Technical ReportPDF Available

Water in 2025: Beliefs and Values as a Means for Cooperation

Authors:
  • LK Consulting

Abstract and Figures

Issues of water policy in the West are about people and the diverse beliefs and values that they hold. The relationship among these beliefs and values and society’s ability to find policy solutions is strong, but not always evident. In an environment of resource scarcity, many in the water community have already placed themselves in positions that advocate for particular solutions. There are ongoing debates about the challenges, strategies, and their associated issues, but rarely are the underlying values examined. Instead of embracing common interests, we have tended to harden against the various positions that others hold. Recognizing the full range of beliefs and values is not just a useful starting point for tackling today’s challenges; it is a pragmatic starting point. Searching for commonalities, understanding personal assumptions, and knowing how others understand situations can foster innovative strategies. But prior to effectively determining what strategies to endorse, it is necessary to understand how the varying values and beliefs in the water community mold interpretations of the most pressing water problems. To illustrate how beliefs and values are connected to water challenges, this paper highlights the results of two Q-Method surveys given to 84 water stakeholders in Colorado. The stakeholders included people representing environmental, agriculture, recreation, and urban interests as well as water providers, elected officials, and researchers.
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Book
Full-text available
In the summer of 2007, a network analysis survey was conducted with the Colorado Basin Roundtable and over a hundred water stakeholders identified by the Colorado Basin Roundtable members. The stakeholders in the study are diverse, with many different affiliations, interests, and roles within the water community. Most respondents are involved in the HB05-1177 process, participating on one or more roundtables. They were asked questions designed to help understand how the people involved in and on the periphery of the roundtable process are connected to one another, and where and how stronger connections can be built. The analysis of the stakeholders within the Colorado Basin Roundtable and their network of contacts suggests that in this roundtable, not all interests have the same level of investment in the water roundtable process. It also suggests that the different interests are about more than just consumptive and non-consumptive or east and west.
Article
Water conflicts are intensifying as the population grows in the American West. Stakeholders seek a better understanding of households' water knowledge, preferences, and willingness to pay (WTP) as they contemplate various water allocation initiatives. An Internet survey provides insight into western households' perceptions and preferences regarding water use and management, their familiarity with water terminology, and their WTP a fee in support of eight potential water initiatives regarding water acquisition, conservation, and reallocation. Further analysis identifies factors that influence the decision. Just over half of all respondents express a WTP the fee, with an estimated median WTP among survey respondents of $15.65 per summer month. Respondents with higher self-reported water knowledge are more likely to support the fee. The probability of supporting the fee is also influenced by respondents' demographic characteristics and attitudes toward water scarcity and management.
Article
Full-text available
Current water management issues are characterized by factual uncertainty, relating to limits of scientific knowledge, and value uncertainty, relating to the policy process of making subjective choices. Developing and informing approaches for integrated water management (IWM) requires bringing facts and values together. This study examines the way value orientations differentiate themselves among IWM stakeholders and assesses implications for the scientific support and policy context of integrated approaches. Using Q-methodology, we identify five orientations that represent characteristically different ways of valuing water systems and their management by stakeholders in terms of cognitive, ethical, and affective value priorities. The findings indicate that scientific support to substantiate IWM needs to be extended to include social sciences and that preferences regarding the outcome of policy strategies may differ between stakeholders due to divergent orientations. Decision makers can benefit from the understanding of different value orientations to resolve conflicts, develop planning scenarios, and build consensus.
Book
This book is an English version of a successful text* on public policy analysis originally written for policy practitioners in Switzerland and France. It presents a model for the analysis of public policy and includes examples of its application in everyday political-administrative situations. This English version introduces supplementary illustrations and examples from the United Kingdom. Structured and written accessibly for readers who may not have an academic background in the social sciences, Public Policy Analysis applies key ideas from sociology, political science, administrative science and law to develop an analytical framework that can be used to carry out empirical studies on different public policies. British scholars, practitioners and students are introduced all too rarely to ideas from the Francophone world, and this book will contribute to remedying that. It will be particularly relevant for students and practitioners of public administration. © Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone and Michael Hill 2007.
Article
Water managers (planners, designers, operators) cannot prevent climate change or variability. Historically, water management has been a process of continuous adaptation to variation of climate and accommodations-through redundancies of engineering design-for uncertainties associated with our lack of understanding about climate. Adaptive management, which involves monitoring and learning from mistakes, has been the foundation of water-resources management since the time of Noah. The societal response to both variability and change is virtually the same-to upgrade and intensify introduction of innovative and cost-effective supply-side and demand-side management measures and to continue to create institutions that are more flexible in adapting to both social and physical changes. Policy initiatives that affect legal and institutional controls on water management are likely to play a much larger role in future adaptation to climate change than are technical and engineering responses. Engineers can design and operate systems in ways that increase robustness and resiliency and reduce vulnerability, but engineering refinements are not useful without institutional arrangements that are reconfigured to ensure that future water-resources services can be provided in a sustainable and equitable manner under a wider range of circumstances. There are two tiers of change in adaptive management: policy mandates and agency implementation. Many of the changes that will prepare society to deal better with future uncertainty related to climate are already being de-bated and implemented through changes in policy and institutional reforms that deal with an increasingly complex host of issues and that include such matters as river basin compacts; new partnerships among federal, state, and local entities; nonstructural reduction in flood damage; valuation of water as an economic and environmental commodity; and increasing requirements for environmental protection and aquatic ecosystem restoration. These strategic policy changes will influence future goals, objectives, and responses of water-management agencies. The components of water-resources management directly under the control of or influenced by water managers include adoption of improved methods of hydrologic analysis coupled with risk analysis, improvement of forecasting methods for systemwide analysis, and integrated analysis of multiple watershed needs and outcomes. Future management systems will be more robust and resilient to anticipated climate variability and change and to evolving societal demands. © 2003 by the University Press of Colorado. All rights reserved.
Article
This chapter presents an overview and synthesis of policy tools that state and federal agencies can use to assist water managers in adapting to climatically driven variability in water demand and supply. Some of these policy tools can also help address the current conflicts in water demand, supply, and valuation between traditional water uses and newer, growing uses. © 2003 by the University Press of Colorado. All rights reserved.
Article
This book is a firsthand investigation into water management in a fast-growing region of the arid American West. It presents three states that have adopted the conjunctive management of groundwater and surface water to make resources go further in serving people and the environment. Yet conjunctive management has followed a different history, been practiced differently, and produced different outcomes in each state. The authors question why different results have emerged from neighbors trying to solve similar problems with the same policy reform. Common Waters, Diverging Streams makes several important contributions to policy literature and policymaking. The first book on conjunctive water management, it describes how the policy came into existence, how it is practiced, what it does and does not accomplish, and how institutional arrangements affect its application. A second contribution is the book's clear and persuasive links between institutions and policy outcomes. Scholars often declare that institutions matter, but few articles or books provide an explicit case study of how policy linkages work in actual practice. In contrast, Blomquist, Schlager, and Heikkila show how diverging courses in conjunctive water management can be explained by state laws and regulations, legal doctrines, the organizations governing and managing water supplies, and the division of authority between state and local government. Not only do these institutional structures make conjunctive management easier or harder to achieve, but they influence the kinds of problems people try to solve and the purposes for which they attempt conjunctive management.