Indigenous communities, groundwater opportunities

Womble, Philip; Perrone, Debra; Jasechko, Scott; Nelson, Rebecca; Szeptycki, Leon F.; Anderson, Robert; Gorelick, Steven M.

doi:10.1126/science.aat6041

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, deeper wells are not immune to surface‐borne contaminants (Jasechko, Perrone, et al, ; Michael & Khan, ). Compiled American well construction records show that most drinking water wells are shallower than 200 m (data sets presented by Perrone & Jasechko, ; Jasechko & Perrone, ; Womble et al, ). As modern groundwater is most prevalent within ~200 m of the land surface, this work implies that many if not most American wells pump some modern groundwater, which is disproportionately vulnerable to surface‐borne pollutants.…”

Section: Modern Groundwatermentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Isotope Hydrogeology―Review

Jasechko

2019

Reviews of Geophysics

Self Cite

233

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Groundwater 18O/16O, 2H/1H, 13C/12C, 3H, and 14C data can help quantify molecular movements and chemical reactions governing groundwater recharge, quality, storage, flow, and discharge. Here, commonly applied approaches to isotopic data analysis are reviewed, involving groundwater recharge seasonality, recharge elevations, groundwater ages, paleoclimate conditions, and groundwater discharge. Reviewed works confirm and quantify long held tenets: (i) that recharge derives disproportionately from wet season and winter precipitation; (ii) that modern groundwaters comprise little global groundwater; (iii) that “fossil” (>12,000‐year‐old) groundwaters dominate global aquifer storage; (iv) that fossil groundwaters capture late‐Pleistocene climate conditions; (v) that surface‐borne contaminants are more common in younger groundwaters; and (vi) that groundwater discharges generate substantial streamflow. Groundwater isotope data are disproportionately common to midlatitudes and sedimentary basins equipped for irrigated agriculture, but less plentiful across high latitudes, hyperarid deserts, and equatorial rainforests. Some of these underexplored aquifer systems may be suitable targets for future field testing.

show abstract

Section: Modern Groundwatermentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Isotope Hydrogeology―Review

Jasechko

2019

Reviews of Geophysics

Self Cite

233

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The U.S. National Research Council (1992) has recognized the importance of balancing these competing interests, noting that "[t]he challenge for water regulators and providers is to devise processes that encourage transfers with real benefits and restrain or condition those that impose high costs on legitimate third party interests." However, prior appropriation water law, the dominant legal regime for water allocation across the 17 western U.S. states, does not apply a balancing test of social benefits versus social costs for water transfers (Gould, 1988;Thompson et al, 2012;Trout et al, 2011;Womble et al, 2018). Instead, prior appropriation applies a no-injury rule that requires water transfers to avoid causing any alteration to the timing, location, or amount of water used by third-party water rights holders, whether now or in the future (Banks & Nichols, 2015;Thompson et al, 2012;Trout et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introduction: Third-party Effects and Uncertain Property Rig...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Legal Change and Water Market Transaction Costs in Colorado

Womble

Hanemann

2020

Water Resources Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water markets are commonly described as failing to achieve efficient water management because of transaction cost barriers to trade. In the western United States, two sources of legal conflict frequently drive transaction costs: (1) negative externalities of trading and (2) uncertain property rights. Conflicts arise because water law applies a no-injury rule that prevents water transfers from modifying water available to third-party water rights and defines water rights by historical water use, among other reasons. Existing literature suggests many legal changes to reduce transaction costs, but no studies in the western United States quantify transaction costs under proposed future changes. Here we developed statistical models of transaction costs for water transfer proponents under four specific legal changes in the state of Colorado. Two legal changes would modify the no-injury rule, and two aim to clarify property rights. Colorado hosts active markets and has recently experienced debate over such legal changes. By surveying 100 legal and hydrologic experts, we elicited transaction cost estimates and rankings of which legal changes were most likely to increase third-party injury. The legal changes that aim to clarify property rights had significantly lower likelihoods of increasing injury. One of these legal changes, which would not limit transferable water to historical use in certain circumstances, also had the greatest reductions in proponents' transaction costs. Meanwhile, the legal changes that directly modify the no-injury rule project substantial transaction cost savings but much higher likelihoods of increased injury. The results demonstrate trade-offs between reducing transaction costs and increasing third-party effects.

show abstract

“…Both the substantive law that defines water rights and the legal procedures for administering and transferring them affect the robustness of a water market. Colorado, like all 17 western U.S. states, applies the prior appropriation doctrine for water rights (Thompson et al, 2012;Trout et al, 2011;Womble et al, 2018). Prior appropriation first emerged in California, with the California Supreme Court acknowledging it in 1853, and in 1866, Nevada's Supreme Court applied prior appropriation principles (MacDonnell, 2015).…”

Section: Introduction: Markets and Courts As Water Allocation Mechani...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Water Markets, Water Courts, and Transaction Costs in Colorado

Womble

Hanemann

2020

Water Resources Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water markets increasingly facilitate adaptation to water scarcity, but transaction costs can be barriers to expanded water marketing, particularly under water rights law in the western United States. However, transaction costs are rarely measured, and existing research commonly overlooks how transaction costs differ across individual water transfers and uncertainty in those costs. We collected hundreds of estimates of procedural transaction costs-costs incurred by transfer proponents for legal and hydrologic experts-by surveying 100 water professionals in the state of Colorado. There, water markets are among the most active in the United States, convey perhaps the most clearly defined private property rights of any state, and, unique to Colorado, require approval from specialized water courts. We elicited costs for water transfers with differing physical and legal characteristics, and we elicited separate assessments of (i) probabilities of legal outcomes for water transfers and (ii) transaction costs conditional on those outcomes. Then, we estimated expected transaction costs with a statistical model that combines (i) with (ii). The model reveals systematic differences in transaction costs, with scale economies and higher transaction costs for water-scarce regions, senior water rights, and higher-conflict legal outcomes. It also shows substantial transaction cost uncertainty, which itself can discourage trading. Our novel survey and estimation procedure develops a replicable approach for measuring transaction cost heterogeneity and uncertainty. Additionally, qualitative survey data we collected indicate transaction costs have increased over time due to growing competition for scarce water and that, despite high transaction costs, specialized water courts offer unique benefits. Key Points:• Water market transaction costs are uncertain, and this uncertainty depends upon legal procedures for water rights transfers • Transaction costs are higher in water-scarce regions, for higher-conflict transfers, and for senior water rights, and show scale economies • Transaction costs have grown over time due to increased competition for scarce water and more complex water rights operations Supporting Information:• Supporting Information S1

show abstract

Indigenous communities, groundwater opportunities

Abstract: A U.S. court decision unlocks vast potential to improve sustainable freshwater management

Cited by 15 publications

References 4 publications

Global Isotope Hydrogeology―Review

Global Isotope Hydrogeology―Review

Legal Change and Water Market Transaction Costs in Colorado

Water Markets, Water Courts, and Transaction Costs in Colorado

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About