches that were adopted inthe late 1990s. The United States has a growingnumber of collaborative grassroots level watershedmanagement initiatives, but little or no nationalpolitical, legal, or institutional framework toguide and coordinate those efforts. Conversely, theRepublic of South Africa was extremely proactivein codifying a formal IWRM strategy at the nationallevel, but has limited experience with collaborativeinstitutions. This paper compares these alternativebottom-up and top-down approaches to identifyand assess some common challenges to the longtermsustainability of IWRM institutions.IWRM-Ideal vs. RealityBasically, IWRM is blending or integratingactions and objectives favored by different playersto achieve the best total result within a river basinor watershed (Grigg 1998). This blending is aprocess for land and water resources planningand management that encourages participants toconsider a wide array of social and environmentalinterconnections. Therefore IWRM supersedestraditional multi-purpose natural resourcesmanagement by explicitly encompassing societalgoals and ecosystem functions. In short, IWRMwill ideally include the full range of physical,biological, and socioeconomic variables necessaryto manage or develop a region to protectenvironmental values and provide sustainablehuman use (Hooper 2003).As IWRM concepts are accepted as part ofinternational or national goals, the issue becomes:what critical elements are necessary to implementor enable IWRM? Without discounting the growingstress to water resources in certain areas of theworld, the true crisis may be in water governance,management capacity, and financing to satisfyhuman and environmental water needs (Hooper2003). Potentially, IWRM institutions, if they havea fairly unique blend of representative stakeholderbodies and ability to implement actions, couldblend complicated top-down and bottom-upmanagement approaches to IWRM (Schad, 1998,Ballweber 1999, Hooper 2003, Ashton et al. 2005).The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs(1998) recognized this by identifying three pillarsto support IWRM at the international level: (1)Political, (2) Technical Cooperation, and (3) Legal/Institutional. These pillars are equally applicable atthe national level.1. Political – includes vertical integration ofnational, provincial/state and local officials todevelop clear IWRM policy statements andimplement legislation and appropriations toinitiate and sustain IWRM.2. Technical Cooperation – includes vertical(federal, provincial/state, local) and horizontal(public, non-public, academic, etc.) integra-UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM Frameworks: USA and South Africa75tion to identify, share and integrate data andtechnical expertise to prioritize data gapsfor IWRM. Recent advances in GeographicInformation Systems and related informationtechnologies have significantly simplifiedtechnical cooperation and remote datasharing among parties (Yang, et al. 1999).3. Legal/Institutions – in conjunction with thepolitical pillar, laws may have to be amendedor enacted to integrate legal and financialauthority for new river basin institutions, jointcommissions or other river basin organizations.As part of a broader devolution of governance,decentralized river basin institutions must havesome autonomy to set priorities and obtainfunding independent of existing governments(fees and taxes) and agencies (grants andloans).Locally-lead IWRM efforts may emerge inresponse to specific water crises or disasters thatunite stakeholders even in the absence of thesepillars. Yet together, the three pillars create a verysupportive environment for sustained IWRM.Alternate National IWRM ApproachesWater issues vary from one area to another, andoften within a single nation. A nation’s approachto IWRM may depend on whether it is locatedupstream or downstream within a river basin, thenumber and size of international river basins withinits borders, and how well developed its nationalwater resources infrastructure is. As such, IWRMapproaches adopted for one international basin orby one nation may be inappropriate or unworkablein another. In addition, IWRM must be extremelysensitive to national political, cultural, and socialconditions. Still, a general comparison of theinitial success of different national approaches tothe IWRM pillars can provide beneficial insightinto alternative approaches (De Coning andSherwill 2004). South Africa and the UnitedStates represent perhaps two extremes in theirapproaches to IWRM. While the former adopted avery formal top-down approach, the later has beenunable to provide substantive national leadershipfor IWRM, despite a multitude of collaborativewatershed management efforts with strongtechnical cooperation and grassroots support.Republic of South AfricaThe Republic of South Africa (RSA) isjustifiably proud of its peaceful transition fromapartheid to democracy. Not surprisingly, in anarid county that primarily receives erratic rainfall,and depends largely on seasonal river flow fromshared river basins, freshwater availability hasbeen included in national political discussions.The Country’s 1996 Constitution contains a defacto statement of IWRM principles by embracingenvironmentally sound, sustainable economic andsocial development. This policy was expandedand codified in the National Water Law of 1998(Republic of South Africa 1998), with the ultimateresponsibility for IWRM vested in the Departmentof Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). Allan(2003) provides a detailed legal discussion ofthe Constitutional provisions and the NationalWater Law. Clearly, at the national level, the RSAenthusiastically embraced IWRM’s political pillarby pursuing a policy of “Some [water] for all, forever” (Allan 2003, MacKay et al. 2003, Hattingh etal. 2004, MacKay and Ashton 2004, Ashton, et al.2005, Waalewijn et al. 2005).Notwithstanding these clear demonstrationsof South Africa’s political support for IWRM,the legal/institutional pillar has some unresolvedvertical and horizontal integration issues. Takingvertical integration as an example, legally, theNational Water Act recognizes national jurisdictionover water resources protection, use, development,conservation and management (Republic of SouthAfrica 1998). However, the Water Services Actrecognizes that local municipal governmentsare responsible for potable water supply andwastewater management within their municipalities(Republic of South Africa 1997). As for horizontalintegration, DWAF’s IWRM efforts under theNational Water Act will need to be closelycoordinated and integrated with the Departmentof Environmental Affairs and Tourism’s StrategicRegion-Based Management approach authorizedunder the National Environmental ManagementAct of 1998 (Republic of South Africa 1998a,Hattingh, et al. 2004, MacKay and Ashton 2004).These are challenging integration and coordinationissues that are the subject of considerable researchand review (Allan 2003, MacKay et al. 2003,De Coning and Sherwill 2004, Hattingh et al.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

76BallweberEstablish AdvisoryCommittee (Minister)Consult withInterested &Affected Parties(Advisory Committee)SubmitRecommendationson stakeholderrepresentation toMinister(Advisory Committee)AcceptConsult withStakeholderOrganizations(Minister)Submit nominations toMinister(Stakeholder organizations)Minister ReviewNotApprovedAppointNominatedBoard MembersAppointAdditionalBoard MembersIf NecessaryFigure 1. Republic of South Africa’s Process to Appoint a Catchment Management Agency Governing Board (Republicof South Africa 1998b).2004, MacKay and Ashton 2004, Ashton, et al.2005, Waalewijn et al. 2005).It appears that all stakeholders recognize thatan evolving process is necessary to develop newinstitutional and professional relationships. Trustis necessary in resolving these detailed legaljurisdictional issues and all are working in goodfaith to that end (MacKay et al. 2003). Similarly,stakeholders are working together to implementthe National Water Act’s institutional provision forriver basin-scale IWRM—a mandate for DWAFto organize and approve the creation of 19 newCatchment Management Agencies (Republic ofSouth Africa 1998 § 79). DWAF has a critical,leadership role in establishing and approving theseagencies and their Governing Boards (Republic ofSouth Africa 1998b). The DWAF has adopted anopen process with strong stakeholder involvement tosolicit nominations to the Catchment ManagementAgency Governing Boards. Nominations aresupplemented with additional members if necessaryto ensure broad representation of stakeholders anduser groups (Figure 1). This process is critical toensure public and stakeholder buy-in and trust inthe Catchment Management Agencies and allowthem to serve a quasi-legislative function. Afterit is established and has a board in place, eachCatchment Management Agency must developa Catchment Management Strategy, followingDWAF guidelines. Once that strategy is approved,DWAF will delegate significant operationalauthority for the Catchment Management Agenciesto implement the Strategy (Allan 2003). Theseagencies then become the focal point for technicalcooperation within the catchment area.The Republic of South Africa has taken boldpolitical and legal/institutional steps to create anenvironment to support technical cooperation forIWRM. While it is still early in the implementationstage, like many new management initiatives, thisnew IWRM approach is facing challenges from thetop to meet bureaucratic deadlines and reportingrequirements; while local stakeholders still needadditional time to fully understand the process andits responsibilities, and to build relationships andunderstand how they will impact their activities(Maharaj and Pietersen 2004, Waalewijn 2005).These issues will be discussed further below.United States of AmericaThe IWRM situation in the United States ofAmerica (USA) is nearly the exact opposite ofSouth Africa, with a wealth of ad hoc collaborativewatershed management efforts that reflect a highdegree of technical cooperation (Taylor andGerath 1996, Ballweber 1999, Sabatier et al.2005). However, there is a desperate need fornational leadership and guidance from the politicalUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM Frameworks: USA and South Africa77and legal/institutional pillars to ensure the longtermsustainability of these efforts (Schad 1998,Viessman, Jr. 1998, Ballweber 1999, Galloway2003).In 1998, the President and Vice Presidentattempted to provide leadership for watershedmanagement and many elements of IWRMthrough a Clean Water Action Plan (United Statesof America 1998, 2000). The Plan had threegoals: (1) enhance public health protection fromwater pollution threats, (2) more effective controlof polluted runoff, and (3) promote water qualityprotection on a watershed basis. Regarding thepolitical pillar, Congress did not have a singleauthorizing or appropriating committee to debatethe entire plan. So despite general support fromimpacted interest groups and stakeholders, therewas no opportunity for Congress to conduct acomprehensive review of the plan or considerfunding tradeoffs between agencies and similarprograms (Copeland 1998, 2000). The Plan waslargely abandoned when a new administration tookoffice in the Executive Branch.Notwithstanding the lack of a national IWRMstrategy, the national government has shownpolitical, legal and institutional support for somehigh profile, “great waterbody” initiatives withstrong state and local political support such as theFlorida Everglades, Great Lakes, and ChesapeakeBay (Hughes and Burke, Jr. 1996, Ballweber1999, Copeland 2000). Reflecting the importanceof vertical integration in the political and legal/institutional pillars, state and local politicalsupport on a multi-state or regional scale can sparkfederal political support for legal/institutionalflexibility and funding for watershed managementefforts (Hughes et al. 1996). The country’s largelyinformal bottom-up, collaborative approach towatershed management still struggles as individualwatershed partnerships attempt to gain legitimacywith federal and state agencies in adoptingmanagement plans, or to wean themselves offof agency grant funding (Ballweber et al. 2005,Sabatier et al. 2005). Agencies are quick toparticipate in such collaborative efforts, but areoften legally prohibited from delegating any oftheir authority or responsibilities to these newpartnerships.Near-Term Opportunities for IWRMIn evaluating IWRM, it is vital to rememberthat it is a process and not an event (Hooper 2003,MacKay 2003). Despite the fact that South Africahas created a very sound top-down framework tosupport Catchment Management Agencies, it is stillexperiencing challenges in effectively empoweringlocal collaborative initiatives or partnerships(Hattingh et al. 2004, MacKay and Ashton 2004,Maharaj and Pietersen 2004, Waalewijn et al.2005). A formal national IWRM framework needsto have sufficient flexibility to realize that not allcatchments are equally ready for IWRM, or tocreate and participate in a Catchment ManagementAgency. Chess and Gibson (2001) identify threefundamental attributes for successful, sustainablewatershed management efforts that are equallyapplicable to IWRM:1. Scientifi c Feasibility – management mustinclude specific actions with a clear causalrelationship between actions taken andmeasurable improvements in meeting prioritywater issues;2. Social Feasibility – agency agendas mustaddress local priorities and needs reflectedby strong civic engagement and leadership;similarly a statutory framework to delegateauthority, establish planning procedures andprioritize technical and financial assistanceresources is important; and3. Motivational Feasibility – as they evolve,watershed management may need differentapproaches to maintain strong localparticipation including incentives (regulatoryflexibility), norm-based (stakeholders wantto conform to new norms) or other emotionalresponses (civic pride).Much like watershed management, IWRMis more likely to succeed and be sustainable incatchments with all three attributes. Agenciesand other organizations can lay the groundworkfor successful future implementation of IWRMplans by working to strengthen individualattributes at the local level as part of internationalor national IWRM approaches. By recognizingriver basins where these attributes are alreadyin place, agencies and other organizations canhelp prioritize areas for early or fast track IWRMefforts while working to build or strengthen localJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

78Ballweberattributes in others (Chess and Gibson 2001).Often a neutral third party or university can playa key role in this type of local capacity building(Breen et al. 2004, Ballweber et al. 2005).With this in mind, it is appropriate to compareIWRM to the process used to plan, fund operateand maintain a large water resources developmentproject such as levee construction, irrigation, orflood control projects on US waterways. Despitesignificant federal involvement, water resourcesdevelopment projects are initiated by a localsponsor in response to some water resource issueof concern. The local sponsor builds local and statepolitical support by engaging local stakeholders.If it has some national significance and sufficientlocal support, it is likely that over time, the state’sCongressional delegation will champion theproject. The federal government created a legalframework of primacy agencies and interagencyand federal-state consultations to provide thefederal/state cooperation the project needs. Overtime, single purpose projects gave way to broader,more integrated multi-purpose/multi-use projects.The local stakeholders and political officials wereactively engaged with a clear goal: get their projectbuilt. Potentially, IWRM could provide a logicalcontinuation of the local enthusiasm for a projectto satisfy the sponsor’s long-term operation andmaintenance commitment (Ballweber 1999).ConclusionFrom the discussion above it is apparent that astrong formal IWRM framework in a nation withouta history of informal technical collaborationfaces challenges. Similarly, an assortment of adhoc watershed management partnerships withminimal federal or state guidance is not idealeither. It seems that IWRM is best characterized asa voluntary approach to national, provincial/stateand local relations with stakeholders and the publicat large, in which the process is possibly even moreimportant in the short-term than the goal.Given the obstacles nations face in developingand implementing IWRM, it is important torecognize and applaud any progress toward IWRM.Public acceptance of and support for IWRM andnew management institutions will require that theysee added value from these new efforts. Thereis no better marketing for IWRM than having asuccessful IWRM institution that has measurablyimproved the local quality of life or broughtin new economic development opportunities.Accordingly, to the extent possible, it is advisableto link or “boot strap” IWRM initiatives withthe political and legal/institutional frameworkfor water resources development projects. Localstakeholders, funding agencies and other donorsare familiar with development institutions andprocedures.Author Bio and Contact InformationJEFF BALLWEBER is the Associate Director of theMississippi Water Resources Research Institute atMississippi State University. Effective September 2006he has accepted a position as Community DevelopmentSpecialist in the Department of Agricultural and ResourceEconomics at Colorado State University. In Mississippihe has researched and published on inter-jurisdictionallegal and policy issues related to integrated waterresources development and management. Mr. Ballweberhas applied his research interest by actively assisting inorganizing formal and informal watershed managementorganizations and developing watershed implementationplans in the southeastern United States. He is alsoactively assisting several rural counties in Mississippito plan and implement water resources developmentprojects for regional economic development. Often,these development projects provide a foundation forsubsequent and ongoing integrated water resourcesmanagement efforts. Jeff can be reached at ColoradoState University, Dept. of Agricultural and ResourceEconomics, B308 Clark, Ft. Collins, CO 80523-1172,Jeff.Ballweber@ColoState.edu.ReferencesAllan, A. 2003. A comparison between the water lawreforms in South Africa and Scotland: Can a genericnational water law model be developed from theseexamples? Natural Resources Journal 43(2):419-489.Ashton, P. J., M. J. Patrick, H. M. MacKay and A. B. Weaver.2005. Integrating biodiversity concepts with goodgovernance to support water resources management inSouth Africa. Water SA 31(4):449-456.Ballweber, J.A. 1999. A critique of watershed managementefforts in the Lower Mississippi alluvial plain. Journal ofthe American Water Resources Association 35(3):643-654.Ballweber, J. A., M. L. Tagert, W. D. Jones, K. Griffin.2005. Upper Pearl River Watershed Advisory Groupas a Model for Mississippi. Final Report for CleanWater Act § 319 Award No. 991221153. MississippiState, Mississippi.UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM Frameworks: USA and South Africa79Breen, C. M., J. J. Jaganyi, B. W. van Wilgen and E.van Wyk. 2004. Research projects and capacitybuilding. Water SA 30(4):429-434.Chess, C. and G. Gibson. 2001. Watersheds are not equal:Exploring the feasibility of watershed management.Journal of the American Water Resources Association37(4):775-782.Copeland, C. 1998. The Clean Water Action Plan: Backgroundand Early Implementation. Congressional ResearchService Report 98-150 ENR. Washington, D.C.Copeland, C. 2000. Clean Water Action Plan: BudgetaryInitiatives. Congressional Research Service Report98-745. Washington, D.C.De Coning, C. B. and T. Sherwill. 2004. An Assessmentof the Water Policy Process in South Africa (1994to 2003). Republic of South Africa, Water ResearchCommission Report No. TT232/04.Galloway, G. E. 2003. Perspectives on a national waterpolicy. Water Resources Update 126:6-11.Grigg, N. S. 1998. Coordination: The key to integratedwater management. Water Resources Update 111:23-29.Hattingh, J., G. Maree, A. Turton, E. Van Wyk, andS. Oelofse. 2004. Environmental governance andequity in a democratic South Africa. In: WaterGovernance for People & Nature: What Roles forLaw, Institutions, Science and Policy? AmericanWater Resources Association International SpecialtyConference. (August 29-Sept. 2, 2004). Dundee,Scotland.Hooper, B. P. 2003. Integrated water resourcesmanagement and river basin governance. WaterResources Update 126:12-20.Hughes, H. R. and T. W. Burke, Jr. 1996. The cleanup ofthe Chesapeake Bay: A test of political will. NaturalResources & Environment 11(2):30-34.MacKay, H.M., K.H. Rogers and D.J. Roux. 2003.Implementing the South African Water Policy:Holding the Vision While Exploring an UnchartedMountain. Water SA 29(4): 353-358.MacKay, H. M. and P. J. Ashton. 2004. Towards cooperativegovernance in the development andimplementation of cross-sectoral policy: Waterpolicy as an example. Water SA 30(1):1-8.Maharaj, V. and T. Pietersen. 2004. Consulting SouthAfrica’s diverse population about the country’sproposed National Water Resources Strategy. WaterSA 30(5):125-132.Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 1998. TheManagement of Shared River Basins: Experiences forSADC and EU. Focus on Development 8. SADC-EU Conference on the Management of Shared RiverBasins. Maseru, Lesotho. (May 20-21, 1997). TheHague, Netherlands.Republic of South Africa. 1996. The Constitution ofthe Republic of South Africa (Act No. 108 of 1996).Government of the Republic of South Africa,Pretoria, South Africa.Republic of South Africa. 1997. Water Service Act (ActNo. 390 of 1997). Department of Water Affairs andForestry. Pretoria, South Africa.Republic of South Africa. 1998. National Water Act(Act No. 36 of 1998). Department of Water Affairsand Forestry. Pretoria, South Africa. South Africa.Republic of South Africa. 1998a. National EnvironmentalManagement Act (Act No. 107 of 1998). Departmentof Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Pretoria, SouthAfrica.Republic of South Africa. 1998b. Task Group for theEstablishment of a Catchment Management AgencyInformation Document. Department of Water Affairsand Forestry. Directorate of Project Planning.Pretoria, South Africa.Sabatier, P. A., W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg,A. Vedlitz and M. Matlock. 2005. SwimmingUpstream: Collaborative Approaches to WatershedManagement. Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyPress, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Schad, T. M. 1998. Water policy: Who should dowhat? Water Resources Update 111:51-61.Taylor, W. E. and M. Gerath. 1996. The watershedprotection approach: Is the promise about to berealized? Natural Resources & Environment11(2):16-20.United States of America, 1998. Clean Water ActionPlan. Federal Register 63(56):14109-14112 (March24, 1998).United States of America. 2000. Unifi ed FederalPolicy for a Watershed Approach to Federal Landand Resources Management. Federal Register65(202):62566-62572 (October 18, 2000).Viessman, Jr., W. 1998. Water policies for the future:Bringing it all together. Water Resources Update111:104-110.Waalewijn, P, P. Weser and K. van Straaten. 2005.Transforming river basin management in SouthAfrica: Lessons from the lower Komati River. WaterInternational 30(2): 184-196.Yang, M., C. J. Merry, and R. M. Sykes. 1999.Integration of water quality modeling, remotesensing, and GIS. Journal of the American WaterResources Association 35(2):253-263.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

80UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONISSUE 135, PAGES 80-85, DECEMBER 2006Water Governance at the European UnionAna BarreiraInstituto Internacional de Derecho y Medio Ambiente, SpainIt has been recognized that the current watercrisis is a crisis of water governance (GlobalWater Partnership 2000). Resolving watergovernance problems will lead to the achievementof sustainable water resources management anddevelopment. Water governance refers to the rangeof political, social, economic, and administrativesystems that are in place to regulate thedevelopment and management of water resourcesand provision of water services at different levelsof society (Global Water Partnership 2002).Governance issues have important implicationsfor the management of water resources at alladministrative levels — global, regional, nationaland local — and good governance is a prerequisitefor the successful implementation of IntegratedWater Resources Management (IWRM), accordingto the Global Water Partnership (GWP) (2002).Water laws provide the framework for watergovernance systems and are the pillar for achievingeffective governance in a given country. Themain principles for effective water governanceare: openness and transparency, inclusion andcommunication, coherence and integration, equityand ethics. At the European Union (EU) level,the Water Framework Directive 1 (WFD) providesthe basic elements to contribute to effective watergovernance in European Union member states 2 .The main objective of this article is to present thewater governance system of the European Union,based primarily on the European CommunityWater Framework Directive. Firstly, it reviews theEuropean Union context, in particular EuropeanCommunity (EC) environmental law and policy.It follows with a brief analysis of the instrumentsshaping the European Community water lawarchitecture. In particular, it will emphasize theWater Framework Directive that, since its entry intoforce on December 22, 2000, represents the primarywater policy legislation in the European Union.Finally, some conclusions will be provided.The EU Context: European CommunityEnvironmental Law and PolicyThe European Community is a uniqueinternational organization. The European Courtof Justice (ECJ) already held in 1964 that “it hasits own institutions 3 , its own personality, its ownlegal capacity and capacity of representation onthe international plane and, more particularly, realpowers stemming from a limitation of sovereigntyor a transfer of powers from the States to theCommunity. The member states have limited theirsovereign rights, albeit within limited fields, andhave thus created a body of law which binds boththeir nationals and themselves.” 4 The EuropeanCommunity is the first pillar of what is known asthe European Union which also is also comprisedof two additional pillars: the Common Foreign andSecurity Policy and Cooperation in Justice andHome Affairs.Environmental policy, including water policy,is European Community policy whose implementationis shared between the European Unionand member states. This shared implementationimplies that the European Community establishesminimum standards for environmental protectionwhen it is necessary to intervene at the Europeanlevel 5 while leaving member states the freedom toestablish stricter protection measures 6 . Communitypolicy on the environment, including programsfor future legislation and action, has beenprogressively developed in six action programson the environment. Member states are obliged toUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Water Governance at the European Union81transpose and implement the minimum standardsapproved at the European level mainly in theform of directives 7 . Therefore, directives on watermust be incorporated into the domestic law of itsmember states offering an indication of futuredevelopments in national water laws.The white paper on European Union governance 8recommended the use of appropriate legislativeinstruments to facilitate compliance with EuropeanCommunity law. It also recommended that morefrequent use be made of the “framework directives,”as they are less complicated texts, offer greaterflexibility with respect to their implementation, andtend to be agreed to more quickly by the counciland the European parliament.European Community Water Law andPolicyAs a result of the First Environmental ActionProgram of 1973, water legislation was one ofthe first sectors to be covered by the EuropeanCommunity environmental policy (Lanz andScheuer 2001). European Community legislationto protect water quality originated in 1973 withthe adoption of a directive prohibiting the saleand use of certain detergents with a low level ofbiodegradability (Sands 2004). Today more than 25water-related directives and decisions are found.The first legislative approach (1975-1980)used two kinds of techniques. Thus, we finddirectives and decisions providing environmentalquality standards (EQS) for specific types ofwater (surface water, fish water, shellfish water,bathing water and drinking water directives)and establishing emission limit values (ELV)for specific water uses (dangerous substancesdirective and the ground water directive). Thesecond approach to water legislation (1980-1991)used new techniques (Nitrates and Urban WasteWater Directives) and completed the dangeroussubstances directive through daughter directiveson specific substances.In spite of this developed legal framework,nine member states were found guilty by theEuropean Court of Justice for not complyingwith water legislation in 42 cases concerning17 directives (Demmke and Unfried 2001). Theexistence of diverse regulatory instruments aswell as growing environmental problems derivedfrom the intensification of economic water usesrequired more coherent action from the EuropeanCommunity in the field of water. After five yearsof negotiation in the European Community,the Water Framework Directive was approvedat the end of 2000 and Members States had totranspose it into their national laws before 22December 2003. Just a few months before thatdate, the European Environment Agency (EEA)reported some progress achieved in the ecologicalquality of rivers, reducing pollution by oxygenconsumingsubstances and phosphorus as well aswater abstractions, except for southern Europe(European Environment Agency 2003). However,it also warned on areas where no progress had takenplace: nitrate pollution mainly from agriculture,over withdrawal for irrigation, energy use andtourism in southern Europe, and the presence ofpesticides in ground water and drinking water(European Environment Agency 2003).The Water Framework Directive: AnInstrument for Good Water Governance inthe EUThis Directive introduces key elements toachieve effective water governance at the EuropeanUnion level, a coherent and effective legal andinstitutional framework, water-pricing policies,public participation and an integrated waterresources management system (Barreira 2003). Itprovides an umbrella for the implementation ofthe various instruments of European Union waterpolicy as well as introducing new standards andtools for the protection of the ecological qualityof waters. As a result, until the Water FrameworkDirective becomes fully operational, the currentEuropean Community Water legislation is inforce 9 .The Water Framework Directive introduced aremarkable change in community water legislation.This policy moved from protection of particularwaters of special interest such as nature areas,specific aquatic organisms or drinking water, toprotection and use based on overall appreciationof the hydrology and ecology of the entire naturalcycle of each river basin (Olsen 2001).Its purpose is to establish a framework for theprotection of all waters, which include inlandsurface waters, transitional waters, coastal watersJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

