Unraveling intractable water conflicts: the entanglement of science and politics in decision-making on large hydraulic infrastructure

Abstract

Abstract. The development of large infrastructure to address the water challenges of cities around the world can be a financial and social burden for many cities because of the hidden costs these works entail and social conflicts they often trigger. When conflicts erupt, science is often expected to play a key role in informing policymakers and social actors to clarify controversies surrounding policy responses to water scarcity. However, managing conflicts is a sociopolitical process, and often quantitative models are used as an attempt to depoliticize such processes, conveying the idea that optimal solutions can be objectively identified despite the many perspectives and interests at play. This raises the question as to whether science depoliticizes water conflicts or whether instead conflicts politicize science–policy processes. We use the Zapotillo dam and water transfer project in Mexico to analyze the role of science–policy processes in water conflicts. The Zapotillo project aims at augmenting urban water supply to Guadalajara and León, two large cities in western Mexico, but a social and legal conflict has stalled the project until today. To analyze the conflict and how stakeholders make sense of it, we interviewed the most relevant actors and studied the negotiations between different interest groups through participant observation. To examine the role of science–policy processes in the conflict, we mobilized concepts of epistemic uncertainty and ambiguity and analyzed the design and use of water resources models produced by key actors aiming to resolve the conflict. While the use of models is a proven method to construct future scenarios and test different strategies, the parameterization of scenarios and their results are influenced by the knowledge and/or interests of actors behind the model. We found that in the Zapotillo case, scenarios reflected the interests and strategies of actors on one side of the conflict, resulting in increased distrust of the opposing actors. We conclude that the dilemma of achieving urban water security through investing in either large infrastructure (supply augmentation) or alternative strategies (demand-side management) cannot be resolved if some key interested parties have not been involved in the scientific processes framing the problem and solution space.

The limits to large-scale supply augmentation: exploring the crossroads of conflicting urban water system development pathways

“…Regarding the dynamics that determine the decision space of urban water systems, our experience from the participatory modelling process showed the importance of open science, not only to replicate results (Godinez Madrigal et al, 2020), but also to repurpose the design of a water resources model that was initially used to justify the Zapotillo project by expanding its system boundaries. By adding the Guadalajara and León water systems to the model, alternative water supply strategies could be tested, allowing participants to explore different strategies based on contrasting narratives.…”

“…With habitual news headlines of cities reaching tipping points and "day zeros" in urban water systems (Maxmen, 2018), academic articles and reports calculating in the future billions of people without access to water (Vörösmarty et al, 2010;Schlosser et al, 2014;Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2016;WWAP, 2019), and the incorporation of water in the investments of commodities of futures due to the growing fears for its scarcity (Bloomberg, 2020), water managers keep implementing a limited number of tried and tested strategies based on large infrastructure that no longer respond to emerging drivers of change (Leach et al, 2010;Larsen et al, 2016). In contrast, water managers underestimate the potential of alternatives and trivialize negative social and environmental effects of large infrastructure (Global Water Partnership, 2012;Godinez Madrigal et al, 2020). This phenomenon is relevant because this decision-making pattern often triggers unintended consequences in urban water systems such as contributing to a more pronounced water scarcity in the future (Gohari et al, 2013;Kuil et al, 2016;Li et al, 2019).…”

“…However, affected communities have initiated grassroots movements and shown a strong opposition against the implementation of these projects. In some cases, these movements have been effective in delaying or even cancelling these projects (Ahlers et al, 2017;Godinez-Madrigal et al, 2020).…”

Beyond TRL – Understanding institutional readiness for implementation of nature-based solutions

“…Implementation studies in the field of (potentially nature-based) water management by e.g. (Godinez-Madrigal et al, 2020;Van Cauwenbergh et al, 2018) confirm that context is important, that implementation is process-driven and that the ability to handle different natures of uncertainty is key.…”

Power and Empowerment in Transdisciplinary Research: A Negotiated Approach for Peri-Urban Groundwater Problems in the Ganges Delta

“…CC BY 4.0 License. making them inherently subjective and suited for some problem framings but not others (Godinez-Madrigal et al, 2020).…”