Designing collaborative governance: Insights from the drought contingency planning process for the lower Colorado River basin
Introduction
The Colorado River in the western United States and northern Mexico is one of the most heavily regulated transboundary rivers in the world (Hundley, 2009). It has been over-allocated since 1922 when allocations among the seven US basin states were unintentionally formulated using overestimates of the total water volume (Castle et al., 2014). The basin has experienced several prolonged droughts in the past and has been in an extended drought since 2000 (Udall and Overpeck, 2017; US Department of the Interior, 2018). Further, projected temperature increases from climate change raises the probability of persistent multi-decadal “megadroughts” (Ault et al., 2016; Cook et al., 2015; Vano et al., 2013). More than one in ten Americans, including major metropolitan areas such as Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and Phoenix, rely on the Colorado River for municipal water (US Bureau of Reclamation, 2012). The current drought has tested the ability of existing use and conservation policies to meet the diverse needs of Native American Tribes, the environment, agriculture, municipalities, and industry.
Lake Mead is a critical reservoir on the Colorado River, supplying the lower basin with its allocation. The top of the reservoir, or the high-water line, is at approximately 1229 feet in elevation. This elevation refers to flood control and the reservoir is considered operationally full at 1219.6 feet in elevation. In early August 2018, Lake Mead’s water elevation hovered around 1077 feet, substantially below operational capacity. Over the past five years, declining water levels in Lake Mead have propelled stakeholders in the upper (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming) and lower (Arizona, California, Nevada) basin states to recognize the urgent need to adapt current policies, but collaboration across and within the basin states to address these issues has been halting. This article presents an analysis of an ongoing process to develop a lower basin policy to minimize the impacts of drought and avoid shortages within the entire basin.
Combining insights from institutional, adaptive governance, and bargaining theories, we address the following question: What are the barriers to collaborative governance identified in Central Arizona Project board meetings about the drought contingency planning process, and what opportunities do they reveal for strengthening collaborative governance efforts via improved practice and theory? The results provide insights for designing future collaborative water governance efforts in similar systems tackling social and environmental change and indicate areas to strengthen theory.
In 2007, under increasing concerns about water levels in Lake Mead and the basin, the seven basin states and the US Bureau of Reclamation finalized a policy detailing actions that would be taken in the event of shortage. This policy, the 2007 Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lakes Powell and Mead (referred to as the 2007 guidelines), defined a tier 1 shortage on Lake Mead as water level equal to (or below) elevation 1075 feet at the start of the water year (October 1) (US Bureau of Reclamation, 2007a). Shortages are determined through a 24-month ahead lead time study produced by the Bureau of Reclamation. In the event shortage is declared, the 2007 guidelines include water reductions to Arizona and Nevada; notably California did not participate in reductions in recognition of their senior priority to Colorado River water. The 2007 guidelines are in effect through 2026 and require reconsultation (updating) by December 2020 (US Bureau of Reclamation, 2007b).
The 2007 guidelines provide that if shortage is declared on Lake Mead, the Secretary of the Interior reserves the legal authority to act as necessary, reflecting the Secretary’s authority as lower basin "water master" responsible for distributing all Colorado River water below Hoover Dam as designated by the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928. The broad provision in the 2007 guidelines that the Secretary “…shall evaluate and take additional necessary actions, as appropriate, at critical elevations in order to avoid Lower Basin shortage determinations as reservoir conditions approach critical thresholds…” introduces substantial uncertainty to potential consequences, including large-scale, involuntary water reductions (US Bureau of Reclamation, 2007b, p. 49US Bureau of Reclamation, 2007bUS Bureau of Reclamation, 2007b, p. 49). In 2016, Lake Mead’s water level declined to elevation 1071 feet, and shortage declarations in October were narrowly avoided. Given the uncertainty related to federal intervention in an official shortage declaration, out of self-interest stakeholders initiated planning for a consensus shortage policy known as the drought contingency plan (DCP).
The DCP was initially conceived as a bridge between the enacted 2007 guidelines and the required reconsultation of those guidelines in 2020. The original goal was to negotiate voluntary water use reductions and conservation mechanisms (that would become mandatory after an agreement was finalized) at multiple scales across the basin states to avoid a shortage declaration on Lake Mead. The lower and upper basin states began separate DCP processes,
with the intention of consulting each other. Our analysis focuses on the lower basin DCP process, from Arizona’s perspective. Although the US and Mexico have been involved in numerous bilateral collaborations, including the recently-finalized and implemented Minute 323 which includes drought planning (IBWC, 2017), the initial DCP is a unilateral process that stakeholders have stated is a priority to complete prior to initiating additional international agreements.
