Reconstructing the duty of water: a study of emergent norms in socio-hydrology

Abstract

Abstract. This paper assesses the changing norms of water use known as the duty of water. It is a case study in historical socio-hydrology, or more precisely the history of socio-hydrologic ideas, a line of research that is useful for interpreting and anticipating changing social values with respect to water. The duty of water is currently defined as the amount of water reasonably required to irrigate a substantial crop with careful management and without waste on a given tract of land. The historical section of the paper traces this concept back to late 18th century analysis of steam engine efficiencies for mine dewatering in Britain. A half-century later, British irrigation engineers fundamentally altered the concept of duty to plan large-scale canal irrigation systems in northern India at an average duty of 218 acres per cubic foot per second (cfs). They justified this extensive irrigation standard (i.e., low water application rate over large areas) with a suite of social values that linked famine prevention with revenue generation and territorial control. The duty of water concept in this context articulated a form of political power, as did related irrigation engineering concepts such as "command" and "regime." Several decades later irrigation engineers in the western US adapted the duty of water concept to a different socio-hydrologic system and norms, using it to establish minimum standards for private water rights appropriation (e.g., only 40 to 80 acres per cfs). While both concepts of duty addressed socio-economic values associated with irrigation, the western US linked duty with justifications for, and limits of, water ownership. The final sections show that while the duty of water concept has been eclipsed in practice by other measures, standards, and values of water use efficiency, it has continuing relevance for examining ethical duties and for anticipating, if not predicting, emerging social values with respect to water.

An alternative approach for socio-hydrology: case study research

“…While there are some qualitative socio-hydrological studies (Jr. Wescoat, 2013;Gober and Wheater, 2014;Kandasamy et al, 2014;Liu et al, 2014), the dominant approach in socio-hydrology is to develop coupled human-water models. The number of such models is slowly increasing.…”

“…If we compare the conclusions of the Dommel case study with previous socio-hydrological case studies (Jr. Wescoat, 2013;Gober and Wheater, 2014;Kandasamy at al., 2014;Liu et al, 2014), we can note that some are largely new, especially the ones on financial arrangement and community, while for other conclusions the Dommel case study offers additional support and more or different detail. Outside of socio-hydrology none of the conclusions are completely new, yet also in this case the Dommel case study offers additional support and more or different detail.…”

Moving sociohydrology forward: a synthesis across studies

“…In at least some sociohydrologic studies, this position is likely to become untenable. Instead, sociohydrologists may need to confront questions about social norms (collectively held beliefs on how individuals should behave in a particular context), values (benefit derived by an individual from a particular good or service) and their influence on sociohydrologic research Lane, 2014;Wescoat Jr., 2013). These challenges are most pressing for researchers studying contemporary systems over constrained spatial scales.…”

Norms and values in sociohydrological models

“…Following Wescoat (2013), the sociohydrology literature has tended to define values and norms as the overarching goals of individuals and of whole societies in respect of water use, conservation, and sustainability. Prior research in SH has allowed values and norms to undergo dynamic changes.…”

“…Moving SH forward requires the black box of culture to be opened by questioning the assumptions behind, and more clearly measuring and modeling, cultural factors. For example, if values are conceptualized as overarching goals of society (Wescoat, 2013), are they individual goals or collective goals associated with the emergent structure of a coupled human-water system, or both? Similarly, how malleable are values and norms as aspects of a coupled human-water system?…”