Residential water demand is a function of several factors, some of which are within the control of water utilities (e.g., price, water restrictions, rebate programs) and some of which are not (e.g., climate and weather, demographic characteristics). In this study of Aurora, Colorado, factors influencing residential water demand are reviewed during a turbulent drought period (2000‐2005). Findings expand the understanding of residential demand in at least three salient ways: first, by documenting that pricing and outdoor water restriction policies interact with each other ensuring that total water savings are not additive of each program operating independently; second, by showing that the effectiveness of pricing and restrictions policies varies among different classes of customers (i.e., low, middle, and high volume water users) and between predrought and drought periods; and third, in demonstrating that real‐time information about consumptive use (via the Water Smart Reader) helps customers reach water‐use targets.

Drought conditions in the summer of 2002 prompted several cities along Colorado's Front Range to enact restrictions on outdoor water use, focusing primarily on limiting the frequency of lawn watering. The different approaches utilized by eight water providers were tracked to determine the level of water savings achieved, measured as a comparison of 2002 usage to 2000 to 2001 average usage, and also based on a statistical estimate of 2002 “expected use” that accounts for the impact of drought conditions on demand. Mandatory restrictions were shown to be an effective tool for drought coping. During periods of mandatory restrictions, savings measured in expected use per capita ranged from 18 to 56 percent, compared to just 4 to 12 percent savings during periods of voluntary restrictions. As anticipated, providers with the most stringent restrictions achieved the greatest savings.

No abstract

The 1990s have featured a rapid proliferation of “watershed initiatives” in the western United States and elsewhere. Watershed initiatives are ad hoc, voluntary associations typically featuring both governmental and non‐governmental actors organized together to collaboratively seek new strategies for addressing water and related natural resource problems at physically relevant regional scales. These efforts are a response to historical and sociopolitical trends that have resulted in increasingly ineffective forums and processes of resource management decision‐making, and that have subordinated the role of local stakeholders in problem‐solving efforts. In most cases, watershed initiatives appear to provide a pragmatic vehicle for resource managers and stakeholders to address common concerns in a more efficient manner than is otherwise possible, and as such, deserve further application and continued support.

This paper presents a summary of the findings and recommendations of the studies of severe, sustained drought reported in this special issue. The management facilities and institutions were found to be effective in protecting consumptive water users against drought, but much less effective in protecting nonconsumptive uses. Changes in intrastate water management were found to be effective in reducing the monetary value of damages, through reallocating shortages to low-valued uses, while only water banking and water marketing, among the possible interstate rule changes, were similarly effective. Players representing the basin states and the federal government in three gaming experiments were unable to agree upon and effect major changes in operating rules. The conclusions are (1) that nonconsumptive water uses are highly vulnerable to drought, (2) that consumptive uses are wellprotected, (3) that drought risk is greatest in the Upper Basin, (4) that the Lower Basin suffers from chronic water shortage but bears little drought risk, (5) that opportunities exist for win-win rule changes, (6) that such rule changes are extremely difficult to make, and (7) that intrastate drought management is very effective in reducing potential damages. (KEY TERMS: drought; water policy; water institutions; Colorado River; systems analysis.)