Equitable allocation of ground water resources is a growing challenge due to both the increasing demand for water and the competing values placed on its use. While scientists can contribute to a technically defensible basis for water resource planning, this framework must be cast in a broader societal and environmental context. Given the complexity and often contentious nature of resource allocation, success requires a process for inclusive and transparent sharing of ideas complemented by tools to structure, quantify, and visualize the collective understanding and data, providing an informed basis of dialogue, exploration, and decision making. Ideally, a process that promotes shared learning leading to cooperative and adaptive planning decisions. While variously named, mediated modeling, group modeling, cooperative modeling, shared vision planning, or computer-mediated collaborative decision making are similar approaches aimed at meeting these objectives. In this paper, we frame "cooperative modeling" in the context of ground water planning and illustrate the process with two brief examples.

Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture (DWPA) and its governance has received increased attention as a policy concern across the globe. Mitigation of DWPA is a complex problem that requires a mix of policy instruments and a multi-agency, broad societal response. In this paper, opportunities and barriers for developing co-governance, defined as collaborative societal involvement in the functions of government, and its suitability for mitigation of DWPA are reviewed using seven case studies in Europe (Poland, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands and UK), Australia (Murray-Darling Basin) and North America (State of Minnesota). An analytical framework for assessing opportunities and barriers of co-governance was developed and applied in this review. Results indicated that five key issues constitute both opportunities and barriers, and include: (i) pressure for change; (ii) connected governance structures and allocation of resources and funding; (iii) leadership and establishment of partnerships through capacity building; (iv) use and co-production of knowledge; and (v) time commitment to develop water co-governance.

No abstract