82Barreiraand ground water. To this end, the directive obligesmember states to prevent further deteriorationand to enhance and restore the status of aquaticecosystems. The most important result of itsimplementation will be the achievement of the goodstatus of waters by 2015. This goal is translatedinto environmental objectives for surface waters(good ecological and chemical status), groundwater (good quantitative and chemical status) andto protected areas (compliance with standardsand objectives specified in community legislationestablishing those areas). The environmentalobjectives are to be achieved with the developmentand implementation of river basin managementplans and of programs of measures. It alsoprovides specific obligations on active and realpublic participation in the preparation, review. andupdating of the river basin management plans formember states. In accordance with some initiativesto give specific weight to economic instrumentsin environmental policy, the Water FrameworkDirective fosters the use of water-pricing policiesto motivate its sustainable use and recover the costof water services 10 . Table 1 shows the key elementsof the Water Framework Directive.The Environmental ObjectiveThe environmental objectives that insist onthe achievement of a good and non-deterioratingstatus for all bodies of waters (surface and groundwater) are legally binding. There are a number ofobjectives for protecting water quality. The keyones at the European level are general protectionof aquatic ecology, specific protection of uniqueand valuable habitats, protection of drinking waterresources, and protection of bathing water. Allthese objectives must be integrated for each riverbasin. It is clear that the last three—special habitats,drinking water areas and bathing water—applyonly to specific bodies of water (those supportingspecial wetlands; those identified for drinkingwater abstraction; and those generally used asbathing areas). In contrast, ecological protectionshould apply to all waters: the central requirementof the treaty is that the environment in its entiretybe protected to a high level.For surface waters, good status is determined bya good ecological and chemical status. The ecologicalstatus is determined by biological, hydro-morphologicaland physico-chemical quality elements.The chemical status requires the reduction of thepresence of priority substances and the eliminationof priority hazardous substances by 22 December2020. In the case of bodies of water designated asartificial and heavily modified, member states shallprevent deterioration and shall protect and enhancethem with the aim of achieving good ecologicalpotential and good surface water chemical statusby December 2015.For ground water, good status is determinedby its quantitative status and its chemical status.Nevertheless, Article 4 of the Water FrameworkDirective also provides for certain exceptions tothe binding environmental objectives when all theconditions that it specifies are met (see Table 2).One of the innovations of the directive is that itprovides a framework for integrated managementof ground and surface water for the first time at theEuropean level.Institutional Structure: River BasinAuthorities and PlansOne of the important concepts of the WaterFramework Directive is the organization andregulation of water management at the levelof river basins, taking into account the naturalgeographical and hydrological unit, instead ofusing administrative or political boundaries. Tothis effect, river basin districts are the managementunits comprising the area of land and sea, made upTable 1. Key Elements of the European Water Framework Directive.••••••protecting all waters, surface and ground waters in a holistic waygood quality (“good status”) to be achieved by 2015integrated water management based on river basinscombined approach of emission controls and water quality standards, plus phasing out of particularlyhazardous substanceseconomic instruments: economic analysis, and getting the prices right to promote prudent use of watergetting citizens and stakeholders involved: public participationUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Water Governance at the European Union83Table 2. Environmental objectives and exemptions of the European Water Framework Directive.The main environmental objectives in the directive are manifold and include the following elements (for detailssee Article 4 para. 1, (a) surface waters, (b) ground waters and (c) protected areas):•••••No deterioration of status for surface and ground waters and the protection, enhancement, and restorationof all water bodiesAchievement of good status by 2015, i.e. good ecological status (or potential) and good chemical status forsurface waters and good chemical and good quantitative status for ground watersProgressive reduction of pollution of priority substances and phase-out of priority hazardous substancesin surface waters and prevention and limitation of input of pollutants in ground watersReversal of any significant, upward trend of pollutants in ground watersAchievement of standards and objectives set for protected areas in Community legislationIt is important to note that where more than one of the objectives relates to a given body of water, the moststringent shall apply (Art. 4,2), irrespective of the fact that all objectives must be achieved.In order to achieve the specific objectives for heavily modified and artificial water bodies (i.e. good ecologicalpotential and good chemical status), the provisions for designation (see Article 4, 3), contain elements ofcomparing the consequences of achieving the “good ecological status” to a number of aspects including economicconsiderations. Moreover, the assessment of “good ecological potential” is linked to the possible mitigationmeasures.An integral part of the environmental objectives set out in Article 4 are the so-called exemptions. Theseexemptions range from small scale temporary exemptions to mid- and long-term deviations from the rule “goodstatus by 2015,” and include the following aspects:••••Extension of the deadline by two times six years, in other words, good status must be achieved by 2027 atthe latest (Article 4,4)Achievement of less stringent objectives under certain conditions (Article 4,5)Temporary deterioration of the objectives in case of natural causes or “force majeur” (Article 4,6)New modifications to the physical characteristics of a surface water body or alterations to the level ofbodies of ground water, or failure to prevent status deterioration of a body of surface water (including fromhigh status to good status) as a result of new sustainable human development activities (Article 4,7)Common to all these exemptions are strict conditions to be met and a justification to be included in the river basinmanagement plan. Furthermore, the assessment of the socio-economic impacts including the environmental andresource costs and benefits of achieving the objectives is one key element when considering the application ofany exemption.Finally, paragraphs 8 and 9 of Article 4 introduce two principles applicable to all exemptions:• first, exemptions for one water body must not compromise achievement of the environmental objectives inother water bodies• second, at least the same level of protection must be achieved as provided for by existing Community law(including those elements to be repealed)of one or more neighboring river basins, togetherwith their associated ground and coastal waters.Every decision about the use or interference withthe aquatic systems within the river basin districtshould take place in principle in an integrated andco-ordinated manner and be laid out in so-calledRiver Basin Management Plans (RBMPs). Theestablishment and operation of the river basinauthorities is the cornerstone of the implementationof the Water Framework Directive. Member statesare required to designate river basins and competentauthorities within their territory, or in co-ordinationJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

84Barreirawith other states for international waters.in other parts of the world 12 .Roadmap to Achieve Good Water StatusIn order to reach the overriding goal of thedirective, that is to achieve good status in all waterbodies, member states must follow a specifiedprocess which is called the planning process.The roadmap to achieve those objectives startswith an estimate of the status of water bodies toassess the likelihood of them failing to meet theenvironmental quality objectives set for themunder Article 4 in accordance with the provisions ofArticle 5 (characterization of river basin districts-RBD). Such an estimate had to be finished by 22December 2004.Following the results of the characterizationof river basin districts, the status of water bodiesis being classified using information from themonitoring programs according to Article 8.This exercise must be finalized by 22 December2006. Finally, the status of water bodies must bereported in the River Basin Management Plans tobe complete by 22 December 2009. Based on theresults of the monitoring programs for those waterbodies being at risk of failing to meet good status, aprogram of measures will be prepared. The purposeof setting a goal of measures being operational by22 December 2012 is to help in achieving goodstatus by the year 2015. After this, a new planningprocess must commence.ConclusionsThe Water Framework Directive introducednew standards, criteria, institutions, and processesfor managing Europe’s waters under an integratedecosystem-based approach. It provides anexemplary legal document that binds togetherfragmented environmental legislation undercommon ecosystem-based criteria and planningprocesses. In spite of existing challenges inimplementing this directive, the assessment ofprogress toward compliance deadlines can beviewed as positive since the majority of memberstates have carried out the tasks required by theWater Framework Directive roadmap 11 . Theimplications of the water Framework Directive arefar-fetched and beyond the limits of Europe as itsets out a new legal and institutional approach towater management that may be useful and adoptedAuthor Bio and Contact InformationANA BARREIRA is a law graduate who holds twoMaster of Laws (LL.M) degrees: in environmental lawfrom London University (1993) and in internationallegal studies from New York University (1996). Shedirects a Spanish non-profit organization, the InstitutoInternacional de Derecho y Medio Ambiente workingin diverse fields of environmental law and policy. Sheworked in the solicitors firm Allen & Overy in London.From September 2001 to June 2002 providing legaladvice to the Spanish Ministry of Environment for theEU Spanish Presidency. During 2005-2006 she advisedthe Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegroin the preparation of their respective Water Laws as partof a project funded by the World Bank. Since October2003, she has served as the president of the IWRA-Spanish Committee and a member of the EditorialBoard of Water International. She can be contacted at:Instituto Internacional de Derecho y Medio Ambiente,C/ Campoamor 13, 1º Izda, 28004 Madrid- Spain, Tel.+34-91-308 68 46, Fax: +34-91-3914073, ana.barreira@iidma.org.Endnotes1.2.3.4.5.6.7.Directive 2000/60EC of the European Parliamentand of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishinga framework for Community action in the field ofwater policy (OJ L 327 of 22.12.2000).The member states of the European Union are:Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic,Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia,Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, UnitedKingdom.The European Commission is a kind of executivepower, the Council and the Parliament holdingthe legislative function and the European Court ofJustice represents the judiciary.Costa v. Ente Nationale Per L’Energia Elettrica(ENEL) Case 6/64, [1964] ECR 585.As required by the principle of subsidiarity.Article 176 of the Treaty establishing the EuropeanCommunity (TEC 2004).A directive shall be binding, as to the result to beachieved, upon each Member State to which it isaddressed, but shall leave to the national authoritiesthe choice of form and methods (Article 249 of theTEC).UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Water Governance at the European Union858. COM (2001) 428 final of 25.7.2001.9. The following legislation will be in force until22.12.2007: Directive 75/440/EEC concerning thequality required of surface water intended for theabstraction of drinking water; Council Decision77/795/EEC establishing a common procedurefor the exchange of information on the quality ofsurface freshwater in the Community; CouncilDirective 79/869/EEC concerning the methodsof measurement and frequencies of samplingand analysis of surface water intended for theabstraction of drinking waters in the memberstates. On 22.12.2013 the following directives willbe repealed: Council Directive 78/659/EEC onthe quality of freshwaters needing protection orimprovement in order to support fish life; CouncilDirective 79/923/EEC on the quality required ofshellfish waters; Council Directive 80/68/EEC onthe protection of ground water against pollutioncaused by certain dangerous substances; Directive76/464/EEC, with the exception of Article 6, whichwas repealed when the WFD entered into force(22.12.2000).10. Article 9 WFD.11. See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/scoreboard.html.This pageprovides an overview on the state-of-play oftransposition and reporting by member states.12. The Draft Plan of Implementation, one of theoutcomes of the World Summit for SustainableDevelopment, refers to the need to establishintegrated water resources management (ChapterIV. Protecting and managing the natural resourcebase of economic and social development, Para25).Global Water Partnership. 2002. Dialogue on EffectiveWater Governance. GWP, Stockholm.Lanz, K., and S. Scheuer. 2001. EEB Handbook on EUWater Policy under the Water Framework Directive.European Environment Bureau, Brussels.Olsen, A. 2001. The new water framework directivefor the European Union and its possible effectson the Mediterranean insular context. Conferenceproceedings of the I Balearic Congress: Water,Future Perspectives. 1-2 February, 2001.Sands, P. 2004. Principles of International EnvironmentalLaw. Cambridge University Press, Second Edition.ReferencesBarreira, A. 2003. The participatory regime ofwater governance in the Iberian peninsula. WaterInternational 28(3): 350-357.Demmeke, C. and Unfried. 2001. EuropeanEnvironmental Policy: The administrative challengefor the Member State, European Institute of PublicAdministration, The Netherlands.European Environment Agency. 2003. EEA Briefing,Status of Europe’s water, No.1/2003. Online athttp://reports.eea.europa.eu/briefing_2003_1/en/EEA_Briefing_WIR_EN.pdf.Global Water Partnership. 2000. Towards water security:A framework for action. GWP, Stockholm.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

86UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONISSUE 135, PAGES 86-99 DECEMBER 2006Integrated Water Resource Management in New Zealand:Legislative Framework and ImplementationMatthew D. Davis 1 and John Threlfall 21 CAL Engineering Management and2 Otago Regional CouncilAbrief overview of Integrated WaterResources Management (IWRM) inNew Zealand is presented, covering thelegislative framework and implementation. Twoexamples are discussed: wet weather qualitymanagement in the Auckland Region and waterallocation in the Otago Region (Figure 1). It willbe shown that a strong legislative framework andterritorial organization exist in New Zealand tofacilitate IWRM. Translating the framework intoactions that support multiple objective IWRMgoals remains the current challenge.IWRM is a process or means to achievesustainable water use and sustainable water resourcesystems. Sustainable water use and sustainablewater resource systems support social objectivesinto the indefinite future without undermininghydrologic and ecological integrity (Gleick et al.1995; American Society of Civil Engineers andUnited Nations Educational, Scientific, and CulturalOrganization 1998). IWRM is best achievedat the river basin or catchment scale – that is atscales comprised of hydrologic drainage basins orsubbasins. Cases exist where IWRM can extendbeyond hydrologic drainage basin boundaries towhat can be defined as problemsheds, in particularwhen addressing habitat protection. IWRM canalso address subsets of basins, particularly whenthe spatial extent of a catchment or basin is large.Implementation of IWRM can take manyforms, although there are general pathwaysit often follows (Lee 1999, Molle 2003). Inwell functioning systems, IWRM is made ofpolicies with clear objectives that in turn areOtago RegionAuckland RegionFigure 1. New Zealand and Auckland and OtagoRegions.implemented, monitored, and adapted. IWRM,thus, is comprised of both strategic and operationalplanning approaches and actions (Mitchell 1990).Integrated Water Resources ManagementThe concept of IWRM has regained prominencein recent years through the Global Water Partnership,World Water Council, multi-lateral lendinginstitutions, and other prominent internationalfora, including the World Sustainability Summits.These efforts are primarily focused on lessdevelopedcountries to address primary issues ofpoverty reduction and sustainable developmentcriteria, as discussed in Johannesburg in 2002 andincorporated into the “Millennium DevelopmentUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM in New Zealand: Legislative Framework and Implementation87Goals.” In less-developed countries, IWRM alsois associated with coordinating water resourcedevelopment in river basins (Guerquin et al.2003).While sharing many basic tenants, IWRM indeveloped countries often is motivated by otherissues and sometimes not recognized or termedas IWRM. Particular differences are that thepoverty reduction and provision of basic waterand sanitation services generally have been dealtwith in developed countries. At least three patternsemerge for IWRM in developed countries. A firstpattern is the creation of river basin organizationsor water infrastructure related organizations todevelop water resources for economic growth.Examples are the Tennessee River Valley Authorityin the United States and the Murray-Darling BasinCommission in Australia. A second pattern is thatparticular issues, often with an environmentalfocus, instigate actions that require some form ofIWRM, although in many respects these reflect subcomponentsof IWRM. Issues include improvingambient river water quality, restoring river habitat,or reconciling competing water uses. Last, anotherpattern is that in a limited number of countries orregions, water and other regulatory governanceinstitutions have been re-organized around naturalcatchment boundaries. This activity has occurredin France and New Zealand, for example.IWRM is in fact an old concept that has re-takenprominence recently. It has progressed actively insome countries since the early 1900s in differentforms and under various titles including river basindevelopment, water resource master planning andcatchment management. Historically, however,it has proven difficult to achieve and/or sustain—either locally or universally (White 1998,Biswas 2004). Nonetheless, due to its promise andgrowing competition and stress on water resources,it remains a principal concept to embrace whenseeking to achieve improved water and landmanagement—thus leading to a recent re-focus ininternational circles.BackgroundNew Zealand is comprised of three main islandsof 268,680 square kilometers, with a populationof just over 4 million people. It has a purchasingpower parity per capita gross national product of$17,500 (Auckland Regional Council et al. 2006).The climate is temperate, subtropical. Rainfalldiffers dramatically across the country from morethan 13,000 mm on the west side of the SouthernAlps to less than 400 mm in the rain shadow of theSouthern Alps (Kirkpatrick 1999).IWRM and river basin management in NewZealand were initiated to address early erosionand flood control problems in the newly colonizedlands. The country began to organize around riverbasins as early as 1868 with establishment of riverboards. The erosion and flood problems of the1930s led to the 1941 Soils and Rivers Control Act,one of the first pieces of legislation in the worldto link land and water resources. The intensity ofland use and continuing soil erosion problems ledto a broadening of the scope of existing legislationand promulgation of the 1967 Water and Soils Act.The Act promoted a national policy for water, soilconservation, flood alleviation, community watersupply needs, and ecosystem protection. Further,it introduced water quality as a water managementobjective and established 20 catchment boards. In1981 the Act was amended, adding provisions forWater Conservation Orders to protect “outstanding”areas of nationally or locally important waterbodies. Twenty-one Water Conservation Orderapplications have been submitted, with 11 areasconferred to date (Newson 1997, Deans 2004a).In October 1991, the Resource ManagementAct became governing legislation for the majorityof resource use. The Resource Management Actrepealed over 60 acts and amended more than150 others; it transformed a legal mosaic into amore integrated regime for air, land, water, andecosystem management (Randerson 1997, Harris2004, Government of New Zealand 2005). TheResource Management Act, together with the 1987Conservation Act, the 2002 Local GovernmentAct (which revamped an earlier Act of 1974), the1841 Treaty of Waitangi, and the restructuring ofregional and local councils that occurred in the1980s, constitute a strong foundation for IWRM,based on sustainable water use and sustainablewater resource systems principles. Implementationhowever, largely occurs at the regional and localcouncil levels.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

88Davis and ThrelfallResource Management ActNational Environmental Standards and RegulationsNew Zealand Coastal Policy StatementMinister of ConservationRegional Policy StatementRegional CouncilsRegional Coastal PlanRegional CouncilsRegional PlansRegional CouncilsDistrict / City Policy StatementsDistrict or City CouncilsDistrict PlanDistrict or City CouncilsDistrict / City Bylaws and StandardsDistrict or City Councils / Water and SanitationRegulatory FrameworkNational Policy StatementsMinister for the EnvironmentOther Management PlansIwi Management PlansFisheries and Other RegulationsPlans of Adjacent CouncilsFigure 2. Resource management document hierarchy.Source: Ministry for the Environment 2001, modified.In legal, economic, and social terms, water isregarded as a public good in New Zealand. Regionalcouncils, that is government that is comprised ofthe territory governed by several local councils,administer most aspects of freshwater, whilelocal councils in turn are primarily involved inregulating local land use decisions. Furthermore,regional councils retain regulatory provisionsover regional land use. No entity may take, use,dam, divert, or discharge to any water (or heat orenergy from water, or heat or energy from materialsurrounding geothermal water) unless expresslyallowed by a rule in a regional plan, granted in aresource consent or falling within a limited numberof exemptions. Rights to take, use, dam, divert, ordischarge have fixed terms, while at the same timeexisting use rights, some of which are significantand for extended periods of time are recognized.The English Common Law approach to waterwas abandoned with the 1967 Water and Soils Actin place of administrative control, reinforced inthe 1991 Resource Management Act (Berry andCowper 1997, Deans 2004a). Primary legislationwith respect to water and IWRM are the 1991Resource Management Act, 1987 ConservationAct, 2002 Local Government Act, and 1841 Treatyof Waitangi.Together, these acts and re-organization ofregional and local councils produced: (a) wholesaleprivatization of the country’s resource baseand infrastructure, (b) redrawing of the internalpolitical map using catchment boundaries as theprimary organizing principle, (c) amalgamatinglocal councils, and (d) explicitly adoptingsustainability as the dominant national policy forrenewable natural resource management (Burtonand Cocklin 1996). At the same time efforts wererenewed to reconcile European and Maori (pre-European) cultures and Maori resource claims andenvironmental values (Orange 1987, Ward 1999,Government of New Zealand 2004, 2005).Resource Management ActIn October 1991, the Resource ManagementAct became the governing legislation for nearlyall resource use in New Zealand. The purpose ofthe Resource Management Act is “...to promote thesustainable management of natural and physicalresources” (Government of New Zealand 2005: 38).Within the context of the Resource ManagementAct, the environment is defined as encompassing…ecosystems and their constituent parts,including: (a) people and communities, (b) allnatural and physical resources, (c) amenityvalues and (d) the social, economic, aestheticand cultural conditions which affect the mattersstated or which are affected by these matters...(Government of New Zealand 2005: 19).The Resource Management Act is effects-basedlegislation that provides a framework for managementand mitigation of adverse environmentalimpacts of activities. The Resource ManagementAct proposes that “sustainable management” beachieved through explicit management of the effectsof activities of local and regional councilsand private entities. The Resource ManagementAct sets the framework for the control of air, land,and water based on a hierarchy of documents, including:(1) policies, (2) plans, and (3) resourceconsents (Figure 2).The Resource Management Act co-opted mostof the 1967 Water and Soils Act and its 1981amendment. It sets out five matters of nationalimportance regarding water: (1) preservation ofthe natural character of the coastal environment,UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM in New Zealand: Legislative Framework and Implementation89Table 1. Activities and consents.ActivityDefinitionPermitted No consent is required if the effects comply with the conditions specified in the planning documents.A certificate of compliance can be issued by the relevant authority to verify this statusControlled Generally a non-notified application.Consent must be granted, but conditions can be imposedDiscretionary Generally a notified application.Consent may or may not be granted, depending on criteria specified in the planning document.Non-complying contravenes plan, but not a prohibited activity.Notified applicationConsent may be granted or refused.Prohibited Consent cannot be granted in any circumstances.No application permitted.Need a change to the controls to proceedSources: Randerson 1997, Harris 2004, Government of New Zealand 2005.wetlands, lakes, and rivers and their margins,(2) protection of these areas from inappropriatesubdivision, use, and development, (3) protectionof outstanding natural features, areas of significantindigenous vegetation and significant habitatsof indigenous fauna, (4) maintenance andenhancement of public access to the coastal marinearea, lakes and rivers, and (5) maintenance andenhancement of the relationship of Maori and theircultural traditions with their ancestral lands, water,sites, waahi tapu (sacred sites) and other taonga(treasures) (Government of New Zealand 2005).The 2004 Resource Management Act Amendmentalso places protection of biodiversity as a matter ofnational importance (Government of New Zealand2005).Activities and ConsentsA regional policy statement, regional plan, ordistrict plan may include control mechanismsthat prohibit, regulate, or allow activities. Thecontrol mechanisms are based on the actual orpotential adverse environmental effects of anactivity. Activities may be categorized as permitted,controlled, discretionary, non-complying, orprohibited (Table 1) (Randerson 1997, Harris 2004,Government of New Zealand 2005).Water Conservation Orders are further subdividedinto Preservation Orders and ProtectionOrders. Preservation Orders are more restrictiveand require leaving water in its natural state: nowater, coastal or discharge permit may be grantedthat would alter the water body. Protection Ordersallow activities provided that they allow forprotection of the specified “outstanding resource”(Deans 2004b, Government of New Zealand2005).National Water PolicyWater allocation and management are recognizedas issues of regional and national importance.Nationally, recognizing an absence of nationalguidance, the Ministry for the Environmentinitiated a review of water issues as part of its“Sustainable Water Program of Action.” Thirteenactions were identified in 2004 (Table 2) (Ministryfor the Environment 2004). In 2005, the Ministryfor the Environment together with the Minister ofAgriculture and Forestry issued a joint statementon water, including investigation of water transfersto encourage increased water use productivity(Ministry for the Environment 2006). A waterpolicy statement on water allocation is expected inthe first half of 2007. The statement is not legallybinding but will provide guidance. Regionalplans consistent with national legislation containregulations that must be followed.Implementation of IWRMConsequently, implementation of IWRM islargely controlled through national and regionalpolicy statements and rules spelled out in regionaland district plans. The country is divided into 12regional councils plus five unitary councils thatserve both as local and regional government bodies.Each of the 12 regional councils is comprised ofJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

