Diverse stakeholders create collaborative, multilevel basin governance for groundwater sustainability

Abstract

roundwater is a critical resource for California's agricultural sector, accounting for almost 40% of agricultural water use, and far more in drought years (DWR 2015). Many groundwater basins, particularly in the Central Valley, have experienced significant declines in groundwater levels over the past several decades, and the recent drought heightened concerns over these declines and associated impacts. In 2014, the California Legislature passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), introducing for the first time a requirement that local agencies manage groundwater sustainably or face state intervention. SGMA grants broad authority for groundwater management to locally formed groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs). Local agencies were given until

Evaluating California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: The First Five Years of Governance and Planning

“…The second most‐frequently identified obstacle, for which 51% of respondents agree is “stakeholders had too many diverse interests.” This represents a barrier to collective action among agencies (Conrad et al. 2018), and thus an issue of horizontal governance. A related type of obstacle is “stakeholders were not willing to make major concessions” for which 42% of the respondents somewhat agree, agree, or strongly agree.…”

“…The most frequently identified obstacles during GSA formation include both the top‐down state mandates that Milman and Kiparsky (2020) refer to as challenges of “vertical governance,” as well as the collective action and information exchange challenges of “horizontal and network governance.” In the latter categories, we found that lack of trust among stakeholders, conflicting interests among stakeholders (Conrad et al. 2018), and reluctance among stakeholders to make concessions were some of the most frequently cited obstacles to GSA formation. A slightly lower incidence of obstacles was found for other horizontal and network issues identified by SGMA scholars, including lack of prior experience working together successfully (Méndez‐Barrientos et al.…”

The carrot or the stick? Drivers of California farmer support for varying groundwater management policies

“…As GSAs were formed by June 30, 2017, efforts now turn towards development of GSPs across California (Conrad et al 2018). In doing so, GSAs must carefully consider their own local hydrological, geographic, climatic and social context.…”

Sustainable Groundwater Management in California: A Grand Experiment in Environmental Governance

“…Based on a slightly different count of 85 multi-agency GSAs, M endez-Barrientos, Bostic, and Lubell (2019) report that 3 were formed by a special act of the legislature, 44 were formed by JPA, and 38 by MOA/MOU. Perhaps more importantly from the perspective of basin-level management, Conrad et al (2018) calculated that 56% of SGMA basins had multiple GSAs, with some basins having as many as 22 agencies. While the tendency to form single-agency GSAs reflects a desire by eligible public agencies to preserve their autonomy in the face of new state authority or a lack of trust in neighboring agencies, the resulting institutional fragmentation necessitates substantial inter-agency coordination to complete and implement GSPs (DuPraw et al 2017).…”