At the time of this writing, the lower basin DCP process is ongoing and an agreement has yet to be reached among the so-called “principals,” stakeholders representing different interests (including the states and the Bureau of Reclamation). The stakeholders set a deadline of August 2018 to finalize the lower basin DCP (which has been pushed to January 2019). If an agreement is not reached, they have largely agreed to use elements from the ongoing DCP process to initiate the reconsultation of the 2007 guidelines. In August 2018, the Bureau of Reclamation declared there would be no official shortage for 2019 but projected over 50 percent probability of tier 1 or greater shortage 2020–2026, solidifying the importance of stakeholders continuing to work on a collaborative drought policy.
Section snippets
Successful collaborative water governance
We define collaborative governance as efforts to shape public policy or governance outcomes spanning multiple stakeholder groups, including local, state, and federal government, industry and agricultural representatives, non-profit and community-based organizations, and the public (Emerson et al., 2012; Hooper, 2005). Scholars have argued that collaborative, cross-scale governance is necessary for sustainable management of the Colorado River and other transboundary water systems (MacDonald, 2010
Overview of the central Arizona project
Most historical conflicts related to water allocation in the Colorado River basin have been connected to lower basin states (e.g., Cortinas et al., 2016; Patashnik, 2014). Considering such conflicts and the greater demand for Colorado River water in the lower basin (Rajagopalan et al., 2009), the lower basin DCP process is arguably more complex than efforts in the upper basin. We focus on the lower basin DCP process primarily from the perspective of a key stakeholder, the governing board of the
Methods
Throughout 2015 to mid-2018, the majority of the DCP planning process was not publicly accessible. The public portions of the monthly CAWCD meetings are the most comprehensive, regular, publicly accessible source of information from a principal stakeholder involved in the lower basin DCP process. The statements made by board members and other participants during the public meetings are part of the public domain and subject to Arizona’s open meeting law, and as such there is no expectation of
Emerging barriers and bridges to collaborative governance in the DCP process
We identified multiple elements central to successful collaborative governance, including efforts to work across scales, institutional flexibility, and perception of harm with inaction, in the early DCP planning phase. A window of opportunity opened in mid-2015 as Lake Mead declined to 1074.71 feet, and in 2016 stakeholders worked on the DCP with a sense of urgency. However, the window closed as new and ongoing conservation efforts contributed to Lake Mead’s gradual increase. We found that
Insights for designing collaborative governance
At the time of writing, the lower basin DCP process has yet to achieve its goals, but our analysis reveals that there are multiple opportunities to integrate elements known to foster successful collaborative governance into current planning. Our recommendations include monitor and exploit windows of opportunity, build trust specifically via more inclusive and representative policy processes, address power dynamics among the stakeholders, address short-term thinking specifically among Arizona
Conclusion
Integrating concepts from institutional, adaptive governance, and bargaining theories, we analyzed the DCP process for the lower Colorado River basin from an Arizona stakeholder’s perspective. We suggest a collective solution may still be possible, but that numerous barriers to collaborative governance have hindered the process. Although the stakeholders have yet to achieve their original goal to implement a DCP for the lower basin, the process offers important learning opportunities for
Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. SES-1462086, DMUU: DCDC III: Transformational Solutions for Urban Water Sustainability Transitions in the Colorado River Basin and the Environmental Resilience Institute, funded by Indiana University’s Prepared for Environmental Change grand challenge initiative. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendation expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
References (98)
- et al.
A framework for analysing transboundary water governance complexes, illustrated in the Mekong Region
J. Hydrol.
(2012) Surprising cooperation despite apparently irreconcilable differences: agricultural water use efficiency and CALFED
Environ. Sci. Policy
(2009)- et al.
Adaptive governance of riverine and wetland ecosystem goods and services
J. Environ. Manage.
(2016) - et al.
Collaborative governance and adaptive management: lessons from California’s CALFED water program
Environ. Sci. Policy
(2009) - et al.
Advancing adaptive governance of social- ecological systems through theoretical multiplicity
Environ. Sci. Policy
(2016) - et al.
Collaborative networks and new ways of knowing
Environ. Sci. Policy
(2009) - et al.
Perceptions and responses to climate policy risks among California farmers
Glob. Environ. Change
(2013) Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change
Glob. Environ. Change
(2010)- et al.
From applying panaceas to mastering complexity: toward adaptive water governance in river basins
Environ. Sci. Policy
(2012) - et al.
22 reasons why collaborations fail: lessons from water innovation research
Environ. Sci. Policy
(2018)
Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management
J. Environ. Manage.
Generalizing the core design principles for the efficacy of groups
J. Econ. Behav. Organ.
Re-envisioning community-wildfire relations in the US West as adaptive governance
Ecol. Soc.