90Davis and ThrelfallTable 2. Thirteen Actions for freshwater for a sustainable future in New Zealand.No. Actions1. Develop national policy statements.2. Develop national environmental standards.3. Address important national values.4. Increase central government participation in regional planning.5. Increase central government support for local government.6. Develop special mechanisms for regional councils.7. Enhance the transfer of allocated water between users.8. Develop market mechanisms to manage diffuse discharges.9. Set requirements for regional freshwater plans to address key issues and challenges.10. Enhance Maori participation.11. Enable regional councils to allocate water to priority uses.12. Raise awareness of freshwater problems and pressures, and promote solutions.13. Collaborate between central and local government, scientists, and key stakeholders on pilot projects todemonstrate and test new water management initiatives.Source: Ministry for the Environment 2004.several local councils.Regional councils can prepare single issue plans(e.g. water) or multiple issue plans such as air,land, and water. Some regional water plans, forinstance, differ substantially across the country, inpart due to recognition of different local conditionsbut also due to lack of guidance through nationalwater policy statements, resulting in mixed and attimes inconsistent rules across regional councils.The Auckland Regional Council recentlypromulgated the Regional Plan: Air, Land andWater (Auckland Regional Council 2005), whilethe Otago Regional Council maintains a RegionalPlan: Water for Otago (Otago Regional Council2004b, 2006b). The case study of the AucklandRegion portrays how the regional council isattempting to manage wet weather discharges tothe Waitemata Harbor from several district councilsthrough its consenting process governed by theAir, Land and Water Plan. The example from theOtago Region discusses how IWRM concepts areimplemented under the Water Plan in the case ofregulation and management of water allocationand stream flow.Conservation ActThe Department of Conservation holdsresponsibility to manage freshwater fish, exceptfor commercial fisheries and sports fisheries. Thedepartment also manages land adjacent to riversand lakes, as well as upper catchments for waterquality. This last item reflects adoption of thehistorical role of the original Forest Service that in1919 was charged with protecting water and soilby protecting forested catchments (Deans 2004a).Among other functions, the Conservation Actprovides the Department of Conservation withthe ability to review private resource consentapplications on private land that may affect waterquality, in particular with regards to when aconservation marginal strip lies between a propertyto be developed and a water body. In addition, arange of provisions in the Conservation Act andsubsidiary regulations provide the Department ofConservation with functions to protect freshwaterresources, including regulations for freshwaterfisheries (including fish passage and protectionof particular species), game management, andprovisions for a variety of protected areas (Deans2004a).Local Government ActLocal government’s roles, responsibilities,powers and accountabilities are defined by threeacts: (1) 2002 Local Government Act; 2001 LocalElectoral Act; and 2002 Local Government (Rating)Act. Local government reflects regional and localcouncils, and other democratically elected localbodies. The 2002 Local Government Act replacesUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM in New Zealand: Legislative Framework and Implementation91the 1974 Act. The new Local Government Act,similar to the 1974 Act, provides rules under whichdemocratically elected governments can operate. Itis simpler and empowers local government, whilealso providing more accountability and publicinput. Overall, the Local Government Act requiresmore rigorous and transparent decision-making bylocal governments (Department of Internal Affairs2005).The Act (a) states the purpose of localgovernment, (b) provides a framework and powersfor local governments to decide which activitiesthey undertake and the manner in which theyundertake them, (c) promotes accountability oflocal governments to their communities, and (d)provides for local governments to play a broad rolein promoting the social, economic, environmental,and cultural well-being of communities, takinga sustainable development approach. The statedpurpose of local government is: (a) to enabledemocratic local decision-making and action by,and on behalf of, communities and (b) to promotethe social, economic, environmental, and culturalwell-being of communities in the present and forthe future (Government of New Zealand 2004).The Act requires local governments to facilitatea process with their communities at least everysix years to identify community outcomes for theintermediate and long-term future of the districtor region, with the premise that the communitytakes ownership of the identified outcomes. TenyearLong Term Council Community Plans arerequired and must be reviewed every three years.The Long Term Council Community Plans describethe community outcomes and priorities and theactivities that the local government will undertaketo contribute to the outcome. “Significant activities”must be put forward in accordance with the LongTerm Council Community Plans. The localauthorities are charged with defining “significantactivity” and how priorities are determined,both subject to public review and concordance(Government of New Zealand 2004).The Treaty of Waitangi and Natural ResourceManagementThe 1841 Treaty of Waitangi, an agreementbetween the English Crown and the Maori, hasconstitutional significance that underlies thefoundation of society in New Zealand. The treatyand implementation are not without controversyand differing interpretations (Orange 1987,Brookfield 1999).The principles of the treaty are influential in thearea of environmental protection and natural resourcemanagement. Under the 1987 ConservationAct, 1991 Resource Management Act, and 2002Local Government Act, the principles of the treatymust be observed and the relationship of the Maoriand their culture and traditions are considered tobe a matter of national importance and must berecognized and provided for (Government of NewZealand 1987, 2004, 2005). Further, the LocalGovernment Act is based on a quadruple bottomline (culture, social, economic, and environment)that distinguishes cultural aspects as separate fromsocial aspects for added emphasis. The Maori believefor example, that the forest, waters, and alllife supported by them, together with natural phenomenonlike wind, mist, and rocks, possess maurior life force (Barlow 1991, Llewell 2004). Theprimary management principal for the Maori isprotection of mauri of a resource from desecration.The Maori worldview does not separate spiritualand intangible aspects from non-spiritual aspectsof resource management (Tipa 2006).Historically, a rift between treaty obligationsand modern legal obligations existed. Prior topromulgation of these three Acts, New Zealandlegislation did not refer to specific obligationsregarding aspects of the treaty. A further breachoccurred between treaty obligations and regionaland local council governance, the level ofgovernment that undertakes actions that mostoften affect the Maori (Tunks 2002). The 1974Local Government Act lacked treaty guarantees.This breach was rectified with inclusion of treatyprovisions in the 1991 Resource Management Actand the 2002 Local Government Act. The ongoingchallenge remains how to incorporate culturalaspects, including spiritual, into decision-makingwhile also addressing the colonial and post-colonialhistorical legacy.Some maintain that Maori viewpoints andvalues are not incorporated sufficiently intodecision-making (Mutu 2002, Tunks 2002, Tipa2006). This situation is a result of various factorsincluding (a) lack of understanding of Maori issuesJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

92Davis and Threlfallby regional and district planners and resourceconsents processors, (b) limited Maori politicalrepresentation and active roles in planningdepartments in regional and local governments,(c) lack of ability to formulate information aboutthe Maori perspective in a manner that can beconsidered within the existing legal framework,(d) lack of coherent advocacy on the part of someMaori groups, and (e) limited economic resourcesfor Maori participation (Mutu 2002, Tunks 2002,Tipa 2006). Others contend that this is also dueto lack of true partnership by the “Crown” calledfor by the treaty and section 8 of the ResourceManagement Act, for example. Consultation isundertaken with the Maori as stakeholders ratherthan “partners” or “co-managers,” or in the caseof rightful “owners of water” (Tunks 2002, Turia2006).At the local decision-making level that is,regional and local (district or city) councils,development of practical tools are underway tohelp incorporate Maori cultural issues formally intodecision-making on terms that local governmentcan more readily consider. A Cultural Health Indexfor streams and rivers was devised. In addition, aCultural Opportunity Matrix is under developmentto enable the Maori to participate in helpingidentify preferred flow regimes for waterways ofsignificance (Tipa 2006, Tipa and Teirney 2006a,2006b).Thus a framework does exist to address Maoriissues in New Zealand. A breach still existsregarding “Crown” responsibilities under the Treatyof Waitangi and the Maori role in ownership andmanagement of water and other resources. Stepsare being taken to better incorporate the Maoriperspective and role in resource management.Public ConsultationSignificant public consultation and stakeholderinput forms the cornerstone of existing legislation.For example, local councils are currentlypresenting Long Term Council Community Plansto constituents (Government of New Zealand2004). The Long Term Council Community Plancouches investment in water infrastructure andthe environment for instance, alongside othergovernment services like libraries and footpaths.Long Term Council Community Plan feedbackwas completed in mid-2006 and is being incorporatedinto local government programs, helping set budgetenvelopes and allocation among various services.Furthermore, development of regional policystatements, regional plans, and district plansinvolve significant public input. Generally, focusgroups and public working groups are formed toparticipate in formulation of the statements andplans. Once draft statements or plans are published,a period exists for the public and interested partiesto comment and/or protest particular aspects.Objections are reviewed and, where possible,modifications are made prior to publication offinal statements or plans. Various methods areused to broach objections, including facilitatedpublic meetings, direct negotiation, arbitration,and mediation. A last resort is referral to a specialEnvironment Court (Somerville 2004). For issuesreaching the Environment Court, final resolutionmay take many years.Resource consents such as water right permits,granted under the Resource Management Act byregional and district councils, also involve publicparticipation and review (Randerson 1997, Harris2004, Government of New Zealand 2005). Theconsents can involve objections and similarfacilitated dispute resolution techniques.Financing IWRMFinancing of IWRM activities reflects acombination of resource consent user charges,general regional and local council rates, andnational initiatives, which differ from regionto region and local council to local council. Inthe Auckland Region, activities associated withIWRM are funded by rates levied by the differentlocal councils (seven within the region) and by theAuckland Regional Council. Large rate increaseshave occurred in recent years to fund largeinfrastructure projects and differed investment.The increases have been met with significant ratepayer opposition, although in the end these rates arepaid. In the Otago Region, rates are supplementedby Ports of Otago revenue and therefore reduce thecontributions required by rate payers.Wet Weather Quality Management in theAuckland RegionThe Auckland Region lies on the North IslandUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM in New Zealand: Legislative Framework and Implementation93and is defined by the political boundaries of theAuckland Regional Council. It is comprised ofseven district and city councils: Rodney District,North Shore City, Auckland City, Waitakere City,Manukau City, Papakura District, and FranklinDistrict. The Auckland Region and Auckland Cityin particular, is the fastest growing populationcenter in the country. Auckland City, occupyingan isthmus between the Waitemata and ManukauHarbors, accounts for 32 per cent of the region’spopulation. Greater Auckland comprised ofAuckland City together with Manukau City (24per cent), North Shore City (16 per cent) andWaitakere City (15 per cent), totaling just over 1million people (Auckland Regional Council et al.2006), forms the region’s principal urban center.Auckland City is the most urbanized and populousat 368,000 inhabitants (Statistics New Zealand2002), projected to grow to 583,000 over thenext 50 years (Auckland Regional Council 1999).Greater Auckland and the Auckland Region arethe economic hub of the country. The AucklandRegion contributed 34 per cent of the nation’s grossnational product, with Auckland City accountingfor 50 per cent of the output in the Auckland Region(Auckland Regional Council et al. 2006). Theconcentration of population and urban activitiespose water quality issues. The manner in whichIWRM and wet weather water quality managementis progressing in the Auckland region is reviewed.The Proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Coastalwas promulgated in 1999 and updated in 2004(Auckland Regional Council 2004). The coastalplan implements the National Coastal PolicyStatement by regulating activities in identifiedcoastal management areas. The AucklandRegional Plan: Air, Land and Water was issuedin 2001 and updated in 2005 (Auckland RegionalCouncil 2005). Together, the two plans identifywet weather quality issues of concern, areas ofspecial protection, and set forth a framework foridentification of ecological and public healthrisks.Inner and outer estuarine settling zones wereidentified; these are monitored approximatelyon an annual basis for a range of contaminants(Williamson and Kelly 2003). Contaminant levelsof probable ecological effects were identified,although these levels are under dispute by localcouncils and network operators. When certaincontaminant levels are exceeded, a procedure existsfor further sampling to assess if adverse ecologicaleffects are indeed occurring. The Ministry for theEnvironment recreational water assessment forbathing beaches (Ministry for the Environment2003) was adopted in Variation 1 of the regionalplans (Auckland Regional Council 2004, 2005).The Ministry for the Environment guidelineprovides a basis for public health risk assessmentthat incorporates sampling results, combined sewerand wastewater overflow occurrences, stormwaterdischarge, and public exposure. It sets a target ofno more than two beach infringements per yeardue to poor ambient water quality.It has been discovered that the predominantecological contaminant of concern in the regionis zinc, with the principal source being leachatefrom zinc-coated corrugated metal roofs locatedpredominantly in industrial pockets (Timperley etal. 2005). Source control has been identified asthe best option for stormwater quality management(Ouwejan et al. 2006). Moreover, limitingoccurrences of flooding and wastewater andcombined sewer overflows continue to be the focusfor public health issues (Auckland City Council2006).While the Auckland Regional Council regionalplans and Variation 1 have their basis in receivingenvironment issues, rules contained withinVariation 1, in fact, set specific end-of-pipedischarge standards for total suspended sedimentand overflow occurrences. These aspects andothers, particularly contaminant levels of theregional plans, remain controversial and have beenchallenged. Resolution is likely many years awayand is subject to an Environment Court hearing.From a cultural perspective of wet weather waterquality, the following have been identified throughconsultation with the Maori in the AucklandRegion: (a) discharge of any liquid wastes directlyto water bodies is culturally inappropriate (infirst instance land treatment is acceptable); (b)different types of liquid waste such as sewage andstormwater should be kept separate and treateddifferently; (c) use of or maintenance of riparianzones adjacent to water bodies to control diffusedischarges or contaminants; and (d) unauthorizeddumping of waste requires stronger monitoring,JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

94Davis and Threlfallenforcement, and penalties (Auckland RegionalCouncil 2005).Auckland City has been at the forefront ofadvocating a best practicable option approach thatlinks economic, environmental, and social tenetsof sustainable water use and sustainable waterresource systems consistent with the ResourceManagement Act. The city has taken an integratedcatchment and receiving environment focus andproposed improvements for public health in highlyvisited bathing beach areas, flood alleviation acrossthe city with initial focus in areas of targeted urbangrowth, and ecological health in inner settlingzones near protected areas where there are highzinc concentration levels. Due to costs and abilityto affect change, staged improvements will occur.In Auckland City, an Integrated CatchmentStudy was completed that provided the city with arange of costs for improved drainage and receivingenvironment outcomes (Sharman et al. 2006). Thecity subsequently examined a range of improvementscenarios for combined and wastewater seweroverflow reduction, flood mitigation, and stormwaterquality focusing on locations with themost benefits, estimating the time to achieve theimprovements, and quantifying their associatedcosts. Through the Long Term Council CommunityPlan, Auckland City and its partners then consultedwith the public and local Maori to determine whatthe drainage and environmental objectives shouldbe, the practicality of achieving these objectives,the costs and benefits associated with them, and theeffect on rates. From the scenarios and consultation,a preferred scenario was identified, equating toNZ$2 billion of investment over the next 20 years(Auckland City Council 2006).Based on the preferred scenario, new strategicmilestones were determined in 2006. The newstrategic milestones and options developed withinthe Integrated Catchment Study will enable theAuckland City to notify its city-wide drainagedischarge network consents in 2007 (that is publicfiling for legal permission to operate the wastewaterand stormwater networks and their associateddischarges).The approach taken by Auckland City differssomewhat from other local councils in the AucklandRegion. One council for example, publicly notifieda catchment based on less than one overflow eventin a 5-year period. Another council performedLong Term Council Community Plan consultationin 2005, presenting impact on rates based on totalsuspended sediment removal per Variation 1 of theregional and coastal plans, with differences in ratesbased on time to achieve total suspended sedimentremoval. These approaches comply or exceedregulatory requirements as they currently exist inthe regional plans. Also, the approaches followend-of-pipe discharge standards. The link withpublic and ecological health outcomes is presumedand does not necessarily balance economic,environmental, and social policies. The challengefor the Auckland Regional Council is to achieveenvironmental outcomes, including water quantityand quality through a consistent and fair-handedmanner while dealing with local councils andnetwork operators that have undertaken differentapproaches to notify resource consents and makeimprovements to their drainage networks.Water Allocation in the Otago RegionThe Otago Region lies on the South Island, withits headwaters in the Southern Alps and draining tothe east and south coast. It is comprised of 32,000square kilometers, or 12 percent of New Zealand’stotal area. It is inhabited by 190,600 people(Statistics New Zealand 2002). Important touristareas exist in the region largely based on naturalfeatures and the towns of Dunedin and Queenstown.Surface water is used predominantly in agriculture(83 percent), while industrial use accounts for8 per cent and domestic use 3 percent (LincolnEnvironmental 2000). Hydroelectric powergeneration is a significant use of water in Otago,even though much of the use is non-consumptive.Ground water accounts for 6 percent of water use,distributed evenly across the 3 consumptive usetypes (Lincoln Environmental 2000). Much of theregion lies in the rain shadow of the Southern Alps.At the western fringe of the region adjacent to theSouthern Alps, rainfall reaches 5000 mm, while alarge swath in Central Otago receives less than 400mm (Otago Regional Council 2004a). Agriculturalproduction in Central Otago is heavily relianton irrigation. An example of IWRM and waterallocation in the Otago Region is presented.Water allocation and sharing in the Otago Regionare governed by the Regional Plan: Water andUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM in New Zealand: Legislative Framework and Implementation95Plan Change 1A, together referred to as the WaterPlan (Otago Regional Council 2004b, 2006b), anddeveloped under the provisions of the ResourceManagement Act. Water allocation is based onissuance of resource consents, water user groupparticipation, river flow monitoring, and settingminimum environmental flows. Individuals holdresource consents to divert water. Water users holdprimary or supplementary consents, with allocationlimits set in the Water Plan for many streams.Minimum environmental flows are assessedthough a variety of methods in New Zealand,including RHYHABSIM, a local adaptationof PHABSIM (Jowett 1996) and the InstreamFlow Incremental Methodology (Bovee 1982).The Water Plan stipulates that water diversionscannot infringe upon pre-determined minimumenvironmental flows. When flow reaches a set lowlevel, notice is given and supplementary diversionsare suspended. Diversion rostering commences toavoid flow reaching the minimum environmentalflow. River flows are monitored by the OtagoRegional Council. Water Allocation Committeeshave been set up by the Otago Regional Councilto apply water diversion rosters based on existingresource consents granted by the Council (OtagoRegional Council 2004b, 2006b). Extensivecommunity consultation is undertaken to ensurethat the system is well understood.In one catchment, an Environment Courtdecision affecting the Water Plan determined thatif the minimum environmental flow was breached,primary consents would cease operation. The flowmust then recover to a “bounce” back level, abovethe minimum environmental flow, before primaryconsents can resume operation. This bounce backprovision was intended to provide added incentiveto avoid minimum environmental flow breach.Human and stock water consumption requirementshowever, lie outside of these rules and may continue(Otago Regional Council 2004b, 2006b).Further, the Water Plan recognizes existing“mining water rights” unique to the Otago Region,which date back to the gold rush days of the19 th century. After cessation of mining, canalsand diversion rights were used for irrigation.These rights expire in 2021 and will then comeunder Resource Management Act regulation.Rivers affected by mining rights do not requireenvironmental flows, and are the reason why manyrivers can be severely “over allocated” on paper.Any maintenance of environmental flows wouldhave to be on a voluntary basis until 2021 andtherefore can seriously compromise the abilityof the Otago Regional Council to manage watersustainably in the meantime (Deans 2004b).Where rivers are over-allocated a “sinking lid”approach to primary allocation is applied. If anyconsents are surrendered, lapse, cancelled, or arenot replaced on expiration, they lose their primaryallocation status. The allocation previouslyprovided to those consents will not be reallocated(Otago Regional Council 2004b).The transition of the Otago Region’s miningrights to consents requires collaborative thinkinginvolving all stakeholders to achieve an acceptablecommunity-driven water management strategy.This is a current major initiative by the OtagoRegional Council where local fora are being heldas part of the Water Plan change public submissionprocess (Otago Regional Council 2006a).Discussion and ConclusionsStrong enabling legislation exists in New Zealandbased solidly on sustainable developmentcriteria, with regional gerraovernment jurisdictionbased on catchments. Significant public consultationis undertaken and active local participation anddecision-making is commonplace. The local emphasisallows plans to strongly reflect local issuesand can provide for added local accountability.However, lack of central governmentinvolvement in strategic guidance, in particularlack of national policy statements has led in partto each region producing different water sharingand water quality regulations. In some instancessignificant differences exist within small arealextent and similar conditions, a situation that couldbe interpreted as too diverse or decentralized. Inaddition, each region and council expends effortto devise their own rules about common aspectsacross the country for their regional statements andplans. These issues will become more pronouncedin time as New Zealand faces a range of waterquality and quantity issues.One challenge confronting New Zealand isthe need to address significant non-point sourcecontamination from urban, agricultural, and animalJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

96Davis and Threlfallhusbandry practices, management of which is justcommencing in earnest in parts of the country.New Zealand faces the challenge of restoring waterquality and degraded river and estuarine habitatsin locations of intense human use such as GreaterAuckland, central North Island, Canterbury Plainsand the Otago Region, while also protectingrelatively pristine areas that include the west coastof the South Island. Public and private participationis required to adequately address this challenge.For example, a promising private initiative isbeing led by Fonterra, a dairy co-operative grouprepresenting most dairies in New Zealand, aspart of the “Clean Streams” initiative. The cooperativehas taken a proactive role, collaboratingwith dairy producers, local government, Ministryfor the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture andForestry, and researchers to reduce contaminationemanating from dairies (Fonterra Co-operativeGroup et al. 2003).Another challenge in particular areas is waterallocation. Central government has proposedinvestigating further using water consent transfersto improve water use (Ministry for the Environment2006). Concepts like water markets, however,have been met with stiff vocal opposition in somecircles (Turia 2006). Others are addressing howto incorporate environmental flows into rivers withexisting over-allocation of water (Otago RegionalCouncil 2006a).Yet another challenge is to streamline provisionof government services. In Auckland City, sevenborough councils were amalgamated into one cityin 1989, while seven district/city councils still existin the Auckland Region. Currently, eight entitiesprovide water supply, wastewater and stormwaterservices to Greater Auckland with a populationof 1.2 million. Since 2000, discussion exists toamalgamate water services to provide economiesof scale and efficiencies (Auckland Water Review2001).Several of these issues are recognized bycentral government. Government reform andamalgamation are tied up with politics, which iscurrently highly contentious due to the coalition ofthe controlling party with minority parties to form aviable government. Action is therefore unlikely inthe near term. On the other hand, review by centralgovernment in conjunction with local governmentis currently underway to provide national guidanceto better address water allocation and sustainablewater practices as part of the “Sustainable WaterProgram of Action.” A series of policy statementsare expected from the first half of 2007, initiallyaddressing water allocation. As stated at the outsetof this section, strong enabling legislation basedon sustainability concepts and governance basedon catchments already exist, providing a solidframework for IWRM. Publication of nationalwater policy statements and resulting follow upactions at the local government level will determinehow much further IWRM is put into practice, basedon tenets of sustainable water use and sustainablewater resource systems in New Zealand.Author Bios and Contact InformationMATTHEW DAVIS is a senior water resource engineer withCAL Engineering Management of Auckland City, NewZealand. From 2001-2005, he was the technical managerof the NZ$23.5 million Integrated Catchment Study ofAuckland City. Previously he worked in California andChile on water management and environmental impactassessments. He has an M.S. in civil and environmentalengineering and is currently completing a Ph.D. onintegrated water resource management and watersharing in Chile at the University of California, Davis.He can be contacted at CAL Engineering Management,73 Almorah Road, Epsom, Auckland City, New Zealand,mddavis67nz@yahoo.co.nz and WAI Institute c/o 801Malaga Ave., Davis, California 95616-0146, matthew.davis@waiinstitute.org.JOHN THRELFALL has a Ph.D. in fluvial geomorphologyfrom Southampton University and is the Director ofEnvironmental Information and Science for the OtagoRegional Council, New Zealand. Responsibility in thisrole includes co-ordinating and interpreting scientificinvestigations of water resources in the large, diverseand often water short Otago region. Previously, heworked for environmental engineering consultanciesin both the United Kingdom and New Zealand and theenvironmental regulator in the United Kingdom. Healso worked in water research and has been a technicalspecialist in overseas projects. He can be contacted atOtago Regional Council, Private Bag 1954, Dunedin,New Zealand. john.threlfall@orc.govt.nz.ReferencesAmerican Society of Civil Engineers and United NationsEducational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM in New Zealand: Legislative Framework and Implementation971998. Sustainability Criteria for Water ResourcesSystems. American Society of Civil Engineers,Reston, Virginia.Auckland City Council. 2006. Auckland City’s LongtermPlan 2006-2016. Auckland City Council,Auckland City, New Zealand.Auckland Regional Council and Local Councils. 2006.Business and Economy. The Auckland Region. ’06.Auckland Regional Council, Auckland City, NewZealand.Auckland Regional Council. 1999. Growth: The 50-Year Challenge. Regional Growth Forum Summary.Auckland Regional Council, Auckland City, NewZealand.Auckland Regional Council. 2004. Auckland RegionalPlan: Coastal (Operative). Incorporating Variation1 (Notified 21 June 2002). Auckland RegionalCouncil, Auckland City, New Zealand.Auckland Regional Council. 2005. Auckland RegionalPlan: Air, Land and Water. (Notified 23 October2001). Incorporating Variation 1 (Notified 21 June2002). Highlighted to Indicate Provisions Appealed(June 2005). Auckland Regional Council, AucklandCity, New Zealand.Auckland Water Review. 2001. Review UpdateJune 2001. Auckland Water Review, AucklandCity, New Zealand. Online at . Accessed 1 January2002.Barlow, C. 1991. Tikanga Whakaaro: Key Concepts inMaori Culture. Oxford University Press, AucklandCity, New Zealand.Berry, S. and I. Cowper. 1997. Water law. Chapter 7In Environmental & Resource Management Law.Butterworths, Wellington, New Zealand.Biswas, A. K. 2004. Integrated water resourcesmanagement: A reassessment. Water International29(2): 248-256.Bovee, K. D. 1982. A Guide to Stream Habitat AnalysisUsing the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology.United States Fish and Wildlife Service BiologicalServices Program FWS/OBS-82/26, Instream FlowInformation Paper 12. United States GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington D.C.Brookfield, F. M. 1999. Waitangi and IndigenousRights: Revolution, Law & Legitimation. AucklandUniversity Press, Auckland City, New Zealand.Burton, L. and C. Cocklin. 1996. Water resourcemanagement and environmental policy reform in NewZealand: Regionalism, allocation, and indigenousrelations. Part I. Colorado Journal of InternationalEnvironmental Law and Policy 7(1): 75-106.Deans, N. 2004a. Freshwater values: Duties andresponsibilities under the RMA. Chapter 7A InHarris, R. (Ed.). Handbook of Environmental Law.Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Wellington,New Zealand.Deans, N. 2004b. Issues relating to water and mechanismsfor protecting water-related values. Chapter7B In Harris, R. (Ed.). Handbook of EnvironmentalLaw. Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Wellington,New Zealand.Department of Internal Affairs. 2005. Strategyfor Evaluating Local Government Legislation.Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, NewZealand.Fonterra Co-operative Group, Local Government NewZealand, Ministry for the Environment, and Ministryof Agriculture and Forestry. 2003. Dairying andClean Streams Accord. Fonterra, Ministry for theEnvironment, and Ministry of Agriculture andForestry, Wellington, New Zealand.Gleick, P., P. Loh, S. Gomez, and J. Morrison. 1995.California Water 2020: A Sustainable Vision. PacificInstitute for Studies in Development, Environment,and Security, Oakland, California.Government of New Zealand. 1987. Conservation Act1987. Government of New Zealand, Wellington,New Zealand.Government of New Zealand. 2004. Local GovernmentAct 2002. Government of New Zealand, Wellington,New Zealand.Government of New Zealand. 2005. ResourceManagement Act 1991 (including AmendmentActs through 2005). Government of New Zealand,Wellington, New Zealand.Guerquin, F., T. Ahmed, M. Hua, T. Ikeda, V. Ozbilen,and M. Schuttelaar. 2003. World Water Actions:Making Water Flow for All. World Water Council,Marseille, France.Harris, R. (Ed.) 2004. Handbook of Environmental Law.Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Wellington,New Zealand.Jowett, I. 1996. RHYHABSIM: River Hydraulics andHabitat Simulation Computer Model. NationalInstitute for Water and Atmospheric Research,Hamilton, New Zealand.Kirkpatrick, R. 1999. Bateman Contemporary AtlasJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

98Davis and ThrelfallNew Zealand: The Shapes of Our Nation. DavidBateman Ltd, Auckland City, New Zealand.Lee, T. R. 1999. Water Management in the 21st Century:The Allocation Imperative. Edward Elgar PublishingIncoporated: Northampton, Massachussetts.Lincoln Environment. 2000. Information on WaterAlloction in New Zealand. Report 4375/1. Ministryfor the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand.Llewell, D. 2004. Maori and the environment. Chapter19 In Handbook of Environmental Law. RoyalForest and Bird Protection Society, Wellington, NewZealand.Ministry for the Environment. 2001. The ResourceManagement Act and You: Getting in on the Act.Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, NewZealand.Ministry for the Environment. 2003. MicrobiologicalWater Quality Guidelines for Marine and FreshwaterRecreational Areas. Ministry for the Environment,Wellington, New Zealand.Ministry for the Environment. 2004. Freshwater for aSustainable Future: Issues and Options. Ministry forthe Environment, Wellington, New Zealand.Ministry for the Environment. 2006. Freshwater forthe Future: A Supporting Document. Ministry for theEnvironment, Wellington, New Zealand.Mitchell, B. (Ed.). 1990. Integrated Water Management:International Experiences and Perspectives.Bellhaven Press, New York.Molle, F. 2003. Development Trajectories of RiverBasins: A Conceptual Framework. Research Report72. International Water Management Institute,Colombo, Sri Lanka.Mutu, M. 2002. Barriers to Tangata Whenua participationin resource management. Chapter 5 In Kwharu M.(Ed.). Whenua: Managing our Resources. ReedPublishing, Auckland City, New Zealand.Newson, M. 1997. Land, Water and Development.Routledge, New York.Orange, C. 1987. The Treaty of Waitangi. BridgetWilliams Book Limited, Wellington, New Zealand.Otago Regional Council 2004a. GrowOTAGO, Climateand Soil Data. Online at http://www.orc.govt.nz.Otago Regional Council. 2004b. Regional Plan: Waterfor Otago. Otago Regional Council, Dunedin, NewZealand.Otago Regional Council. 2006a. Water users reachconsensus at forum. News Brief 23 August 2006.Otago Regional Council, Dunedin, New Zealand.Otago Regional Council. 2006b. Plan Change 1A to theRegional Plan: Water for Otago. Otago RegionalCouncil, Dunedin, New Zealand.Ouwejan, R., R. Seyb, M. Davis, I. Mayhew, G. Paterson,P. Kinley, and B. Sharman. 2006. Source control ortraditional BMPs? An assessment of benefits and costs inAuckland City. Stormwater 2006. New Zealand Waterand Wastes Association, Wellington, New Zealand.Randerson, T. 1997. Resource Management Act 1991.Chapter 3 In Williams D. A. R. (Ed.). Environmental& Resource Management Law, Butterworths,Wellington, New Zealand.Sharman, B., G. Paterson, R. Brown, M. D.Davis, P. Kinley, and S. Ranchhod. 2006. Theintegrated catchment study of Auckland City(New Zealand): Overview. World Water andEnvironmental Resources Congress 2006. AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.Somerville, R. 2004. Additional dispute resolution.Chapter 5 In Harris R. (Ed.). Handbook ofEnvironmental Law. Royal Forest and Bird ProtectionSociety, Wellington, New Zealand.Statistics New Zealand. 2002. Census 2001. StatisticsNew Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.Timperley, M., B. Williamson, G. Mills, B. Horne, and M.Qaumrul Hasan. 2005. Sources of Loads of Metals inUrban Stormwater. NIWA Client Report AKL2004-070 and Auckland Regional Council TechnicalPublication ARC04104. Auckland Regional Counciland National Institute for Water and AtmosphericResearch, Auckland City, New Zealand.Tipa, G. 2006. Incorporating a cultural perspective infreshwater management. Water 2006. 1–4 August,Auckland City. Events Division Limited, Wellington,New Zealand.Tipa, G. and L. Teirney 2006a. A Cultural Health Indexfor Streams and Waterways: A Tool for NationwideUse. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington,New Zealand.Tipa, G. and L. Teirney 2006b. Using the CulturalHealth Index: How to Assess the Health of Streamsand Waterways. Ministry for the Environment,Wellington, New Zealand.Tunks, A. 2002. Rangatiratanga, partnership andprotection. Chapter 16 In Kwharu, M. (Ed.).Whenua: Managing our Resources. Reed Publishing,Auckland City, New Zealand.Turia, T. 2006. Returning to our rivers. The NZWWAUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM in New Zealand: Legislative Framework and Implementation99Journal. Water & Wastes in New Zealand 145: 25-27.Ward, A. 1999. An Unsettled History: Treaty claims inNew Zealand. Bridget Williams Books: Wellington,New Zealand.White, G. F. 1998. Reflections on the 50-yearinternational search for integrated water management.Water Policy 1(1): 21-27.Williamson, B. and S. Kelley. 2003. Regional DischargesProject. Marine Receiving Environment StatusReport 2003. Technical Publication 2003. AucklandRegional Council, Auckland City, New Zealand.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

100UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONISSUE 135, PAGES 100-106, DECEMBER 2006From Value to Finance: Making IWRM WorkBen Lamoree and Frank van SteenbergenArcadis EuroconsultThe discussion on Integrated WaterResource Management (IWRM) has beenvery rich on institutional change (basinorganizations, apex water bodies, legal reform)and on process management (multi-stakeholderprocesses, consultation and participation), but attentionto the financial dimension of IWRM has been lessdeveloped.The gist of IWRM is that in water managementthere are many different functions to be managedsimultaneously. Through investment and managementinterventions, values are created (or destroyed)in connection to these functions: productivity values,amenity values, property values, environmentalconservation values, and more. The challenge inIWRM is to, at a minimum, balance these differentfunctions and values, yet preferably to optimizethem. This paper further argues that these differentvalues need to be captured and, when possible,help finance the management of water resourcesystems in an integrated way. We present this asan improvement of the principle of “water as aneconomic good.” The economic good argumenthas, in our view, often led to reductionist strategies,focusing on recovering the financial cost of wateronly and not maximizing and recovering the valuesassociated with the many functions of water.This paper first clarifies some definitions andthen discusses how to capture values and turnthem into financial contributions to IWRM usingillustrations from several parts of the world. Thepaper then comments on the principle of water asan economic good, long considered as the financialunderpinning of IWRM. We look particularly atwater pricing for demand management, closelyassociated with the theory of water as an economicgood. It argues that a broader financial strategy,based on balancing, improving, and capitalizingon increased values related to water management,is more promising in funding IWRM and makingit work. Finally, some institutional aspects of thisapproach are explored.Functions and ValuesThe concept of functions describes the goodsand services the natural resource system providesor performs. There is almost always a wide rangeof functions associated with any given resourcesystem (Abdel Dayem et al. 2004). Table 1, forinstance, is a list of functions associated withirrigated areas. Other lists can be produced forother natural resource systems.Values is the concept through which societalpreferences, perceptions, and interests with regardto functions provided by natural resources areexpressed. These values are social, economic,financial and (temporal and spatial) ecologicalvalues. Values should not be seen separate fromstakeholders. They are not general and abstract,but they are always values to stakeholders. Thesemay be farmers, property owners, industries, localtowns, livestock owners, fishermen, and so forthand, in many cases, the public at large.The point of such lists is that there is usuallya large number of functions, many of which inpractice are overlooked in resource management,if only because the organizations that arepractically managing the resource have a limitedagenda and mandate. In the management process,important opportunities to create value for variousstakeholders are missed.Quite typically the many functions in irrigationUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Making IWRM Work101Table 1: Ecological functions of irrigated areas.Agricultural water supplyControlling water table for agriculturalproductionImproving land accessibilityImproving soil chemistryIncreased property values of land near waterfrontsLeisure opportunities – water based recreation,golf resortsDomestic water supplyIndustrial water supplyWater supply to other usersImproved protection against floodsUse of canal and drain bank for tree cultivationDefense linesSource: van Steenbergen, Cornish and Perry (forthcoming).systems, are not managed in a coherent way, ifat all. Irrigation departments will manage watersupply for agriculture mainly and in some caseswill involve themselves in drainage and floodprotection.It is unusual however for irrigation departmentsas water managers to involve themselves inmanaging water resources for domestic use, eventhough in many irrigated areas the availabilityand quality of water for domestic use is a majorfunction of the irrigation system. Take the exampleof Thatta and Badin Districts in Sindh, Pakistan.These areas at the tail of the Indus irrigation systemare entirely dependent on irrigation canal suppliesfor local drinking water, either directly from thecanals or through seepage into small fresh waterpockets on canal banks because ground water inthe area is saline. Even so, the irrigation departmentallows the main canals to be used for the disposalfor untreated effluent upstream from Hyderabadcity and a large industrial estate, jeopardizing thewell-being of a population of 2 million peoplein Thatta and Badin. To make matters worse, byallowing very high and unnecessary irrigationwater supplies in the peak season into this area,saline water logging is widespread, preventing thecreation of buffer storage capacity in the upper soillayers, and thus preventing the development ofmore fresh water lenses.While managing irrigation systems for drinkingwater is not common, it is even more unusual forirrigation departments to manage irrigation suppliesUse of canal and drain banks for transportationBuffering water stockGenerating water for reuseEffluent disposalWashing functionsLivestock water supplyFisheriesNavigation and ferryingImproved public healthReduced damage to built up property by controllingsoil moistureReduced incidence of water borne vector diseasesthrough environmental sanitationFirefighting resourcesfor fisheries production, for reduced incidence ofwater borne diseases or for amenity functions onthe water front, even when in some cases the lattercould be a major source of revenue.This situation described is typical for arid andsemi-arid countries and other areas where irrigationis the main water management intervention inthe natural water system. Due to such a mono-functionalfocus, water management in such areas cannotbe typified as “integrated.” Area-based organizationsare theoretically better equipped to managemultiple functions and the values involved.Capturing ValuesWater resource management affects the valueof the different water-related functions in an area,both positively and negatively. The values of thesefunctions accrue to different groups of stakeholders.These may be general interests (for instanceimproved public health or safety, sustainable groundwater supply, sustained aquatic bio-diversity) orprivate interests (use of canal banks for cultivation,use of a reservoir for water sports, reducing floodrisk in a given geographical area, using water fromwells or canals). These values are directly relatedto the way water resources are managed as part ofthe development of a region. It can therefore beargued that the economic and financial values fromthe functions thus created should, at least partly,be captured to recover the cost of maintaining andfurther developing the delivery of IWRM in anarea.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

102Lamoree and van SteenbergenIt is useful to distinguish three types of interestsor stakes, each with its own mechanism forcapturing values:1. General interests: Examples are generalenvironmental protection, improvement ofpublic health functions, flood protection,improved general living environment. Thevalues from these general interests are bestrecouped from general area taxes or publicsubsidies.2. Direct interests associated with theconsumptive use of water or its disposal ortransport functions. Examples are irrigation,domestic water use, industrial water use,effluent disposal, and shipping. Water usecharges, shipping fees or effluent chargesshould be levied to the different categories ofusers and polluters as a way of transformingfunctional value into financial value.3. Direct interests associated with theimprovements in the general environment.Examples are the development of waterfront property, canal bank forestry, leisureopportunities, and commercial use of vegetationin water ways. The values thus created are bestexploited by concessions or public-privatepartnerships—the latter particularly whenadditional private investment is required tofully develop these functions (e.g. water frontproperty development, leisure development orbuilding of embankments to create securityagainst floods for selected residential andindustrial areas). In these public-privatepartnerships, the challenge for the publicsector is to ensure that value increases are notjust captured by private parties, but they arererouted to cover investment and running costsinherent to sustaining the delivery of multiplevalues.Several examples illustrate the scope fortransforming functional values into financialvalue.1. The Netherlands. In the Netherlands the strategyto capitalize on value increases from waterinvestment and better management is called“red for blue,” use income from real estate(i.e. bricks) to pay for water investments and2.3.4.5.6.functions. An example of such an integratedproject is the “Nieuwe Hollandse Waterlinie,”where an area of 20,000 ha has been developedwith a range of functions including leisure,water management, and housing development.The project was managed by the boardrepresenting the regional authorities andthe initiative was taken by private propertydevelopers. Of the 180 Million Euro cost ofthe project, 40 percent was recouped fromincome from real estate. Similarly, investmentin flood protection is recouped by giving outattractive building plots on the reinforcedembankments.India. A major program was undertaken toimprove the water quality and amenity valueof urban lakes in Hyderabad in Andhra Pradeshby closing sewerage outlets and improvinglakesides. The costs for maintaining theprogram were recouped by increased propertytaxes on land close to thelakes and from leaseson lakeside land for recreational parks.USA. In many areas, ground water protectionzones also have a second important function asrecreation areas and the income from this helpsmaintain and pay for the protection zone.Egypt. In the West Delta Project, there are anumber of high value functions that are nowsustained by finite ground water resources,but will in the future be provided by a newsurface canal (e.g., a golf course and nearbyhigh value residential condominiums. Theseare high value functions and should contributeaccordingly to the development and operationof the new West Delta canal.West Africa. In the Senegal river, the opportunityto use a commercial private party to “harvest”the excess weed growth in the water ways andconvert it into “briquettes” for export is beingconsidered. This would turn waste into an assetand create value and employment opportunitiesin the process.Mozambique. In order to arrive at improved andintegrated urban land and water management,a Land Development Corporation has beenset up in the port city of Beira consisting of apublic-private consortium of private operatorsUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Making IWRM Work1037.and municipal authorities. The Corporation’saim is to develop a low-lying urban area that iscurrently suffering from frequent flooding andvery poor sanitation. From the municipality, theCorporation will acquire low-value land titlesto sites that need landfill and infrastructuredevelopment, contract a dredging company toproduce fill material, and invest in commercialland development for low-to-middle incomefamilies. The created functional valueincrease of the land (now benefiting fromimproved urban water management services)is transformed into cash through the sale of theplots. The public sector benefits are securedthrough the municipality’s participation in theventure, the proceeds of which can be used tosubsidize low-cost housing.Pakistan. In Sindh a study was done into “nonrevenueoptions” to pay for the maintenanceof the irrigation systems (Arcadis Euroconsult2004). This study suggested that the currentdismal financial performance in the canalsystems (now only based on charging verylarge number of farmers a very low charge perha on the basis of a cumbersome assessmentprocedure) could be set right. One strategywas to start charging non-agricultural users, inparticular several large and small town watersupply companies, for water supply and fordrainage functions. In addition, a large numberof business opportunities were identified suchas property and tourism development nearLake Kinjar, near some of the barrages andalong the canals near to Karachi, tree plantingconcessions on the thousands of kilometers ofcanal and drain banks, and developing fisherypotential. Also the Irrigation and DrainageAuthority historically owned considerable landin city centers, which it neglected and allowedto encroach, thus creating an urgent need forstreamlining. The same applied for its guesthouses, now seldom used, but still attractiveproperty for local functions. The estimatedincome from these sources was substantial andmost likely of a similar order of magnitude asthe charges now levied upon a large number ofsmall farmers.Exit “Water as an Economic Good”What the latter examples show is not only abroad range of opportunities for raising financefor managing water sources—from businessdevelopment opportunities, charges to specificbeneficiaries, general land taxes, and so forth—but also the limitations to the concept of water asan economic good.In practice, water as an economic good hasresulted in the treating of water as a priced andsellable commodity. The emergence of this conceptinitially provided for a refreshing break from theearlier dominant strategy of water as a publicgood only, managed by water bureaucracies withlittle accountability to the users of water services.The economic good approach brought new ideassuch as water markets as a mechanism to transferwater from low to high productivity users, and costrecovery as an instrument for demand management.In the latter case, the reasoning was that if waterusers would pay more for water (in fact all costassociated with it, however defined), they wouldeconomize on water use, thus releasing watersupplies for other users and for other functions,resulting in more efficient water use all around.In particular, this idea has been promoted in theirrigation sector, the largest water consumer of all,where volumetric charging was to be introduced.There are a number of reasons why, in manycases, the “demand management through costrecovery” strategy did not work easily.1. In most irrigation systems the cost of providingwater and the price related to this is a minorexpenditure item. As a result, saving on costsof water is not an important financial strategyfor farmers and it is unlikely that a higherprice of water creates sufficient incentivesto economize on the costs of this essentialcommodity. Saving on cost of mechanicaltraction or fertilizer in most cases makes morebusiness sense to a farmer.2. The demand management idea is usuallyassociated with volumetric delivery andmetering; in practice this is problematic inmany irrigation systems, where the scope forsupplying water on demand is limited. Thepractical experience with water meters is,moreover, not encouraging because pilferageJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