Toward the adaptive governance of transboundary water resources
Conserv. Lett.
A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective
Ecol. Soc.
Collaborative governance in theory and practice
J. Publ. Adm. Res. Theory
Governance and the commons in a multi-level world
Int. J. Commons
Relative impacts of mitigation, temperature, and precipitation on 21st-century megadrought risk in the American Southwest
Sci. Adv.
Cross-scale institutional linkages: perspectives from the bottom up
The Drama of the Commons
Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic approaches
Common Waters, Diverging Streams: Linking Institutions and Water Management in Arizona, California, and Colorado
Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems
Science
Incorporating interdisciplinary assessment to enhance collaborative resource governance: the case of the Upper Colorado River endangered fish recovery program
Case Stud. Environ.
Anticipatory governance for social-ecological resilience
Ambio
The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: propositions from the literature
Publ. Adm. Rev.
Arizona Water Director: I Won’t Support CAP Board’s Plan
Potential Costs and Benefits to Arizona agriculture of the Central Arizona project
Negotiating on water: insights from non-cooperative bargaining theory
Environ. Dev. Econ.
Groundwater depletion during drought threatens future water security of the Colorado River Basin
Geophys. Res. Lett.
Beyond mandatory fishways: federal hydropower relicensing as a window of opportunity for dam removal and adaptive governance of riverine landscapes in the United States
Water Altern.
A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions
Ecol. Soc.
Navigating a murky adaptive comanagement governance network: Agua Fria Watershed, Arizona, USA
Ecol. Soc.
Analysing decentralised natural resource governance: proposition for a “politicised” institutional analysis and development framework
Policy Sci.
“The biggest water fight in American history”: Stewart Udall and the central Arizona project
J. Southwest
A history of the Arizona groundwater management act
Ariz. State Law J.
Unprecedented 21st century drought risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains
Sci. Adv.
Indian water rights: how Arizona v. California left an unwanted cloud over the Colorado River Basin
Ariz. J. Environ. Law Policy
Water for a new America: the policy coalitions of the Central Arizona project (Part 1)
Water Bankruptcy in the Land of Plenty
Resilience and water governance: adaptive governance in the Columbia River Basin
Ecol. Soc.
Identifying legal, ecological and governance obstacles, and opportunities for adapting to climate change
Sustainability
Introduction to the special feature practicing panarchy: assessing legal flexibility, ecological resilience, and adaptive governance in regional water systems experiencing rapid environmental change
Ecol. Soc.
Modeling for scoping, research, and management
Institutions, Ecosystems, and Sustainability
A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management
Ecol. Soc.
The link between polycentrism and adaptive capacity in River Basin governance systems: insights from the River Rhine and the Zhujiang (Pearl River) basin
Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.
Theory and research to study the legal and institutional foundations of adaptive governance
Practical Panarchy for Adaptive Water Governance
The struggle to govern the commons
Science
An integrative framework for collaborative governance
J. Publ. Adm. Res. Theory
Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development
Int. J. Qual. Methods
Cited by (61)
Integrating multiculturalism in public space policy and place governance
2024, Urban GovernanceThe application of collaborative governance in local level climate and disaster resilient development – A global review
2024, Environmental Science and PolicyWhat do frontline communities want to know about lithium extraction? Identifying research areas to support environmental justice in Lithium Valley, California
2023, Energy Research and Social ScienceAssisted network governance: An inclusive innovation to mitigate extreme water scarcity
2022, Global Environmental ChangeLeveraging shadow networks for procedural justice
2022, Current Opinion in Environmental SustainabilityChallenges in the management of urban natural protected area systems and the conservation of ecosystem services in Guadalajara and Monterrey, Mexico
2022, Land Use PolicyCitation Excerpt :Other authors suggest that it is essential to consider green spaces as a part of urban infrastructure rather than as simply a measure of beautification or conservation; thus, the formation of interconnected green areas or NPA networks can simultaneously contribute to the generation of recreational spaces and the production of essential ecosystem services for cities (Peijun and Deyong, 2014; Haaland et al., 2015). Governance models at different scales must facilitate the participation of a plurality of actors in decision making, including local authorities, real estate developers, and, in particular, local communities and non-governmental organizations, which are all interested in achieving the conservation of these natural spaces (Ernstson et al., 2010; James et al., 2009 cited in Niemelä, 2014; Foo, 2018; Sullivan et al., 2019). The metropolitan and landscape perspective is especially relevant in theoretical terms while environmental governance is key to designing and implementing the innovative management and institutional development mechanisms that take the administration of NPAs as a fundamental part of the urban infrastructure and vice versa.