104Lamoree and van Steenbergenand non-repair is common.3. In many irrigation systems, non-paymentof dues or manipulation of bills throughunderassessment is a major factor. As long asthis is the case, any strategy centered on waterpricing is bound to be ineffective.4. In semi-humid areas, irrigation is a “back up”service in case rains fail; irrigation demandas a result fluctuates from year to year. Inthese situations, demand management throughpricing could undermine the financial viabilityof the irrigation operations.5. Most important, major gains in irrigationefficiency particularly in large systems, do notoccur necessarily at the farm level where thepricing argument would work, but at the mainsupply level.A telling example of the argument describedabove comes from the Krishna Delta in AndhraPradesh, South India. During the three-yeardrought, a more efficient scheduling of mainsystem irrigation supplies was introduced. This notonly prevented a drop in production levels, but infact even resulted in slightly increased crop yields.In the same drought period, irrigation supplies tothe irrigation canals in Sindh Province in Pakistandecreased 20 percent, but again agriculturalproductivity remained at the same level. There wasa drastic reduction in water logging in the Province(from 2 million ha to less than 500,000 ha) and amove towards conjunctive use of shallow groundwater and surface water supplies.The main weakness in the economic goodsargument is that water has been seen as a“commodity” or “good” only in the sense thatcharges should be raised for providing it. In manyinstances, the cost recovery argument has donemore harm than good. It has tended to move theattention away from improving the quality ofoperations or rationalizing costs. The latter isnot a small issue. There are many examples ofenormous financial wastages in the water sector.In the irrigation system in Punjab Province ofPakistan, for instance, energy charges for deepdrainage wells made up more than 50 percent ofthe expenditure, long after these deep wells losttheir functionality. In such situations the questionarises whether it makes sense to recover such costsfrom water consumers.The other harm comes from the exclusive focus inmany areas on the largest group of water consumers– farmers. In poor countries this is the most difficultgroup to tax, if only because of their sheer numbersin many countries and the relatively small amountsto be billed. Opportunities for charging otherwater users (e.g., industries, municipalities, leisureoperators) have often not been exploited. It shouldbe noted in this context that the absence of broadbasedorganizations focused on multiple values isan important shortcoming of governance systems.The final drawback of the paradigm is the focus onwater as a good to be allocated and paid for, turningaway attention from the many other values createdwith water that can be capitalized and collected.From an integrated development and managementpoint of view, water and water management shouldbe seen as an important ingredient in local areadevelopment and sustainable management; goodwater management services will improve thefunctions and values in the area.The “water as an economic good” paradigm,and in particular the commodification of wateras a tradable asset, are reductionist approachesto making water management manageable on thebasis of a measurable and quantifiable basis. Suchan approach is justifiable so long as it does notlead to the notion that water management can orshould be performed on the basis of the economicaspects of water only. Water has many aspects andhence many functions with different values, eachof them important to a different set of legitimatestakeholders. All these values provide businessopportunities that should be capitalized uponand used to finance investment and operation. Inaddition, water management produces values thatare of a general public good nature, for instancegeneral flood protection or maintaining ecologicalbalances. Such values should be paid for fromgeneral taxes or public funding.The Institutional Way ForwardIntegrated Water Resource Management(IWRM) with its emphasis on optimizing manyfunctions, addressing different categories of values(economic, social, environmental), and setting up ameaningful engagement of different stakeholders isUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Making IWRM Work105an eminently useful approach to water management.Capitalizing on these increased values, in our view,holds more promise for promoting and financingIWRM than the more limited water cost-recoverystrategies associated with the Dublin principle ofwater as an economic good.There are several institutional challengesin operationalizing this values and financesframework. A first challenge is how to quantifyvalues in a general framework. How should valuesbe compared and related to different functions?How should priorities be set? This problem couldeasily translate into a complex and irresolvablequestion, especially if simplistic reductionistmethods are to be avoided that translate all valuesinto one quantifiable parameter, thus violatingthe complexity of water values. The problem,however, may not be as large as it seems. First,awareness of the many functions in water resourcesystems and the quantification of each of themultitude of distinguishable values would be agreat leap forward in many situations. The defaultin many areas is that water is either not managedat all or only managed from a narrow perspective.Moreover, in many cases values are complementaryrather than competitive; this changes the problemof setting priorities. A pragmatic approach in mostcases seems appropriate and sufficient; that is,trying to make much out of the various functionsthat come along with improved water managementand merely avoiding clear negative values.Involving stakeholders in the complex process canbe translated into win-win situations.In financing integrated water management, thestrategy should also not be to maximize returns andthereby focus on financially valuable functions suchas property development or leisure development.An example is the West Delta Project in Egypt.It is a valid question to ask whether one shouldhave used fossil ground water resources close to themajor city in the country to develop a golf course,even though in the short term this was a functionthat generated very high monetary values. Thechallenge for water resource managers — preferablyin an open consultative process — is to balance thedifferent functions, not necessarily to maximizefinancial returns. Once again, an institutional settingthat is tasked and equipped to balance and optimizemultiple functions, rather than maximize individualones, will be better able to handle the finance captureapproach from a IWRM angle.Conclusions and DiscussionIn this paper, we have presented variousperspectives on the operationalization of IWRM.The first is that the international discourse hasfocused on governance issues in their institutionaland legal context, while insufficiently addressingthe vital issue of financing IWRM.From the perspective of IWRM, water shouldbe managed through multiple functions andmultiple stakeholder-oriented organizations suchas river basin organizations. These are also in abetter position to reach a balance in the capturingof values and their transformation into financialvalues. Whereas mono-sectoral water managementcan easily lead to the commodification of water ifconsidered an economic good only, multi-sectoraland multi-stakeholder institutions such as riverbasin organizations should normally be betterequipped to optimize functions and their relatedvalues.In the light of this, the challenge to capturevalues and to finance IWRM thus translates intoa challenge to create viable area-based watermanagement institutions that are explicitly taskedand equipped to achieve balance between functionsand values. This transformation will become mucheasier as soon as the perspective shifts from theextra management tasks towards the extra revenuegeneration opportunities. To take a more businesslike approach to water management by quantifyingthe value of different functions would already be amajor step forward in most cases.As a contribution towards the discussion onhow to operationalize IWRM, we propose thatparticipatory business planning is a workablemethod to achieve a focus on the multiple valuesincorporated in the water system. Businessplanning, as a process for raising awareness of bothwater management institutions and stakeholdersalike, can have various positive effects. First of all,it has the potential to change a water managementinstitution’s focus from costs (to be met from alimited, mostly government-provided budget)towards a focus on revenue and income-generation.Second, it has the potential to engage stakeholdersin a discussion that focuses on multiple values andJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

106Lamoree and van Steenbergeninterests, rather than only those values pertinentto the sector of society or government that theyrepresent.Author Bios and Contact InformationBEN LAMOREE is a water resources management specialistwith experience in river basin management, inparticular the institutional arrangements in which riverbasin management can be made to deliver integratedwater resources management services to society. Hehas published various papers on the institutional setupof river basin management, also in a transboundarycontext. He has worked extensively in Africa, and inselected countries in Latin America, the MiddleEast and Asia. Mr. Lamoree holds an M.Sc in CivilEngineering and is a senior staff member of ARCADISEuroconsult in the Netherlands. Contact information:Arcadis Euroconsult, PO Box 441, 6800 AK Arnhem,the Netherlands; G.Lamoree@ arcadis.nl.FRANK VAN STEENBERGEN is a water resourcesmanagement specialist with experience in integratedwater resources management, in particular from theirrigation and drainage sectors. He has published widelyon issues such as transboundary river basin management,(spate) irrigation and the financing of irrigation services.He has worked extensively in Asia, the Middle East andAfrica. Mr. Van Steenbergen holds a Ph.D in Geographyand is a senior staff member of ARCADIS Euroconsult.Contact information: Arcadis Euroconsult, PO Box 441,6800 AK Arnhem, the Netherlands; f.w.m.steenbergen@arcadis.nl.ReferencesAbdel Dayem, S., J. Hoevenaars, P. Mollinga, W.Scheumann, R. Slootweg, and F. van Steenbergen.2004. Reclaiming drainage: Towards an integratedapproach. Agricultural Sector Technical Paper 1,World Bank, Washington, D.C.Arcadis Euroconsult. 2003. Non-abiana revenue options.Hyderabad: SIDA/ IRC.Dooyeweerd, H. 1997. A New Critique of TheoreticalThought: The general theory of the modal spheres(Ser. A, V. 2), Edwin Mellen Press.Van Steenbergen, F., Cornish, and Perry. forthcoming.Charging for irrigation services: Guidelines forpractitioners. IWA, London.UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

107UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONISSUE 135, PAGES 107-114, DECEMBER 2006Integrated Water Resources Management Curriculum inthe United States: Results of a Recent SurveyPaul G. BourgetArmy Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water ResourcesThis paper summarizes the progress of theCorps of Engineers’ Advanced DegreeProgram in Integrated Water ResourcesManagement (IWRM) and the results of a surveythat was conducted in the summer of 2006 tosolicit feedback on training needs related toIWRM. The survey, which was jointly sponsoredby the Universities Council on Water Resources(UCOWR) and the American Water ResourcesAssociation (AWRA), was conducted to capturethe views of water resource specialists related tothe emerging field of IWRM. Over 600 peopleresponded to the survey, representing a fairlybalanced blend of academicians, governmentofficials and consultants. The results suggest thatthere are often opposing views of what comprisesIWRM and the means by which it should beimplemented in the U.S.As the survey results suggest, the conduct ofIWRM in the U.S. is extremely complex owed inlarge part to the breadth of issues it faces and the decentralizedmanner in which practices are governed.The definition of IWRM is problematic in the U.S.due to the wide practices that it encompasses – fromscientific monitoring of streams to the dredgingof navigable waterways to flood risk reductionmeasures. Perhaps it is best viewed as a processthat strives to balance regional economic growthwhile achieving wise environmental stewardship.In that sense, water resources management anddevelopment is a participatory process involvingpreviously competing interests.In spite of the increased recognition of IWRM,students interested in pursuing a related degree are,for the most part, faced with choosing between themore narrowly defined fields of civil engineering,physical hydrology, economics or environmentalscience. There are few educational optionsavailable that provide an integrative curriculum thattouches upon the various types of water resourcesmanagement objectives in a practical and balancedway. The Advanced Degree Program in IWRM,which has been under development by the Corpsof Engineers (www.waterresourceseducation.us),began as a means to educate the Corps’ planningcommunity. It was designed to promote interdepartmentaldegrees at the graduate level thatwere specifically geared towards water resourcepractitioners. The program has been operationalfor the past four years, but is not proving to beself-sustaining due to its somewhat narrow focuscombined with training cutbacks the Corps hasexperienced within recent years. An expansion ofthe designed curriculum to address the full rangeof IWRM objectives could attract a wider rangeof federal, state, and regional interests beyond theCorps of Engineers.The survey was conducted in order to gaugebroad interest on IWRM-related training andto solicit input on what might comprise such acurriculum. The results suggest that there is wideinterest in IWRM across all water resource sectors,and that further discourse is warranted to determinehow its principles relate to the U.S. experience andhow they should be governed.An Early Attempt to Devise anInterdisciplinary CurriculumThe impetus for the Corps of Engineers’Advanced Degree Program began in 2001 as anattempt to strengthen its planning capabilities.Based on the recommendations of the CivilJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

108BourgetWorks Planner Capability Task Force Report,Corps Headquarters tasked its Institute for WaterResources (IWR), in collaboration with UCOWR,to develop an educational training program tomeet the needs of future leaders in the Corps. Thechallenge at the time was twofold:1. Expectations of a loss of 35 percent of the Corps’planning leadership expected due to retirementsor promotions produced an immediate need toeducate existing employees.2. The new water resources challenges faced bythe Corps required leaders to have a strongmulti-disciplinary educational foundation.A joint committee of Corps personnel andrepresentatives from UCOWR developed a multidisciplinarygraduate curriculum to meet thetask force objectives. The curriculum includedrequirements in hydrology, ecology, socialsciences (specifically, public policy, political andsocial decision-making and resource economics),engineering, history and law. The program wasfully endorsed by a joint Corps-UCOWR focusgroup in Dallas, Texas, in 2001 and at the UCOWRannual conference.Five universities 1 were subsequently identifiedto participate in the program and each one hasinvested substantial time and effort over the pastfour years to devise a flexible approach that ispractical and addresses the training needs of theplanning community. Unfortunately, trainingfunds within the Corps have been dramaticallycurtailed resulting in a minimal number of studentsparticipating in the program. Additional steps,therefore, had to be identified to bolster broaderinterest in multi-disciplinary training, including:• An expansion of the program to focus on thebroad principles that define IWRM;• The involvement of more universities thatare well suited to address both regional andnational issues, as well as multi-disciplinarytraining tracts;• The establishment of a partnered program thatinvolves other federal and state agencies andrelated professional organizations; and• The advancement of distance learning optionsthat are tailored to meet the needs of waterresources practitioners.The Corps of Engineers was interested inproviding its employees with the opportunity toobtain a graduate-level degree in water resourcesplanning as part of a program of incentives toencourage the hiring and retention of a topqualityworkforce. The multi-objective natureof water resource projects, combined with theneed to promote public participation in theplanning process, further contribute to the needfor more cross-trained individuals. A practicaldegree program that builds on the principles ofIWRM would help to address this void among theprofession, and specifically the loss to the Corps ofEngineers.At the request of the Corps of Engineers, the UniversitiesCouncil on Water Resources (UCOWR)polled its member organizations regarding theavailability of water resources degree programs,and the interest of these institutions in participatingin a targeted graduate degree program. Based on asignificant positive response, the Corps requestedthat UCOWR form an academic advisory groupto help evaluate what a water resources planningcurriculum should contain, as well as how it mightbest be delivered.The focus for what would become the MastersDegree Program in Water Resources Planningand Management was to better equip planners tobe able to respond to 21 st century water resourceschallenges. The UCOWR committee concludedthat in order to respond effectively, a directedprogram should be configured to produce generalistplanners, as opposed to those who are morenarrowly specialized in one topic area. The courserequirements would need to be more analogous toa Masters of Business Administration degree ratherthan a Masters of Civil Engineering. The program,therefore, needed to be interdisciplinary in nature.Key assumptions about the future water resourcesplanning environment that were integrated into thecourse designs included:••••••a reduced emphasis on large-scale projects;more changes (rehabilitations/redesign) ofexisting projects to meet new needs;deauthorization/dismanteling of existingprojects;more planning to manage/optimize systemperformance;watersheds as a planning focal point;more issue/program focus versus individualUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM Curriculum in the United States109project focus;• more interagency/collaboration and planning;greater reliance on institutional approaches todealing with water resources issues;• more technical review and management ofprivate sector work; and• how policy is made and implemented, whatis needed to defend your work in that broadercontext.A UCOWR committee was commissioned by theCorps of Engineers in 2001 to develop a curriculumfor what would become the Masters Degree Programin Water Resources Planning and Management. Thecommittee was tasked with identifying standardizedcourses and course content that universities wouldbe required to adopt if they wished to participatein the program. Eight “cornerstone” core courseswere subsequently identified, which the committeedetermined provided the needed grounding in keycomponents of water resources planning. In additionto independent study and a “capstone course,”the following eight “core” courses comprised theMaster’s Program:• Philosophy of Planning (3 semester hours)• Institutional Considerations in Water ResourcesPlanning (3 semester hours)• Social Decision-Making (3 semester hours)• Ecology for Water Resources Planning(3 semester hours)• Engineering for Water Resources Planning(3 semester hours)• Economics for Water Resources Planning(3 semester hours)• Hydrology/Hydraulics/Climatology(3 semester hours)• Quantitative Methods for Water ResourcesPlanning (3 semester hours)In addition to curriculum development, thecommittee had to take into account some practicalconsiderations. The Corps of Engineers, forinstance, is a geographically diverse organization,operating out of 37 field offices (districts) and eightregional offices (divisions) that are spread acrossthe country. It was simply infeasible to identifya network of co-located universities. It was alsoassumed that most of the employees pursuing aMaster’s Degree would also be working full timewith as little time away from the office as possible.A number of flexible options for delivering theprogram therefore had to be taken into account,such as:• Maximized distance learning options• Intensive short-courses: instruction providedover a week or two-week period,• Resident program: students are resident atuniversity for a semester or during the summerfor intensive course work, and• Blended delivery: combinations of distancelearning and one or more of the other options.Once the training needs were identified, a requestfor a proposal to implement the multi-disciplinarygraduate program was sent to more than 90member universities of UCOWR, plus a selectgroup of other potential candidate universities.Over 20 qualified universities expressed a stronginterest but were unable to participate due tointernal constraints, such as one year residencyrequirements, limits on the acceptance of transfercredits, and the absence of any interdisciplinarydegree program.A number of factors that were addressed inthe development of the Corps’ Masters DegreeProgram, therefore, have direct relevance for theimplementation of an expanded, multi-universityprogram that encompasses the principles ofIWRM. Since the inception of the Corps’ program,other universities, such as Texas A&M and theUniversity of Wisconsin, have started to developinter-disciplinary degree programs related to waterresource management on their own. The surveywas prepared in an attempt to gauge the adequacyof what is presently being offered on a nationalscale or whether further steps are warranted toadvance training and education related to IWRM.Survey Questions and ResultsAWRA has a large database of water resourcesspecialists throughout the world. An online surveywas prepared by a small group of senior AWRAand UCOWR representatives and emailed to thoseindividuals on AWRA’s omnibus list. That list, whichhas been compiled over the years, is not restrictedto a particular sector (academia or government)or water resource discipline (engineering oreconomics). Such a broad representation arguablyallowed for feedback from the entire spectrum ofinterests that IWRM comprises. SurveyMonkeysoftware was used to conduct the online survey,JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

110Bourgetwith over 600 people responding. In addition to theshort number questions, many of the respondentstook the time to answer the separate discussionquestions that were included in the survey, thusyielding substantial results. At the outset of thesurvey, the respondents were asked whether ornot they would be representing their own personalviews or those of their respective organizationsthrough the course of the survey; 91 percent ofthose responding stated that they were voicingtheir own personal views.Importance of IWRMThe respondents were asked, on a scale of 1(low) to 5 (high) how important the integrationof multi-disciplinary education and application inwater resources management was to accomplishingtheir organization’s mission. Nearly everyoneresponded to this question, with 85 percent ofthem feeling that it was very important. Less than5 percent viewed it as unimportant to their mission,while 10 percent gave it the mid-rating of 3.IWRM ResponsibilitiesFor the next question, those surveyed wereasked to define their area of responsibility on thesame scale of 1 to 5 from an assigned list of 20specialty areas. The purpose of this question wasto determine what capacity of IWRM they felt theybest represent. The ranges for this question werenot substantial, with the rather nebulous entry ofwater resources management receiving the highestresponse average of 4.31. In a field of 20 subspecialtyareas associated with IWRM no oneparticular area of responsibility stood out from thisparticular field of respondents 3 . At the same time,no field was discounted, suggesting how rich andvaried the field is in practice.Training Disciplines of ImportanceIt was very important to glean from therespondents which educational areas should beprimarily targeted for the purposes of deriving anIWRM curriculum. For this question, 14 separatedisciplines 4 were provided for the respondents tochoose from. They were asked to identify which ofthese areas of training would help their organizationaccomplish their mission. The leading response waswatershed hydrology and modeling with 86 percentof the survey respondents. The specialty area ofgeographic information systems (geography) camein second at 75 percent (Figure 1).1009080706050403020100Watershed Hydrol/ModelingGIS/GeographyWater ChemistryCivil EngineeringBiology/Life SciencesLaw/RegulatoryGeologyPublic PolicyStatisticsSoils/AgronomyEconomicsMeteorologyMicrobiologyForest/Rangeland MgmtFigure 1. Breakdown of disciplinary education/training areas of interest.UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM Curriculum in the United States111Importance of IWRM Training and EducationThe respondents were then asked, on a scale of1 (low) to 5 (high), how important it was for themand their staff to have education and/or training inIWRM. Of those who answered this question, 82percent felt it was very important, while less than 5percent felt it was of little importance. The questiondid not differentiate between on-site certificationclasses versus those sponsored by universities andcolleges.Training Needs Being MetThe next question was whether or not theyfelt that their training needs were being met byavailable university curriculum; 57 percent feltthat they were not while 43 percent felt that theywere. A total of 377 individuals followed up withwritten responses, with several individuals makingthe following points:• The curriculum that is available is tootheoretical and not well suited to the practicalworld.• Individuals with good inter-disciplinary skillsare unavailable.• There are far too many generalists that areemerging who lack sound scientific skills andexperience.• The problem-solving skills are deteriorating inthe workforce resulting in a cadre of “numbercrunchers”.• The universities are producing far too manyadvocates and not enough analysts who canthink in an objective manner.• The stovepipe (single disciplinary) approachwithin academia continues to prevail.• There is no substitute for on-the-job-training,as it provides the most practical individualtraining.• IWRM as it applies to the U.S. still needs tobe defined (one respondent admitted to neverhaving heard the term).• Students are having to fend for themselveswhen it comes to developing a degree planrelated to water resources management.It starts to become evident that many of thepoints made by one group are cancelled out by anequal number in an opposing camp, as evidenced bythe generalist versus specialist sentiments. Otherworthy sentiments of note included the following:• Attempts at producing integrative approachesat the university level have largely failedwithin the U.S.• IWRM should begin at the undergraduate level,and five-year degree plans at the bachelor’slevel should be developed and promoted.• One individual advocated that the environmentalscience field by its very nature comprisesIWRM, while several other individuals werecritical of the cadre of professionals who hadthose types of degrees.• The pre-requisites for so many graduate andundergraduate courses preclude the student’sability to develop an inter-disciplinary degreeplan, i.e., they are being forced to stay within asingle discipline.• The engineering field should not be thecritical driver when it comes to IWRMcurriculum. Economics, political science, andenvironmental science should play a muchmore pivotal role.One rather reflective respondent offered the followingobservation: “University curricula emphasizean objectivist, means-end approach to waterresources management. Our research with communitygroups requires a constructivist approachwhich is profoundly difficult to those who havebeen trained in the objectivist paradigm. There is aneed for both strands of teaching, and a need for areflective understanding of both.”The Federal RoleRespondents were then asked if they felt thatthe federal agencies have a role to play in termsof advancing IWRM education on a national level(e.g., degree requirements for positions, betterhiring opportunities, staff training or educationincentives). Of these, 79 percent felt there wasa federal role to play in the process, while 21percent responded in the negative. A widerange of suggestions were provided, with a fewindividuals adamant that there was no role for theJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

112Bourgetgovernment’s intrusion in the educational process.The vast majority, however, offered severalconstructive suggestions. Several emphasizedthat the public and private sectors should developcloser relationships with universities. Suggestionsalong these lines included:• There is a need for more adjunct professorswho can offer practical perspectives within aclassroom setting• Government representatives should helpadvise college deans and department heads oncurriculum development• Cooperative research and academic programsshould be developed between the governmentand private sectors with the universities• Universities should consider joint advisors tohelp students choose their plans of study• The governmental sector should providetraining for extension staff• More workshops that are jointly sponsoredshould be heldOther suggestions were:• The government should play a critical role inalerting its staff of what training and educationalopportunities are available in IWRM• Job descriptions that are derived by thegovernmental sector should be more interdisciplinaryin nature• The government should play a key role in thedevelopment and operation of national trainingcenters of excellence• They should play a role in the development ofprofessional licenses related to IWRM• They should provide incentive-based trainingprograms through grants, scholarships, summer-hiresand apprenticeships• Restore/increase centralized funding for trainingwithin the various federal agencies• Host a national workshop on IWRM and IWRMtraining needsAwareness of IncentivesRespondents were asked if they were aware ofany incentives that were available to them or theirorganizations designed to encourage employeesto pursue a graduate degree or training in IWRM.Over a third decided to skip this question andmost of those who answered were unaware of anyincentives at their disposal. A few made it clearthat there were no options available to them, whileothers suggested that training programs weresimply not encouraged. Those who respondedfavorably offered the following options that theywere aware of:• Partial funding of tuition• Grants• Scholarships• NSF Integrated Graduate Education andResearch Traineeship program• Post-completion reimbursements• One-time cash bonuses• EIT programs for engineers• Professional development incentivesOne respondent offered the following observation:“In recent years, our organization beganrequiring a professional license for all middleand upper level management positions, includingmost team leader positions. Since most of theseare classified as civil engineering positions, thatmeans a PE is required. Unfortunately, the CivilEngineering curriculum and the PE have little orno relevance [their emphasis] to the work thatwe do. I would much rather have someone withgraduate training in water resources operation andmanagement than half a dozen with PE licenses.However, the current policy does not qualify youto apply for anything but an entry level position,unless you have the PE. Better support andrecognition of the American Institute of HydrologyProfessional Hydrologist certification could be partof the solution to move away from focusing strictlyon a PE license.”Distance LearningThe final question was whether or not there was aninterest in pursuing a graduate degree or certificateprogram in IWRM via distance learning if it wereavailable; 64 percent responded positively. In spiteof this favorable response, distance learning wasmet with mixed reviews in the written responses.For those who have no physical means to reach aUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

IWRM Curriculum in the United States113class, distance learning provides a viable substitute.It also provides a flexible option for a professionalworkforce that is either in the field for extendedperiods or working long hours. Some individuals,however, felt that it was simply not suited to thefield of IWRM.ObservationsThe responses to the survey, particularly thewritten ones, suggest a vibrant interest in IWRMin the U.S. In many instances, there are opposingviews as to where the discipline should be focusedand who bears responsibility for its design andexecution. There is a clearly recognized need topromote inter-disciplinary approaches to waterresources management. The recurring argumentbetween engineers, environmentalists, economists,and political science approaches to water resourcesmanagement was evident in the responses.Rivalries between these disciplines will in alllikelihood persist. The IWRM process provides ameans to achieve a balanced perspective, and itwas clear that many of those completing the surveyrecognize that strength. As always, the devil is inthe details, and further challenges exist in:• Gaining a fuller appreciation of what constitutesIWRM in the U.S.• Devising an IWRM curriculum that is trulymulti-disciplinary and addresses practitioner• Defining the roles of the public and privatesector in the educational process• Creating incentives that attract more studentsto the field of IWRM• Identifying research opportunities that promoteIWRM principles• Making more people aware of the importanceof IWRM and the various training opportunitiesthat exist.Possible Next StepsWhile some of the respondents maintained thatIWRM training should be market-driven, the vastmajority felt that further incentives are in order.In considering whether or not to build upon thefoundation laid by the Corps and a few universities,key questions emerge that merit further exploration,namely:• Is there a need to develop guidelines onwhat constitutes a given university’s IWRMprogram?• Which incentives, if any, should be promoted todevelop sustainable IWRM training programs?• What incentives are needed to sustain a multiuniversityapproach should it prove to bewarranted?• What exceptions are allowable to attracta broad-based network of researchers andpractitioners?Several respondents suggested that a workshop toaddress these issues is warranted, and the need toprepare a broadly acceptable approach definingand using IWRM. Ideally, such a workshop wouldbe attended by a balanced blend of academicianswho can address the course requirements, andpractitioners who can speak to the training needsof their respective organization. At the federallevel, agencies such as the Bureau of Reclamation,the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S.Geological Survey, the Department of Energy, theNational Resources Conservation Service, and theBureau of Land Management all play major rolesin water resources management. State and regionalinterest groups are also critical players in issuesframing IWRM training and educational programsthat more fully address practitioner needs.The primary focus of this particular surveyrelated to training and educational needs internalto the United States. International organizations,such as the Global Water Partnership, have madegreat strides in recent years in terms of advancingthe principles of IWRM. They also need to betaken into account as we struggle to customizeIWRM to suit needs peculiar to the U.S.Endnotes1.2.3.The participating universities include: the Universityof Arizona, the Johns Hopkins University, theUniversity of Florida, Southern Illinois UniversityCarbondale, and Harvard University.Those who developed the survey were: PaulBourget, David DeWalle, Richard Engberg, GeraldGalloway, and Ari Michelsen.The entire list of specialty areas consistedof: water quality, water supply and security,legal/institutional aspects, water resourcesJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

114Bourget4.management, drought management, flood risk andsystem reliability, floodplain management, publicparticipation, environmental impact analysis, aquaticecosystems, water resources economics, waterresources engineering, water conservation, watershedplanning, social/cultural/behavioral issues, ethics ofwater resources, flood damage reduction/storm watermanagement, urban supply and sanitation, watershedmanagement, and other.The education/training disciplines that were providedwere: civil engineering, watershed hydrology/modeling,biology/life sciences, water chemistry,geology, microbiology, law/regulatory,GIS/geography, soils/agronomy, economics, publicpolicy, statistics, meteorology, forest/rangelandmanagement.Author Bio and Contact InformationPAUL G. BOURGET (Ph.D) is Program Manager forthe Advanced Degree Program in Integrated WaterResources Management at the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers’ Institute for Water Resources. He is also anadjunct professor at the George Washington University’sInstitute for Crisis, Disaster and Risk Management. Hecan be contacted at paul.g.bourget@iwr01.usace.army.mil.ReferencesU.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2001. Civil WorksPlanner Capability Task Force Report (Trainingand Development). Institute for Water Resources;Alexandria, Virginia.Universities Council on Water Resources. 2001.Development of a Curriculum for a Masters DegreeProgram in Water Resources Planning. Institute forWater Resources; Alexandria, Virginia.UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

115UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONISSUE 135, PAGES 115-130, DECEMBER 2006Issues for CEOs of Water Utilities with theImplementation of Australian Water LawsJennifer McKayDirector, Center for Comparative Water Policies and LawsUniversity of South AustraliaThe Australian Government has embarked ontwo phases of ambitious reform of state lawsand policies for water management. Thefirst in 1994 was known as Council of AustralianGovernment reforms (CoAG) and the second in2004 is known as the National Water Initiativereforms. These were prompted by a number ofdomestic environmental and social issues andinternational processes targeted at reducinggovernment activity in water management. The firstset required massive changes to water governancethat is separating functions into environmental,economic, and water supplier and also requiringEnvironmentally Sustainable Development (ESD)and integration in all water development proposals.The second phase extends the first but is much moreprescriptive and sets out 80 goals that water supplybusinesses and state governments must encouragerural and urban communities to achieve.This paper presents empirical data of the resultsof telephone interviews with 183 Chief ExecutiveOfficers of the major water supply businesses inAustralia. These respondents are highly educatedand experienced business professionals. Bearingthis in mind, the instrument designed for themrequired sophisticated responses to approximately100 questions about Environmentally SustainableDevelopment, integration, and other issuesabout water policy changes under CoAG and toa lesser extent the National Water Initiative. Theinterviews were conducted between late September2005 and late January 2006. This paper will reporton responses to questions about integration andEnvironmentally Sustainable Development inwater policy. For the Environmentally SustainableDevelopment questions, respondents weresimultaneously emailed response sets so theycould provide their view of the rank or order of thespecified issues.Paradigms in Australian Water PolicyDevelopmentAustralia has had four paradigms of formalwater resources laws and policies since 1788(Figure 1). Prior to 1788 there is evidence thatindigenous society engaged in regional sharingof parts of river and coastal systems in a complexsocial arrangement (Langdon 2002, McKay 2002a,2002b, 2003). The imposition of the legal rule ofTerra Nullius from 1788 and the deeming that therewere no pre-existing laws meant that the commonlaw of England was applied to the colony. Thismeant the riparian rule applied for surface water,thus limiting access to landholders by the river.In addition, the unimpeded extraction of groundwater rule applied.Development preceded apace in Paradigm 1 andthe riparian rule was replaced in each State by amore extensive water allocation system, relying onchannels and distributing water to users away fromthe main channel (Clark and Renard 1970, McKay2006). Briefly, Paradigm 1 allocated surface wateras if it would never run out and did not considersoil issues. The use of ground water was notregulated (following the common law rule). In thisParadigm, the States federated in 1901, but only onthe condition that Section 100 of the Constitutionpreserved the rights of the States to control theconservation of water and its use for irrigation.This section ensured that federal power overnavigation would be subordinate to these uses aslong as the use was reasonable. The predominantJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

116McKayFigure 1. The four paradigms in Australian surface and ground water management.approach was represented by the mantra “populateor perish” under the incentive of “turning waterinto gold” (Powell 1999, Sinclair 2001).Paradigm 2 was characterized by large Stateworks and schemes and some federal funding ofthese and funding of works on the basis of specialissues in a State such as flood control, irrigationworks, and salinity on the Murray (Hallows andThompson 1999). Large dam storage in 1901amounted only to 249 GL (Gigaliters or 10 9 liters)but, by 1950, it had increased to 9,509 GL and by1990 to 78,919 GL (Broughton, 1999). A third ofthis storage is in New South Wales and anotherthird is in Tasmania (essentially for hydropowergeneration). Most of the additions to storageoccurred during 1960–79 because it was duringthis period that dams, with a total capacity of50,000 GL, were constructed (Broughton, 1999).Despite section 100, the Commonwealth hasintervened in State water management throughSections 81 and 96 of the Constitution whichgives the Commonwealth power to grant financialassistance to the States and impose conditions. Inthis context, the emergence of salinity problemswas identified as a key issue, especially along theRiver Murray. In 1978, the Commonwealth passedthe National Water Resources Financial AssistanceAct which funded a broad range of works aimingto conserve water and mitigate salinity and floods,particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin (seeMurray-Darling Basin Commission 2006). Thegreat Artesian Basin Rehabilitation Program cofundedby the Commonwealth and three States ,was started in 1989 to cap bores and hence stopdepletion. The Federal Government also intervenedusing the trade and commerce power and externalaffairs power under section 51 to prevent theCrown in right of Tasmania from building a damin 1983 (Commonwealth v Tasmania 1983). Morerecently, these powers have been used to pass theCommonwealth Environmental Protection andBiodiversity Act by incorporating provisions ofthe Ramsar Convention on wetlands into the Act.Hence this phase is characterized by uncoordinatedissue-driven intervention of the federal governmentin water management issues.Paradigm 3 from 1994 represents the Federalgovernment imposing more structured generalreform targets on the States. The federalgovernment’s stake in Australia’s water affairschanged significantly with the incorporation ofwater management into the CoAG competitionframework. National competition policy, whichincluded the part or full sale of several publicenterprises, created a pool of funds by whicheach state could be “encouraged” to followUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Implementation of Australian Water Laws117national water protocols. The reforms of 1994have thus created much change and resulted inthe restructuring of water management in eachstate. The reforms insisted that each state ensurethat future water projects were based on ESDprinciples in conjunction with much more privatesector participation and community involvementin water planning at a regional level.Despite these initiatives, in 2000 the NationalWater Audit assessed that one-quarter of thesurface water management areas and over onethirdof the ground water management areas wereat a high level of development and approaching orbeyond sustainable extraction limits (AustralianWater Resources Assessment 2000, Evans 2001,and Jones et al. 2001). This assessment of theregional pattern of water development is basedon a broad definition of “sustainable flow/yield.”The definition adopted by the Audit is based notjust on physical aspects but also on economic,social, and environmental considerations includingwater quality and salinity. Paradigm 3 is hencecharacterized by introspective institutional reformin each state and the imposition of specific policiessuch as water markets in the context of ESD.Paradigm 4 dated from June 2004 with theinitiation of the National Water Initiative andextends and develops Paradigm 3’s objectives.Paradigm 4 is characterized by the 80 nationalprotocols on water planning processes and regionalwater planning documents as a key to achieveintegration and ESD. The Australian Governmentacknowledges that efficient and more productivewater use will become increasingly important overthe coming decades as water issues impact uponthe continued stability of Australia’s rural sector,urban communities and the nation’s economicwell-being. The Government is determined tocontinue increasing efficiency in water use andimplementing reforms to achieve this nationalobjective (Department of Agriculture, Fisheriesand Forestry 2006). Paradigm 3 and 4 are thefocus of this paper and are detailed below.This paper examines the perceptions, knowledge,and understandings of ESD by key front linepeople in the water community, namely the CEOsof 183 water supply businesses. The method wasto identify the relevant policies and laws from stateand federal instruments and from these identify thebehavioral changes required. The next step wasto design an instrument to evaluate (on an elevenpoint Likert scale) perceptions, understandings,and attitudes to the policies and laws by the keyactors. The responses can then be used to evaluatethe efficacy of the policies and laws and suggestreform proposals or different approaches to achievethe aims. Sometimes an approach is identifiedbecause respondents in different age groupsrespond differently (Hurlimann and McKay 2003).This approach is part of the general evidencebasedpolicy movement, but consists of bottom-upsubsets called Evaluation by policy implementersand Evaluation of law by implementers.Increasing Fiscal Federalism to Drive ESDin Australian Water Laws and Policiessince 1994The 1994 reforms required a number ofoutcomes:••••••Markets for water entitlements to improveefficiencyFull cost recoveryTwo-part water tariffs (adopted in urban areasin 1998 and rural areas in 2001)Separate identification and funding ofcommunity-service obligationsAllocation of water for environmental andsocial needsPrinciple of subsidiarity, i.e. management ofresources at level closest to user.This Paradigm was prompted by internationalmovements toward corporatization of waterauthorities known as competition reforms (Salethand Dinar 2004), by the 1990 EcologicallySustainable Development process for ninespecific industry sectors, driven in part by the UNCommission on Environment and Development(the Brundtland Commission) (Brundtland 1987),and by community reactions to large dams andenvironmental degradation of land and water, suchas the Mabo decision in 1990 (Mabo v State ofQueensland) which rebutted Terra Nullius. Thereis a much broader discussion of this in McKay2002 a and b and 2005. The 1994 goals provided astarting point for reform.This paper deals with the perceptions of theCEOs in 2005/6, hence it covers Paradigms 3 andJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

118McKay4. Paradigm 4 (which commenced in June 2004with the National Water Initiaitve) is much morespecific in its requirements on each state (NWIweb site). The NWI was motivated by a numberof factors and, in particular, issues 0such as thelack of cross-jurisdictional uniformity of policyinstruments. For example, in the southern Murraysystem there were over 200 water license types(Shi 2005). A further motivating factor was thedearth of recycled water schemes (McKay andHurlimann 2003).Commonwealth Organizational Structurein Water ReformsThe Department of Agriculture Fisheries andForestry (DAFF) in the capital of Canberra isresponsible for improving the natural resourcebase—soil, vegetation, water and fisheries—on which Australia’s primary industries rely.It administers 10 acts that directly impact onESD (Department of Agriculture Fisheries andForestry 2002/3). DAFF aims to develop nationalinitiatives to address issues relating to managingand using sustainable resources. The NaturalResource Management Team in DAFF managesthe integrated implementation of Australia’stwo biggest natural resource management andconservation programs—the $1.4 billion NationalAction Plan on Salinity and Water Quality andthe $3 billion Natural Heritage Trust. The NaturalResource Management Team is a joint venturebetween two Australian Government Departmentsof DAFF Environment and Heritage. The DAFFbudget for Natural Resources Management Teamsis less than 10 percent of this with the bulk going toQuarantine (Department of Agriculture Fisheriesand Forestry 2006b). The Natural ResourceManagement Team is responsible for managing theNatural Heritage Trust and its local grant program,the Envirofund, as well as the National Action Planand the Community Water Grants component of theAustralian Government Water Fund. Australia’sfederal government (the Australian Government),and the state and territory governments worktogether on implementing both programs.The Water Policy and Murray-Darling BasinBranch of DAFF (Department of AgricultureFisheries and Forestry-Murray-Darling BasinCommission Branch 2006) also contribute tothe Australian Government’s development andimplementation of national water policy reformsin the 70 percent of water used in agriculture.The branch helps implement the NationalWater Initiative to improve water managementarrangements of benefit to the national economy.It also works with state governments to managecommon water resources in the Murray-DarlingBasin and the Great Artesian Basin. (Departmentof Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry 2006a).A key new additional aim is the promotion ofsound natural resources management practicesat a catchment or regional level (Department ofAgriculture Fisheries and Forestry 2006b). Thishas encouraged the states to form in total 60 or soNatural Resource Management Boards at a regionalscale as discussed below.The six basics of national water reform underthe National Water Initiative are:1. Conversion of existing water rights into secureand tradable water access entitlements;2. Completion of water plans that are consistentwith the National Water Initiative throughtransparent processes and best availablescience;3. Implementation of these plans to achievesustainable levels of water extraction inpractice;4. Establishment of open and low cost watertrading arrangements;5. Improvements of water pricing to support thewider reform agenda; and6. Implementation of national water accountingand measurement standards and adequatesystems for measuring, metering andmonitoring, and reporting on water resources.The aims are also stated in this way to:• improve the security of water entitlements,including clear assignment of risks of reductionsin future water availability and returningover- allocated systems to sustainable allocationlevels• ensure ecosystem health by implementingregimes to protect environmental assets at thebasin, aquifer, or catchment scaleUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Implementation of Australian Water Laws119• ensure water is put to best use by encouragingthe expansion of water markets and tradingacross and between districts and states wherewater systems are physically shared, involvingclear rules for trading, robust water accountingarrangements, and pricing based on full costrecovery principles, and• encouraging water conservation in our citiesincluding better use of storm water andrecycled water.A key component of the National WaterInitiative is more sophisticated and comprehensivewater planning that deals with key issues suchas the major interception of water, interactionbetween surface and ground water systems, and theprovision of water to meet specific environmentaloutcomes. This planning process is the maincharacteristic of Paradigm 4 and its requirementsto involve stakeholders in the planning process.As such the National Water Initiative has begun toallocate funding to community groups and Stategovernments and drives the agenda by requiringeach State to prepare implementation plans. Justunder half of the National Water Initiative’s 80 orso actions involve national actions or other actionby governments working together. This reflects notjust the emphasis on greater national compatibilityin the way Australia measures, plans for, prices,and trades water. It also represents a greater levelof cooperation between governments to achievethis end. This process will be driven by the newNational Water Commission and $2 billion over6 years to be invested through the AustralianWater Fund. As at July 2006, 33 projects havebeen approved spending $416 million from theAustralian Government Water Fund. The 2006/ 7budget invested $500 million in the iconic Murray-Darling river system. This money will be used torecover 500 Giga-liters of water for the environmentunder the Living Murray Scheme.The National Water Commission is establishedunder Australian Government legislation (i.e.the National Water Commission Act 2004). It isan independent statutory authority reporting tothe Prime Minister and, on some water reformmatters, through the Prime Minister to the CoAG.The Commission consists of seven Commissioners—four (including the chairman) nominated bythe Australian Government, and three nominatedjointly by the states and territories. Uniqueamong Australian intergovernmental institutions,Commissioners are appointed for their expertise ina range of water-related fields (including freshwaterecology, hydrology, resource economics, andpublic sector management) rather than asrepresentatives of sectoral or government interests.The Commission is supported by a small staff ofjust over 40. The National Water Commission hasFigure 2. The Australian Government Water Fund (AGWF).Source: Thompson 2005 (NWI Website)JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

120McKaythree main functions:1. assess governments’ progress in implementingthe National Water Initiative (e.g. throughbiennial assessments of progress commencingin 2006-07);2. help governments to implement the NationalWater Initiative (e.g. by acting as leadfacilitator on certain actions under the NationalWater Initiative such as nationally compatibleregisters of water entitlements and trades, andnationally consistent approaches to pricing);and3. administer two programs under the AustralianGovernment Water Fund (including recommendingprojects for decision by the AustralianGovernment on financial assistance from theWater Smart Australia program and the RaisingNational Water Standards program. (Figure 2)Clear Specification of Water Access Entitlements.Separation of land title and water title has beenpursued by state and territory governmentssince the 1994 CoAG water reform framework.The National Water Initiative further specifiesthat consumptive use of water requires a wateraccess entitlement to be described in legislationas a perpetual share of the consumptive pool ofa water resource (paragraph 28). It also specifiesthe characteristics that water access entitlementsshould have (paragraph 31), including that they beexclusive, tradable, are able to be subdivided oramalgamated; are able to be mortgaged to accessfinance, and are recorded in public water registers.In most states and territories, the conversionof existing water entitlements into share-basedentitlements as required under the NationalWater Initiative is still underway. For example, inQueensland and New South Wales, conversion ofentitlements is occurring only when water plansare completed for catchments and ground watermanagement areas; these water plans establish theavailable consumptive pool of the water resource.The National Water Initiative also requires thatwater provided to meet environmental and otherpublic benefits is to have statutory recognition,and have at least the same degree of security aswater access entitlements for consumptive use(paragraph 35). This is to ensure that water forenvironmental outcomes is not made less secure inthe wake of greater security for consumptive waterentitlements.Water Accounting. Along with secure propertyrights, most market-based instruments require anagreed standard of measuring the commodity asa precondition for their operation. Most states arecurrently in the process of expanding meteringof water used for irrigation. Australia has almostuniversal metering of water used in residentialand business settings in major metropolitan areas.Adequate metering practices and accountingsystems for water are, of course, necessary forFigure 3. Elements of water pricing reform.UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Implementation of Australian Water Laws121effective charging for water use, and to supportwater trading (e.g. to ensure that water that istraded is available to be traded and is delivered tothe buyer, and that information about water tradesis made available to inform the market). Lesssophisticated measurement and monitoring ofwater may be entirely appropriate in catchmentswhere the resource is relatively undeveloped andthere are few production pressures. In such casesthe need to improve monitoring is driven by theneed to better understand the resource so as tobetter manage its environmental values.Clear Assignment of Risk for Changes in WaterAllocation. As noted above, the creation of sharebasedwater access entitlements establishes a secureright to access the water resource. In the NationalWater Initiative, governments have also committedto establish a level of security around the size ofthe consumptive pool of water that entitlementholders can access. To this end, the National WaterInitiative establishes a framework for assigningthe risks of future reductions in the availability ofwater for consumptive use (paragraphs 46-51).Efficient Water Markets. At present, thereare a range of institutional barriers to the tradeof permanent water entitlements out of manyirrigation districts in Australia – either in theform of trading rules, policies governing publicirrigation authorities, or policies contained in thememoranda and articles of association of someprivate irrigation corporations (notably in NewSouth Wales). Governments – including those inthe southern Murray Darling Basin (New SouthWales, Victoria, and South Australia) – are takingsteps to free up water trades from their irrigationareas to other higher value users. Initially, tradesfrom each irrigation area are intended to be enabledfor up to four percent of each area’s total waterentitlement. This measured step is provided in theNational Water Initiative in order to help manageconcerns about the adjustment of regions to trade,and to enable the National Water Commissionto monitor the socio-economic impacts of trade.Expansion of water trade will also rely heavilyon reducing the transaction costs of trades. Inparticular, the National Water Initiative requirescompatible water registers between states and othercompatible institutional arrangements in order toenhance trading opportunities.Improved Water Pricing Policies. There havebeen significant improvements in water pricingarrangements since the 1994 CoAG water reformframework. These include:• institutional separation of water serviceproviders (e.g. urban and rural water suppliers)from water regulation and planning bodies;• establishment of independent bodies forreviewing water pricing or price-settingprocesses in every state and territory; and• A move to consumption-based pricing aimedat full cost recovery in almost all majormetropolitan centers.Governments have committed to continue withpricing reform, in particular:• to continue movement to pricing that recoversthe full costs of water storage and delivery forrural and regional systems;• to continue movement to pricing that achievesa commercial return on assets (while avoidingmonopoly rents) for metropolitan, rural, andregional water storage and delivery;• pricing that recovers a proportion of the costsof water resource management and planning –cost recovery for such activities to manage theconsequences of commercial water extractionhas become a legitimate proxy for more directexternality pricing in rural areas;• nationally consistent benchmark reporting onthe service quality and pricing of all waterservice providers; and• moving towards more nationally consistentapproaches to pricing across all these.Water pricing reform is currently a very activearea for most state and territory governments.The overall intent is to ensure that prices setby mechanisms other than the market (i.e.by governments, public/private water serviceproviders, and/or independent pricing bodies) donot lead to perverse outcomes either in secondarywater markets, or for water-related investmentactivity. This is critical to facilitating market basedinstruments as more prominent mechanisms formanaging water in Australia.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

122McKayState Implementation of the NWI throughRegional OrganizationsRegional delivery of natural resourcesmanagement is the principle mode of investmentunder the Natural Heritage Trust and National ActionPlan for salinity and the particular role of DEHthrough its leadership of the Natural Heritage Trustsecond Phase. Each State needs to create new regionalNatural Resources Management structures.Such bodies should include landowners, industries,non-government organizations, indigenousrepresentatives, representatives from the three levelsof government (local, state, and national) andother interested people. This is the way for localand other parties to be involved in natural resourcesmanagement (Australian Local GovernmentAssociation 2005). Australia has been divided into60 regions with each one responsible for preparinga regional natural resources management plan.The structure and nomenclature varies betweenand within the states based on variations in statelegislation (Mutton pers. com. 2006 SA). Theselection processes for members of the regionalbodies differ as well. The final aspect of differenceis where the state overarching body is placed inthe existing state natural resources managementprocesses. The case study from South Australiasets out the process in a well advanced state. Therole of the Natural Resources Management Councilin South Australia under the Natural ResourcesManagement Act 2004 is to draft a State Plan fornatural resources management and to take responsibilityto deliver the National Action Plan andNatural Heritage Trust bilateral Agreements signedwith the Federal Government. The State Plan is for5 years and was completed in 2005 with a 50-yearvision. The Plan informs government agencies,the eight regional Natural Resources ManagementBoards, local government, community and industrypartners (Eyre Peninsula Coastal DevelopmentStrategy 2006). Each Regional Natural ResourcesManagement Board drafts their own Regional Planinvolving all of the above with support from StateAgencies. Each Regional Plan highlights all thenatural resources management issues in the region,develops actions to address these concerns and thenselects the most important issues for action. Theplans also set resource conditions and managementaction targets based on agreed national standardsto help determine progress toward achieving outcomes.State-Based Definitions of EnvironmentallySustainable Development and NaturalResources Management: PotentialPartnership Problems for Water SupplyBusinessesWhile the overarching goals are set federally, themeans to achieve them are left to the states who,as in all federations, chose to do things differently.This can create a laboratory of policy experimentsthat offer learning opportunities, but can also createconfusion (Brandies 1932). What does sustainabledevelopment really mean? Sustainable developmentas a concept is notable for the lack of consistencyin its interpretation (Sharachchandra 1991). Whileits breadth is appealing on the political level, thisis also its weakness as the problems of poverty,environmental degradation, economic growth, andparticipation are not well articulated. Such a lackof clarity may hamper the debate and certainly theimplementation.In Australia, each state has definedEnvironmentally Sustainable Development ina number of acts that apply to all actions of thewater supply businesses and other institutions.The definitions of each of these spans over manysections of each of the Acts and the rules andinterpretation of Acts in each state are alsodifferent. The modern concept of EnvironmentallySustainable Development, which in someinstances date from only 1987 (Brundtland 1987),differs in its width within each state (Table 1).The fundamental premise of EnvironmentallySustainable Development (ESD) is that economicdevelopment must be balanced against theprotection of biological diversity, the promotionof equity within and between generations, and themaintenance of essential ecological processes. TheCommonwealth Government working groups onESD drafted these principles as a guide in 1992(Hamilton and Throsby 1998) to facilitate decisionmakingprocesses to effectively integrate both longand short-term economic, environmental, social,and equity considerations.1. Lack of full scientific certainty should notbe used as a reason for postponing measuresto prevent environmental degradation (theUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Implementation of Australian Water Laws123Table 1. Relative ranking of width of ESD definitionin four Australian states and through MBDC templatelegislation in each state 1 .Rank of ESD definitions widthMDBC Template*1 (Equal)SA (downstream) 10% in MDB area 1 (Equal)Qid (up stream) 25% in MDB area 2MSW (up stream) 90% in MDBC area 3VIC (midstream) 60% in MDb area 4*legislation inserted into state law of Queensland,New South Wales, Vic, SAPrecautionary Principle).2. The global dimension of environmentalimpacts of actions should be recognizedand considered.3. The need to develop a strong, growingand diversified economy that can enhancethe capacity for environmental protectionshould be recognized.4. The need to enhance and maintain internationalcompetitiveness in an environmentally soundmanner should be recognized.5. Decision-making processes should effectivelyintegrate both long and short-termeconomic, environmental, social, and equityconsiderations.6. Cost-effective and flexible policy instrumentsshould be adopted.7. Broad community involvement should befacilitated.This statement has been accepted by CoAG andreflects that economic efficiency is not the maingoal of water institutions but rather that there isa need to achieve ESD and balance between thesocial, economic, and environmental needs. Theseprinciples have accordingly guided the collectivethinking of governments in the formulation ofcontemporary water policy. Integration is required,especially under Paradigm 4, but is mentioned in anad hoc way by all the states. The CEOs were askedquestions about their perceptions of the integrationof the policy processes in water reform and someof these results are reported here.CEOs of Water Supply Businesses as KeyActors in Achievement of EnvironmentallySustainable DevelopmentThe obligations to achieve EnvironmentallySustainable Development are imposed on allCEOs of the water supply businesses by a numberof State laws and also through the implementationof the bilateral Natural Heritage Trust andNational Action Plan agreements with the FederalGovernment. There are 333 major water supplybusinesses in Australia (Table 2) and theseare distributed over 14 different types of legalorganizational forms. Previous internationalresearch has described how organization form has agreat influence on the achievement of policy (North1990). These range from government-ownedcorporations, private companies, local governmentauthorities, to water boards. Many have their ownact or rely on powers in another act.Once we identified the types, we arranged tointerview a sample of the CEOs according to thetypology type. The CEOs were distributed as such;86 out of 115 from Queensland, 38 from 78 in NewSouth Wales, 24 from 29 in Tasmania, 13 from 24in Victoria, 20 from 22 in Western Australia andthe only one from each of the Australian CapitalTerritory and Northern Territory. The distributionby typology type reflected the proportions, withlocal government predominating.Responses of CEOs to EnvironmentallySustainable Development and theParadigm 3 and 4 Water ReformsFollowing the approach described above,this work sought to perform an Evaluation bypolicy implementers and Evaluation of law byimplementers. The CEOs were interviewed overthe phone after a time had been made for themto have 30 minutes free to do the interview. Theinterviews took place between September 2006and January 2006 and were conducted by threetrained professional interviewers at EhrenbergBass Institute. The respondents were all sent aproject information sheet and advised that theirresponses were confidential. There were over 100questions and the average time for each interviewwas 27 minutes with no one stopping the interview.Respondents reported that they liked the survey asthey had a chance to explore issues and report onJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

124McKayTable 2. Corporate governance legal types (typologies) of major WSB.ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA TotalLocal Government Regional Council (LGRC) 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Shire Council (LGSC) 0 46 0 92 0 17 0 14 169City/Council (LGCC) 0 0 0 15 0 5 0 0 20Local Government Owned corporations (LGOC) 0 14 0 4 0 0 0 0 18Joint Local Government Organization (JLGG) 0 5 0 1 0 3 0 0 9Water Board [includes Rural and Water Drainage] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2Government Departments Licenser (GD) 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 3Government Owned Corporation (GOC) 1 5 1 1 1 0 6 1 16Statutory Bodies (SB) 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 18Corporation Law Companies (CLC) 0 3 0 1 2 0 0 1 7Irrigation Trusts (IT) 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 6Undetermined 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 6Hybrid - (SB/CLC) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Hybird - (IT/CLC) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Total 1 74-79 1 115 7 29 24 22 278Source: 183 CEO Surveys CRF-IF006Table 3. Number of survey respondents by state and typology.CLG GD GOC JLGG LGCC LGOC LGRC LGSC SB UND WBACT (1) - - 1 - - - - - - - -NSW (38) - - - - 4 1 2 31 - - -NT (1) - - 1 - - - - - - - -QLD (86) - 1 - - 13 1 - 71 - - -TAS (24) - - - 3 5 - - 14 - 2 -VIC (13) - - 3 - - - - - 10 - -WA (20) 1 - 1 - - - - 14 - 2 21 1 5 3 22 2 2 130 10 4 2issues that concerned them. The results for all butthe first questions are reported by state (as thereis only a single authority in the Australian Capitaland Northern Territories, their responses will not bepublished to protect confidentiality) and corporategovernance type. This section will present theresponses to these 4 questions on EnvironmentallySustainable Development.1. Degree of effort put into each ESDprinciple2. Difficulty in achieving ESD principles intheir water supply businiesses3. The ESD process is transparent4. I am able to achieve sustainable watermanagementIt will then present three questions on water policyand intergovernmental integration1. There is a huge amount of trust between thisorganization and the state government.2. This organization is nested in a mutuallysupportive state government policy environment.3. All sectors of the community of this waterbusiness understand the viewpoint of othersin this area.Environmentally Sustainable DevelopmentThe first two questions reported here wereUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Implementation of Australian Water Laws125Table 4. Difficulty in achieving and degree of effort put into each Environmentally Sustainable Developmentguiding principle.CriterionDifficulty in achievingESD principlesDegree of effprt put intoeach ESD principleThe global dimension of environmental impacts ofactions should be recognized and considered.Lack of scientific certainty should not be usedas a reason for postponing measures to preventenvironmental degradation (Precautionary Principle).The need to develop a strong, growing, and diversifiedeconomy, which can enhance the capacity forenvironmental protection, should be recognized.The need to enhance and maintain international competitivenessin an environmentally sound manner shouldbe recognized.Decision-making processes should effectively integrateboth long and short-term economic, environmental,social, and equity considerations.896 728624 906795 1092772 714723 1261Cost-effective and flexible policy instruments should be524 1234adopted.Broad community involvement should be facilitated. 427 1232emailed to the respondents so they could see thefull text and they were asked to rate each one from1 not at all diffi cult to 10 extremely diffi cult. Inthe second question, they were asked to rate themaccording to the effort they have put in from 1 leasteffort to 10 most effort. In all the questions 11 wasdon’t know and refused but there were very few ofthese. The votes were then tallied. Responses to thefirst question indicate that the CEOs thought thatit was most difficult to achieve global dimensionsand least difficult to achieve broad communityinvolvement (Table 4). In relation to effort, mosteffort went into the three dimensions of broadcommunity involvement, cost effective policies,and integrated decision-making processes (Table4). In relation to the transparency of the ESDprocess, most organizations have a neutral view(Table 4). All had heard of the process. Hence theyare neutral as to whether the process in their state istransparent. The Water Boards perceive the processas transparent. Local governments are clearly ofthe neutral view (Figure 4). In relation to abilityto achieve ESD, the local governments were mostlikely to be neutral, Water Boards and GovernmentOwned Corporations were more likely to agree thatthey can achieve it (Figure 5). In relation to workon local government and participation in RegionalNatural Resources Management Plan development,it was reported that most councils were not activebecause of a lack of resources with 56 percent ofcouncils highlighting a lack of human or financialresources to effectively participate. Only 31percent of councils believe they have a good orcomprehensive capacity to develop and implementthe regional plans (Australian Local GovernmentAssociation 2005).Water Policy and IntergovernmentalIntegrationSocial capital theory in relation to environmentalmatters has often focussed on understandinghow various actors interact with one another inrelation to the water policy environment. Byunderstanding the social capital of differentenvironmental actors, for example water users andwater policy implementers, we can understandwhy policies end up being implemented and whynoble aims often fail. The question related to trustbetween the organization and the state governmentyielded results that differed markedly among thestates. Water supply businesses in Victoria weremost likely to trust and the lowest trust level wasJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

126McKayFigure 4. Qu. 26 - The ESD process is transparent.Source: 183 CEO Surveys CRC-IF 2006Figure 5. Qu. 7 - I am able to achieve sustainable water management.Source: 183 CEO Surveys CRC-IF 2006UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Implementation of Australian Water Laws127found in New South Wales. A study in Queenslandof stakeholders in small catchments found thatthere was little trust in the state government overnatural resources management (Rickson 2006).The CEO’s also reported low levels of trust inrelation to the relevant state government. Therewas also a massive variation between corporategovernance types, as well with statutory boards,and government-owned corporations were mosttrusting and local government least (Figure 6).In support of the above, the CEO’s also reportedthat they don’t generally feel nested in a mutuallysupportive policy environment, except in Victoria,and this related directly to the corporate governancetype of government-owned corporations (Figure 7).In relation to whether the CEOs feel that all sectorsof their community understand the viewpoints ofothers, the results suggest that they are neutral, sothey are not confident and this does not vary bystate or corporate governance type. Despite all theeffort to facilitate broad community involvement(Figure 2), the CEO’s see little change in themindset of the community (Figure 8).Summary and ConclusionsThere have been massive reforms of water laws,policies, and institutions over the last 12 yearsin Australia. Most reforms require partnershipsbetween Commonwealth and state agencies andalso partnerships between different sectors ofthe community to achieve EnvironmentallySustainable Development (ESD) implementation.This paper has shown that while there has beenconsiderable effort put in by the CEO’s, thepartnerships between sectors of the community,and between them and state governments, areimpaired by a lack of trust and a perception that thewater policies are not mutually supportive. Manyof them are also puzzled as to how to achieve ESDand, with acute differences between the states indefinitions, there is a limited scope to learn fromeach other. Finally, the CEO’s still think that sectorsof their community don’t understand each other.However, the water reform is relatively new andFigure 6. Qu. 91- There is a huge amount of trust between this organization and the state government.Source: 183 CEO Surveys CRC-IF 2006JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

128McKayFigure 7. Qu.93- This organization is nested in a mutually supportive state government policy.Source: 183 CEO Surveys CRC-IF 2006Figure 8. Qu.14- All sectors of the community of this water business understand the viewpoint of others in the area.Source: 183 CEO Surveys CRC-IF 2006UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Implementation of Australian Water Laws129indeed some of the 80 obligations in the NationalWater Initiative specifically address some of theseissues, for example, the proposed lexicon of watermanagement terms. With longer involvement inthe reforms, the answers to these questions shouldchange. That is, we would expect the CEO’sresponses to indicate a greater ability to achieveESD. Perceptions of ability to achieve ESD willbe linked to greater perception of transparencyof the process, trust in the state government, andother factors.AcknowledgementsThis work was conducted as part of a projectfor the Cooperative Research Centre IrrigationFutures. It was supported in kind by members of theCooperative Research Centre, especially MatthewDurack, Glen Starkey, John Bourne, Eddie Parr,Peter Smith, John Williams, Tom Vander Wel, andBernadette Zerba. The project was also supportedby the University of South Australia School ofCommerce and benefited from feedback givenby the respondents and also from comments byGeorge Warne (New South Wales), Geoff Parishand Tony Thompson ((South Australia), andthe opportunity to present some of this materialto meetings organized by the Australian Centrefor International Agricultural Research and theAustralian National Committee on Irrigation andDrainage. Other support was made available fromJolyon Burnett, Irrigation Association of Australia,and Stephen Mills, Australian National Committeeon Irrigation and Drainage and Chris Davis ofthe Australian Water Association. The AustralianCentre for International Agricultural Researchalso supported this research through workshopson a current project that was initiated by DonnaBrennan.The project employed Adam Gray, who did agreat job in liaising with many organizations anddrawing the figures. Michael Griffin and FionaPartington checked the typology by reference tothe Annual reports of the water supply businesses.Kirsty Willis co-ordinated the interviewing withgood humor despite this being one of the longest andtechnically challenging surveys in the Ehrenberg-Bass Research Institute experience. Rex Jones andKathryn Pickering provided much support in thefinancial management and other members of theCentre collected articles and checked the results,especially Ganesh Keremane, Anna Hurlimann,Arthur Spassis, and Diwakara Halanaik.Author Bio and Contact InformationJENNIFER MCKAY is a Professor of Business Law at theUniversity of South Australia. Her research interestsconcern water law reform and, in particular, regulatorymodels for the management and allocation of waterbetween competing uses and between competingjurisdictions. Before working in academia and research,Professor McKay worked in major commerciallaw firms in Adelaide and Melbourne. Her areas ofpractice included trade practices, corporations law andenvironmental audits. She has been nominated by theAustralian Branch of the International Law Associationto be a member of the International Law Associationcommittee on International Law on SustainableDevelopment www.ila-hq.org She is a Co-Founder andDirector of the Centre for Comparative Water Policies& Laws. The Centre has international members from 20countries including Sweden, Sri Lanka, Spain, USA,India, Finland and Israel. http://business.unisa.edu.au/commerce/waterpolicylaw/ Professor McKay is akey researcher for the Cooperative Research Centre forIrrigation Futures. This new centre aims to halve wateruse within Australia and define sustainable irrigationareas and practices. www.irrrigationfutures.org.au.Endnotes1.The Murray Darling Basin Agreement 1992 (asamended in 2000) is between the Commonwealthand the four States and aims to .. Promote and coordinateeffective planning and management forthe equitable efficient and sustainable use of water,land and environmental resources of the MurrayDarling Basin.”ReferencesAustralian Local Government Association. 2005.NRM Survey of Local Government 2004-5,Angela Shepherd http://www.alga.asn.au/policy.environment.nrm/survey.Australian Water Resource Assessment. 2000.Surface and Groundwater Availability andQuality, a report of the National Land and WaterResources Audit (Audit).Brandeis (Justice). 1932. New State Ice Co. vLiebmann 285 US 262 AT 311.Broughton, W. ed. 1999. A Century of WaterResources Development in Australia 1990-1999.The Institution of Engineers Australia Sydney.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

130McKayBrundtland Report. 1987. Our Common Future,Report of the UN World Commission onEnvironment and Development. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford.Clark, S.D. and I.A. Renard. 1970. The ripariandoctrine and Australian Legislation. 7 MelbourneUniversity Law Review 475.Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry,2002/3. National Government. Available at:http://www.daffa.gov.au/about/annualreport/02-03/appendices/app6.Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry.2006a. National Government. Available at:http://www.daffa.gov.au/natural-resources/water/reform/resources.Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry.2006b. General Government Sector budgetstatements. Available at: http://www.daffa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/5680/outcomes.pdf.Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry,Murray Darling Basin Commission 2006 Murray-Darling Basin. Available at: www.daffa.gov.au/mdbc.Evans, R. 2001 Managing Over-AllocatedGroundwater Systems, Paper presented at the 3rdAustralasian Natural Resources Law and PolicyConference, Adelaide p 194. A copy of the paperwas obtained directly from Sinclair Knight Merz.Government of South Australia and Eyre PeninsulaLocal Government Association. 2006. EyrePeninsula Coastal Development Strategy.Hallows, P. and D. Thompson. 1999. The Historyof Irrigation in Australia. Australian NationalCommittee on Irrigation and Drainage, Canberra.Harris, S and D. Throsby. 1997. The ESD Process:Background, implementation and aftermath. InHamilton, C. and D. Throsby (eds.) The ESDProcess: Evaluating a Policy Experiment, p 1-21, Academy of Social Sciences and GraduateProgram in Public Policy Australian NationalUniversity Workshop, ANU, Published by theAcademy of Social Sciences in Australia andGraduate Program in public Policy, ANU.Jones, G., J. Whittington, J. McKay, A. Arthington,I. Lawrence, S. Cartwright, and P. Cullen. 2001.Independent Assessment of Jurisdictional Reportson the Achievements of the COAG Water Reforms2001, Cooperative Research Centre for FreshwaterEcology, funded by NHT, Environment Australiaand National Competition Council, Canberra.Langdon, M. 2002. Briefi ng Papers: Indigenousrights to waters, ATSIC.McKay, J. M. 1994. Water planning in SA.Australasian Journal of Natural Resources Lawand Policy, 1(2) 595–609.McKay, J. M. 2002a. Encountering the South AustralianLandscape: Early European misconceptions and ourpresent water problems. Hawke Institute Workingpaper series paper 21. www.hawkecentre.unisa.edu.au/institute.McKay, J. M. 2002b. Legal issues in water planningregimes: Lessons for Australia, in Brennan, D.(ed.), Water Policy Reform: Lessons from Asiaand Australia. Australian Centre for InternationalAgricultural Research, proceeding 106, pp 48–62Canberra. ACIAR.McKay, J. M. 2003. Marketisation in Australianfreshwater and fisheries management regimes. InDovers S and Sue Wild River (eds.), ManagingAustralia’s Environment. Annandale FederationPress, pp. 363–390.McKay, J. M. And A. Hurlimann. 2003. Attitudesto reclaimed water for domestic use; Age Part 1,Water, 28(5) 45–50.McKay J. M. 2005. Water Institutional reforms inAustralia. In Special issue of Water Policy WaterInstitutional reform: Theory and practice, p 35-53.McKay, J. M. 2006. The legal framework ofAustralian water. In Crase L (Ed.) Water Resourcesin Australia, Issues in Water Policies Series, serieseditor A. Dinar, Resources for the Future, www.RFFPress.org/water.Murray Darling Basin Commission. Available at:www.mdbc.gov.au.Mutton, D. pers comm. Presiding member of theNRM Council SA.National Water Initiative web site www.nwc.gov.au.North, D. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change andEconomic Performance. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, MA.Powell, J. 1999. Victoria, in Broughton, W. (ed.),A Century of Water Resources Development. InAustralia, The Institution of Engineers Australia,Sydney.Rickson, S. 2006. Linking the social with theenvironmental: Identifying community capacityin the South East Queensland Western CatchmentsGroup, In Whelan J. ( Ed.) Partnership BasedSocial Research for Sustainable Natural ResourceUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

Implementation of Australian Water Laws131Management in Queensland. National Action Planfor Salinity and Water Quality.Saleth, R. M. and A. Dinar. 2004. The InstitutionalEconomics of Water: A cross-country analysis ofinstitutions and performance. Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar Publishing Pvt.Sharachchandra. 1991. Sustainable Development: Acritical Review. World Development 19 (6): 607-621.Shi, T. 2005. Simplifying complex water entitlements.Water 32 (5): 39-43.Sinclair, P. 2001. The Murray: A River and Its People.Melbourne University Press.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

132UCOWR BOARD OF DIRECTORS/COMMITTEE CHAIRS 2006-2007PresidentRonald D. LacewellOffice of Federal RelationsCenteq Suite #255, 2259 TAMUTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station TX 77843-2259(979) 862-7138; Fax: 845-1527r-lacewell@tamu.eduPresident-ElectJohn C. TracyIdaho Water Resources Research Inst.322 Front Street, Suite 201University of Idaho-BoiseBoise ID 83712(208) 332-4422; FAX: 332-4400tracy@uidaho.eduPast PresidentTamim YounosVirginia Water Resources Res. Ctr.Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity210 Cheatham Hall (0444)Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0001(540) 231-8039; FAX 231-6673tyounos@vt.eduExecutive DirectorChristopher L. LantUCOWR Headquarters/Geography1000 Faner Drive, Room 4543Southern Illinois UniversityCarbondale, Illinois 62901-4526(618) 453-6020 FAX: 453-2671clant@siu.eduCOMMITTEE CHAIRSAwardsTamim YounosConference ProgramJay Lund and John TracyMembershipMichael BarbarMichael BarberState of Washington Water Research CenterWashington State UniversityPO Box 643002Pullman, WA 99164-3002(509) 335-5531; FAX: 335-1590meb@wsu.eduDavid DeWalleSchool of Forest Resources107 Land and Water BuildingThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, PA 16802(814) 863-0291; FAX: 865-3378drdewalle@psu.eduJay R. LundCivil and Environmental EngineeringOne Shields AvenueUniversity of California, DavisDavis, CA 95616, USA(530) 752-5671; FAX: 752-7872jrlund@ucdavis.eduMac McKeeUtah Water Research LaboratoryUtah State University1600 Canyon Road, UMC 8200Logan, Utah 84322-8200(435) 797-3188; FAX: 797-3663mmckee@cc.usu.eduAri MichelsenAgricultural Research Center1380 A&M CircleTexas A&M UniversityEl Paso TX 79927(915) 859-9111; FAX: 859-1078a-michelsen@tamu.eduPaula L. Sturdevant ReesCivil & Environmental EngineeringMarston HallUniversity of MassachusettsAmherst MA 01003(413) 547-2337; FAX: 545-2840rees@ecs.umass.eduRichard WarnerIllinois Water Resources Center1101 W. Peabody Drive, Room 350University of IllinoisUrbana IL 61801(217) 333-6444; FAX: 333-8046dickw@uiuc.eduGary WoodardSAHRAMarshall Bldg. Room 549D845 N. Park AvenueUniversity of ArizonaTucson AZ 85721(520) 626-5399; FAX: 626-4479gwoodard@sahra.arizona.eduYEARS OF BOARD SERVICEJuly 2004 – July 2007Michael BarberDavid De WalleAri MichelsenJuly 2005 – July 2008Jay LundPaula Sturdevant ReesGary WoodardJuly 2006– July 2009Mac McKeeJohn TracyRichard WarnerUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

133UCOWR MEMBER INSTITUTIONSArizona State U.Auburn U.Bates CollegeCalifornia State-SacramentoCentral State U.City U. of New YorkClemson U.Colorado State UCornell U.Desert Research InstituteDrexel U.Duke U.Georgia Institute of Tech.Iowa State U.Johns Hopkins U.Kansas State U.Louisiana State U.Louisiana Tech U.Massachusetts Inst.of Tech.Michigan State U.Mississippi State U.Montana State U.New Mexico State U.North Carolina State U.Ohio State U.Oklahoma State U.Oregon State U.Pennsylvania State U.Purdue U.Rutgers U.South Dakota State U.Southern Illinois U.State U. of NY-BrockportState U. of NY-SyracuseSul Ross State U.Syracuse U.Tennessee Tech. U.Texas A&M U.Texas Ag. Experiment Stn.Texas State U.Texas Tech. U.Tufts U.U.S. Military AcademyUtah State U.Virginia Polytechnic Inst.Washington State U.Yale U.U. of AlaskaU. of ArizonaU. of ArkansasU. Autónoma de Ciudad JuarezU. of California-DavisU. of California-RiversideU. of Central FloridaU. of CincinnatiU. of ColoradoU. of DelawareU. of FloridaU. of GeorgiaU. of GuamU. of HawaiiU. of IdahoU. of IllinoisU. of IowaU. of MaineU. of MassachusettsU. of MichiganU. of MinnesotaU. of MissouriU. of MontanaU. of NebraskaU. of New HampshireU. of New OrleansU. of New MexicoU. of OklahomaU. of Puerto RicoU. of Southern CaliforniaU. of TennesseeU. of Texas-AustinU. of Texas-El PasoU. of Texas-San AntonioU. of Virgin IslandsU. of VirginiaU. of WisconsinNon-Academic MembersThe Ivanhoe FoundationLos Alamos National LaboratorySandia National LaboratoriesAffiliate MembersUniversity of Calgary, CanadaUniversity of New England, AustraliaJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

134BENEFITS OF UCOWR MEMBERSHIPThe Universities Council on Water Resources (UCOWR) is an association of over 80 member universities, organizations, andindividuals leading in education, research and public service in water resources. Benefites from membership include:AdvocacyUCOWR is dedicated to developing new science and preparing leaders and technologies for the use, management,and protection of water resources. UCOWR delegates are advocates for the incorporation of contemporary issues andmethodologies in the classroom, research laboratories, and the field. Evolving academic programs in water resourcespromoted by UCOWR are excellent curriclum models for other interdisciplinary programs.LeadershipUCOWR’s officers and member delegates represent the nation’s leading academic professionals dedicated to expandingthe knowledge base and training water resources professionals. Each year, graduates of UCOWR member universitiesconstitute the majority of new water resources professionals establishing careers. UCOWR encourages delegates toassume leadership roles within their institutions and supports this through electronic and personal networking services.In addition, the organizational structure of UCOWR provides opportunities for leadership development through participationin committees and on the Board of Directors.Professional GrowthUCOWR is the only professional organization embracing the entire range of disciplines involved in water resourcesand serving serving academic institutions and their faculties. This diversity provides the holistic perspective necessaryto solve today’s complex water problems and to train the nation’s future water resources leaders. UCOWR promotesthe professional growth of member delegates in order to enhance their impact and effectiveness within the communityof water resources professionals. The Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, a UCOWR publication,presents research to encourage dialog on contemporary water issues to a degree not afforded by other water-relatedjournals. UCOWR’s annual conference provides a forum for exchanges of information in an atmosphere conduciveto open discussion and network building among individuals and institutions. The achievements of outstanding waterresource professionals are recognized through the UCOWR awards program, including the Warren A. Hall Medal,Ph.D. Dissertation Awards, and the Education and Public Service Award.Other BenefitsEach university member institution receives• Hardcopy and electronic subscriptions to the Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education• Reduced registration fees for staff and students at the annual conference• A voice in the governance of UCOWR (1 lead delegate and up to 7 additional voting delegates)Individual members enjoy• Hardcopy and electronic subscriptions to the Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education• Reduced registration fees at the annual conference1000 Faner Drive, Room 4543, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois 62901-4526Phone: (618) 536-7571, Fax: (618) 453-2671, E-mail: ucowr@siu.edu, www.ucowr.siu.eduUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

135FRIENDS OF UCOWRIn appreciation of their vision and leadership in the advancement of Water Resources Research and Education, thefollowing individuals have been named “Friends of UCOWR.”1984Ernest F. BraterNorman H. BrooksVen Te ChowNephi A. ChristensenRobert E. DilsWarren A. HallJohn W. HarshbargerA.T. IngersollJohn F. KennedyCarl E. KindsvaterEmmett M. LaursenArno T. LenzRay K. LinsleyWalter L. MooreDean F. PetersonSol D. ResnickVerne H. ScottDavid K. ToddCalvin C. WarnickM. Gordon Wolman1985Bernard B. BergerWilliam ButcherErnest EngelbertDavid H. HowellsWilliam Whipple1986Leonard DworskyPeter EaglesonBenjamin EwingGeorge MaxeyGeorge SmithE. Roy Tinney1987Wade H. AndrewsJohn D. HewlettGerard A. RohlichDan M. Wells1988Merwin P. DougalJohn C. FreyDaniel J. Wiersma1989Daniel D. Evans1990Henry P. CaulfieldMaynard M. HufschmidtAbsalom W. Snell1991Eugene D. EatonWilliam B. LordWillliam R. Walker1992J. Ernest FlackGerald E. Galloway, Jr.John C. GuyonErnest T. SmerdonWarren Viessman, Jr.1993Marvin T. BondGlenn E. Stout1994Robert D. VarrinHenry J. Vaux, Jr.1995Jon F. BartholicM. Wayne HallWilliam L. Powers1996L. Douglas JamesDavid H. MoreauHoward S. Peavy1997Faye AndersonPatrick L. BrezonikTheodore M. SchadYacov Y. Haimes1998Peter E. BlackHelen M. Ingram1999John S. JacksonKyle E. SchillingRobert C. WardWARREN A. HALL MEDAL HONOREES2000William H. Funk2001Charles W. Howe2002Duane D. Baumann2003Lisa BourgetC. Mark DunningTamim Younos2004Ari MichelsenMargaret SkerlyWalter V. Wendler2005Lynne Lewis2006Mark LimbaughNew MexicoWater ResourcesResearch InstituteWilliam Butcher - 1993Warren “Bud” Viessman, Jr. - 1994Gilbert White - 1995Richard S. Engelbrecht - 1996Yacov Y. Haimes - 1997Neil S. Grigg - 1998William W-G. Yeh - 1999Daniel Peter Loucks -2000Vernon L. Snoeyink - 2000Miguel A. Marino – 2002Charles W. “Chuck” Howe – 2003Robert A. Young– 2004Henry J. Vaux, Jr.- 2005Robert C. Ward- 2006UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

136Past Issues of the Journal of Contemporary Water Researchand Education and Water Resources UpdateIssue 135, December 2006. Integrated Water Resource Management: New Governance,Tools, and Challenges—Selected international Perspectives. Bruce Hooper, DHI Water andEnvironment. (Ed.)Issue 134, July 2006. River and Lake Restoration: Changing Landscapes. Lynne Y. Lewis,Bates College. (Ed.)Issue 133, May 2006. River Adjudications. Andrea Gerlak & John Thorson, Columbia University. (Eds.)Issue 132, December 2005. Desalination. Tamim Younos, Virginia Polytecnic Institute andState University. (Ed.)Issue 131, May 2005. Allocating Water: Economics and the Environment. Gary Johnson, Universityof Idaho; Sarah Bigger, Boise State University; Ari Michelsen, Texas A&M University. (Eds.)Issue 130, March 2005. National Flood Policy a Decade After the 1993 Mississippi Flood.Stuart A. Davis and Mark C. Dunning, Institute for Water Resources. (Eds.)Issue 129, October 2004. Water and Homeland Security. Regan Murray, USEPA. (Ed.)Issue 128, June 2004. Small Water Supply Systems. John Braden, University of Illinois. (Ed.)Issue 127, February 2004. Water Resources Sustainability. Ethan Timothy Smith, The SustainableWater Resources Roundtable. (Ed.)Issue 126, November 2003. Geographic Perspectives on Water Resources. L. Allan James,University of South Carolina. (Ed.)Issue 125, June 2003. Trans-Boundary Water Issues. Kenneth Rubin, Pa Consultants. (Ed.)Issue 124, May 2003. Is Global Climate Change Research Relevant to Day-To-Day Water ResourcesManagement? Rober C. Ward, Colorado State University; Roger Pielke, Sr., Colorado StateUniversity; Jose Salas, Colorado State University. (Eds.)Issue 123, June 2002. University-Based Water Research: Relevant to Society? Doug James,NSF; Robert Ward, Colorado State; Ari Michelsen, Texas A&M. (Eds.)Issue 122, March 2002. Universities’ Contribution to TMDL Program Development. Tamim Younos,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. (Ed.)Issue 121, March 2002. Incentives and Trading in Water Resource Management. David Zilberman,University of California at Berkeley. (Ed.)Issue 120, September 2001. Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: EmergingContaminants in Water. Robert W. Masters, National Ground Water Association. (Ed.)Issue 119, February 2001. Integrating University Knowledge and Student Service-Learning intoCommunity-Based Watershed Management Programs. Christine Lewicki, Us Epa & Tamim Younos,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. (Ed.)Issue 118, January 2001. Complexities with Transboundary Water Resource Management:Progress and Stumbling Blocks. Lynne Lewis Bennett, Bates College. (Ed.)UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

137Issue 117, October 2000. Private Sector Participation in Urban Water Supply. John J. Boland, JohnHopkins Univ. (Ed.)Issue 116, March 2000. Refl ections on a Century of Water Science and Policy. Charles W. Howe, Univ.of Colorado. (Ed.)Issue 115, Spring 1999. Emerging Issues in Global Water Management. Kenneth Rubin, Hagler Bailly. (Ed.)Issue 114, Winter 1999. Management of Water Demand: Unresolved Issues. Ben Dziegielewski,International Water Resources Association. (Ed.)Issue 113, Autumn 1998, Decisionmaking Under Uncertainty: The Nexus Between Science and Policy.Elizabeth A. Graffy, U.S. Geological Survey. (Ed.)Issue 112, Summer 1998, Global Change and Water Resources Management. Kyle Schilling andEugene Stakhiv, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. (Eds.)Issue 111, Spring 1998, Water Policies for the Future. Warren Viessman Jr., University of Florida. (Ed.)Issue 110, Winter 1998, Cross Currents in Water Policy. Robert Ward, Colorado State University. (Ed.)Issue 109, Autumn 1997, How Valuable is Valuation?. John B. Braden, University of Illinois. (Ed.)Issue 108, Summer 1997, Reservoir System Management. Ralph A. Wurbs, Texas A&M University. (Ed.)Issue 107, Spring 1997, Indian Water Rights. Peter E. Black, State University of New York. (Ed.)Issue 106, Winter 1997, Integrated Water Management. Wayne R. Jordan, Texas A&M University. (Ed.)Issue 105, Autumn 1996, Limits on State Power to Manage Water Resources. Robert E. Beck,Southern Illinois University. (Ed.)Issue 104, Summer 1996, Integrated Resource Planning for Water Utilities. Janice A. Beecher. (Ed.)Issue 103, Spring 1996, Risk Analysis for Water Resources. Larry W. Mays, Arizona State University. (Ed.)Issue 102, Winter 1996, Water: The Emerging Crisis?. Leonard Berry, Florida Atlantic University. (Ed.)Issue 101, Autumn 1995, The Farm Bill—A Keystone of Environmental Policy. P. Patrick Leahy, USGS. (Ed.)Issue 100, Summer 1995, Integrated Watershed Management-A New Paradigm for Water Management.Robert Ward, Colorado State University. (Ed.)Issue 99, Spring 1995, Water Related Information Resources on the Internet. Faye Anderson,Southern Illinois University. (Ed.)Issue 98, Winter 1995, Limnology’s Second Century: New Challenges And Opportunities.Patrick L. Brezonik, University of Minnesota. (Ed.)Issue 97, Autumn 1994, Sharing the Challenge: The Next Steps. Leonard Shabman, Virginia PolytechnicInstitute and State University. (Ed.)Issue 96, Summer 1994, Environmental Evaluation and Decision Making. Bill Hansen, U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers. (Ed.)Issue 95, Spring 1994, Coping with the Flood: The Next Phase. Gilbert F. White and Mary Fran Myers,University of Colorado. (Ed.)Issue 94, Winter 1994, Clean Water Act Revisited. Patrick L. Brezonik, University of Minnesota andDavid H. Moreau, University of North Carolina. (Ed.)For complete listing visit: www.ucowr.siu.eduJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

138Academic Organizations Membership ApplicationUNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESUCOWR(Please Type or Print Clearly)Date: ______________________University/Institution:____________________________________________________________Postal Address:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________City: ______________________________ State: ___ Zip: ___________ Country: __________________Contact Person: _______________________________________________________________________Phone: _________________ Fax:____________________ E-mail: _______________________________MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS Include• A subscription for up to 11 paper copies of the Journal of Contemporary Water Research andEducation, with its concise analysis of pressing water resources issues• Accessibility for all agency staff to all sections of the UCOWR website (www.ucowr.siu.edu)that hosts over 50 issues of the Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education.• Information about conferences and discounts for registration at UCOWR’s annual conference• Collaboration with leading U.S. researchers on water resources• Voting rights in UCOWR affairs for up to 8 individual delegatesMembership is subject to approval by UCOWR Board of Directors and is based on the July 1 - June 30fiscal year.Annual 2-Years 3-YearsMembership rates:.......................................................................................$ 450 850 1,200For additional information call Christopher Lant, Exec. Director, UCOWR (618) 453-6020PAYMENT MUST ACCOMPANY APPLICATION UCOWR FEIN – 47-0617822Amount $_______.___ for the period July 1, 20___ to June 30, 20___Visa Master Card American Express DiscoverP/O or Check # _________________Card Number: __ __ __ __/__ __ __ __/__ __ __ __/__ __ __ __ Expiration Date: ___ ___/___ ___Cardholders Name: _____________________________ Signature: ______________________________Mail completed form to:UCOWR Headquarters, 1000 Faner Drive Room 4543, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901-4526Phone: (618) 536-7571 FAX: (618) 453-2671 E-Mail: UCOWR@siu.edu Website: http://www.ucowr.siu.eduUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

139Non-Academic Organizations Membership ApplicationUNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESUCOWR(Please Type or Print Clearly)Date: ______________________Organization/Company Name:____________________________________________________________Mailing Address:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________City: ______________________________ State: ___ Zip: ___________ Country: __________________Contact Person: _______________________________________________________________________Phone: _________________ Fax:____________________ E-mail: _______________________________MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS (based on fiscal year July 1 - June 30)• A subscription of the Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education, with its conciseanalysis of pressing water resources issues (8 copies for small organizations, 16 for mediumorganizations, 32 for large organizations and 64 for very large organizations).• Accessibility for all agency staff to all sections of the UCOWR website (www.ucowr.siu.edu)that hosts over 50 issues of the Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education.• Information about conferences and discounts for registration at UCOWR’s annual conference.• Collaboration with leading U.S. researchers on water resources.• Membership is subject to approval by UCOWR Board of Directors.Membership RatesAnnual 2-Years 3-YearsSmall Organizations (1-100 employees) .........................................................$ 450 850 1,200Medium Organizations (100-1000 employees)............................................... $ 1,000 1,900 2,700Large Organizations (1000-10,000 employees) .............................................. $ 2,000 3,800 5,400Very Large Organizations (more than 10,000 employees) ............................. $ 4,000 7,600 10,800For additional information call Christopher Lant, Executive Director, UCOWR (618) 453-6020PAYMENT MUST ACCOMPANY APPLICATION UCOWR FEIN – 47-0617822Amount $_______.___ for the period July 1, 20___ to June 30, 20___Visa Master Card American Express DiscoverP/O or Check # _________________Card Number: __ __ __ __/__ __ __ __/__ __ __ __/__ __ __ __ Expiration Date: ___ ___/___ ___Cardholders Name: _____________________________ Signature: ______________________________Mail completed form to:UCOWR Headquarters, 1000 Faner Drive Room 4543, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901-4526Phone: (618) 536-7571 FAX: (618) 453-2671 E-Mail: UCOWR@siu.edu Website: http://www.ucowr.siu.eduJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

140Individual Membership ApplicationUNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESUCOWR(Please Type or Print Clearly)Date: ______________________Last Name _____________________________ First Name ____________________________________Institution/Company Name: ______________________________________________________________Mailing Address: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________City: ______________________________ State: ___ Zip: ___________ Country: __________________Contact Person: _______________________________________________________________________Phone: _______________ Fax:__________________ E-mail: ___________________________________Recommended (if applicable): ____________________________________________________________YEARLY MEMBERSHIP (Based on the calendar year, January 1 – December 31)· A subscription to the Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, with its conciseanalysis of pressing water resources issues· Electronic access to all issues of Water Resources Update and JCWRE· Information about conferences and discounts for registration at UCOWR’s annual conference· Joining with leading U.S. academic researchers on water resourcesRegular Membership…………………………………………………...…………………………$70.00Student Membership (electronic access only to all issues of Water Resources Update and JCWRE) ….......… $20.00Payment must accompany orderUCOWR FEIN – 47-0617822Visa Master Card American Express DiscoverP/O or Check # ______________________________Card Number: __ __ __ __/__ __ __ __/__ __ __ __/__ __ __ __ Expiration Date: ___ ___/___ ___Cardholders Name: _____________________________ Signature: ______________________________Mail completed form to:UCOWR Headquarters, 1000 Faner Drive Room 4543, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901-4526Phone: (618) 536-7571 FAX: (618) 453-2671 E-Mail: UCOWR@siu.edu Website: http://www.ucowr.siu.eduUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

141UCOWRJournal Order FormUNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESJournal of Contemporary Water Research and Education(formerly Water Resources Update)(Please Type or Print Clearly)Date: ____________________________Last Name _____________________________ First Name ____________________________________Full Mailing Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________City: ______________________________ State: ___ Zip: ___________ Country: __________________Phone: _________________________ E-mail: ______________________________________________YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION minimum 3 issues startingmonth:________________ year: _________Annual domestic subscription rate $ 35.00Annual international subscription rate $ 55.00PAST ISSUES can be purchased for $15 per copy (domestic), $20 per copy (international), subject toavailability. Call UCOWR Headquarters for discount pricing on orders of 10 or more of the same issue.____ copies of Issue # ________ $ ____________ copies of Issue # ________ $ ____________ copies of Issue # ________ $ ________ total for past issues $ ___________To view a list of past issues, please visit the UCOWR website www.ucowr.siu.edu and click onDATABASES AND PUBLICATIONS, then scroll down to PUBLICATIONS, and click on the first entry.Payment Type:Payment must accompany orderUCOWR FEIN – 47-0617822Visa MasterCard American Express DiscoverP/O or Check # ________________ total purchase amount $ ____________Card Number: __ __ __ __/__ __ __ __/__ __ __ __/__ __ __ __ Expiration Date: ___ ___/___ ___Cardholders Name: _____________________________ Signature: ______________________________Mail completed form to:UCOWR Headquarters, 1000 Faner Drive Room 4543, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901-4526Phone: (618) 536-7571 FAX: (618) 453-2671 E-Mail: UCOWR@siu.edu Website: http://www.ucowr.siu.eduJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

Universities Council on Water Resources2007 ANNUAL CONFERENCEHazards in Water ResourcesJuly 24-26, 2007Boise, IdahoUniversitiesCouncilOnWaterResourcesSponsored By

CONFERENCE THEMEHazards in Water ResourcesFloods, droughts, hurricanes, sabotage, toxic spills, mechanicalbreakdowns and other hazards pose similar policy, management,scientific, and technical challenges for water resource systems.Moreover, theses challenges are increasing.The Universities Council on Water Resources and the NationalInstitutes for Water Resources invite you to the dynamic andgrowing Rocky Mountain city of Boise, Idaho to participate in anexchange of research, education, policy analysis, and managementexperience in understanding, preparing for, and mitigating theconsequences of water resources hazards.PRESENTATION SPONSOR TOPICS LOGOS Floods Droughts Climate Change Terrorism Tsunamis and Earthquakes Water-Borne Diseases Contamination Hazards Katrina Pyroclastic Flows and Landslides Hazards from Water Management Risk and Hazard Management Risk Analysis Innovations in Flood Management Hazards of Inaction Political HazardsCONFERENCECO-SPONSORSREGISTRATION AND HOTEL INFORMATIONBy June 25 After June 25Full Registration FeesMember/Speaker $400 $500Non-Member $500 $600Full-Time Student $50 $50Single Day RegistrationMember/Speaker $200 $250Non-Member $250 $300BOISE, IDAHOBoise is a delightful blend of traditional andnon-traditional sights and attractions. The Cityof Trees boasts one-of-a-kind museums andurban parks, a river flowing through the heartof the city and a 25-mile river front greenbelt.Southwest Idaho’s easily accessible outdoorsbeckons the Boise visitor to enjoy nearbymountains, desert sand dunes, canyons andwhitewater rafting rivers. Its pleasant summerclimate, recreational and cultural activities,and convenient airport combine to make Boisean exceptionally attractive conference site forattendees and their families.CONFERENCE HOTELThe Grove Hotel, is Boise’s only Four-Diamond rated hotel. It is the ideal blend ofbusiness, recreation and elegance with a largeconference area, beautifully appointed guestrooms and suites, condos, and restaurants andlounges. Its downtown location is perfect forenjoying other Boise attractions.On-Line Conference Registration Will Open February 2, 2007Visit http://www.water.montana.edu/ucowr/ to register or visithttp://ucowr.siu.edu for more information.Conference Hotel InformationThe Grove Hotel - 1-888-961-5000Room Rates - $105 single + tax $115 double + tax

Integrated Water Resources Management:New Governance, Tools, and ChallengesIssue EditorBruce HooperContentsNew Governance, Tools and Challenges: Towards Best PracticeBruce Hooper............................................................................................................................................................................................................1Integrated Water Resources Management: Definitions and Conceptual MusingsHal Cardwell, Richard Cole, Lauren Cartwright, and Lynn Martin........................................................................................................................8Integrated Water Resources Management in The Netherlands: How Concepts FunctionErik Mostert............................................................................................................................................................................................................19Exploring the Government, Society, and Science Interfaces in Integrated Water Resources Management in South AfricaPeter Ashton, Anthony Turton, and Dirk Rous.......................................................................................................................................................28Trajectories in Australian Water PolicyKaren Hussey and Sthephen Dovers.......................................................................................................................................................................36IWRM in Practice: Lessons from Canadian ExperienceBruce Mitchell.........................................................................................................................................................................................................51Organizational Dynamics of Watershed Partnerships: A Key to Integrated Water Resources ManagementKen Genskow and Stephen Born.............................................................................................................................................................................56Implementing the Water Framework Directive: How to Define a “Competent Authority”Colin Green and Amalia Fernández........................................................................................................................................................................65A Comparison of IWRM Frameworks: The United States and South AfricaJeff Ballweber.........................................................................................................................................................................................................74Water Governance at the European UnionAna Barreira...........................................................................................................................................................................................................80Integrated Water Resources Management in New Zealand: Legislative Framework and ImplementationMatthew Davis and John Threfall..........................................................................................................................................................................86Values and Finances: Making IWRM WorkFrank van Steenbergen and Ben Lamoree............................................................................................................................................................100Integrated Water Resources Management Curriculum in the United States: Results of a Recent SurveyPaul Bourget...........................................................................................................................................................................................................107Issues for CEOs of Water Utilities with the Implementation of Australian Water LawsJennifer McKay.....................................................................................................................................................................................................1152007 UCOWR Annual ConferenceHazards in Water ResourcesJuly 24-26, 2007Boise, IdahoThe Grove HotelUniversities Council on Water Resources1000 Faner Drive, Room 4543Southern Illinois UniversityCarbondale, IL 62901-4526