Loading…

Comparative analysis of institutions to govern the groundwater commons in California

The management of groundwater, a common-pool resource, is a fundamental collective action problem that can lead to over-exploitation. Our paper examines the management of two groundwater basins in California’s Central Coast region whose geographic proximity, land use patterns, socioeconomic characte...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Water alternatives 2018-10, Vol.11 (3), p.481-510
Main Author: Ruth Langridge and Christopher Ansell
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 510
container_issue 3
container_start_page 481
container_title Water alternatives
container_volume 11
creator Ruth Langridge and Christopher Ansell
description The management of groundwater, a common-pool resource, is a fundamental collective action problem that can lead to over-exploitation. Our paper examines the management of two groundwater basins in California’s Central Coast region whose geographic proximity, land use patterns, socioeconomic characteristics, and timing of institutional formation provide an ideal basis for comparative study. However, each basin is governed by a distinctive institutional configuration. The Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency is a legislatively created Special Act District with a collective public management focus, while the Santa Paula Groundwater Basin is managed through a court adjudication with a rights-based focus. We compare the legal and administrative foundations of these institutional arrangements and examine their implications for the polycentric regulation of sustainable groundwater use. We find that while adjudication may specify groundwater rights, an approach that scholars argue can be critical for achieving sustainability, it also promotes insularity with a wider polycentric system and this ultimately limits its management strategies. The Special Act District, by contrast, does not encourage as clear an allocation of water rights, but does encourage a broad sustainability mission and wider polycentric engagement, though it still struggles with declining groundwater levels. Ultimately, neither institutional arrangement fully addresses the problem of groundwater sustainability. This suggests the need for further research on how institutional configurations and developmental pathways impact resource outcomes.
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_650739ff7c0b4796be0c8be155f3e0fd</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_650739ff7c0b4796be0c8be155f3e0fd</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2119922750</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-d249t-58028f5d15c1c8d081c70ee0b3f223859ada7a1ce49f78d5a843f0a4ab06fd8a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkMtqwzAURE1poWnafxB0bbiyLEtaFtNHINBNujbXeqQKtpVKckr-vmnTRVYzDIezmKtiQVXDS6CCX1_02-IupR1A0yiQi2LThnGPEbM_WIITDsfkEwmO-Clln-fsw5RIDmQbDjZOJH9aso1hnsw3ZhuJDuP4S_iJtDh4F-Lk8b64cTgk-_Cfy-Lj5XnTvpXr99dV-7QuTVWrXHIJlXTcUK6plgYk1QKshZ65qmKSKzQokGpbKyek4Shr5gBr7KFxRiJbFquz1wTcdfvoR4zHLqDv_oYQtx3G7PVgu4aDYMo5oaGvhWp6C1r2lnLumAVnTq7Hs2sfw9dsU-52YY6nQ1JXUapUVQkO7AchnGf4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2119922750</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative analysis of institutions to govern the groundwater commons in California</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><creator>Ruth Langridge and Christopher Ansell</creator><creatorcontrib>Ruth Langridge and Christopher Ansell</creatorcontrib><description>The management of groundwater, a common-pool resource, is a fundamental collective action problem that can lead to over-exploitation. Our paper examines the management of two groundwater basins in California’s Central Coast region whose geographic proximity, land use patterns, socioeconomic characteristics, and timing of institutional formation provide an ideal basis for comparative study. However, each basin is governed by a distinctive institutional configuration. The Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency is a legislatively created Special Act District with a collective public management focus, while the Santa Paula Groundwater Basin is managed through a court adjudication with a rights-based focus. We compare the legal and administrative foundations of these institutional arrangements and examine their implications for the polycentric regulation of sustainable groundwater use. We find that while adjudication may specify groundwater rights, an approach that scholars argue can be critical for achieving sustainability, it also promotes insularity with a wider polycentric system and this ultimately limits its management strategies. The Special Act District, by contrast, does not encourage as clear an allocation of water rights, but does encourage a broad sustainability mission and wider polycentric engagement, though it still struggles with declining groundwater levels. Ultimately, neither institutional arrangement fully addresses the problem of groundwater sustainability. This suggests the need for further research on how institutional configurations and developmental pathways impact resource outcomes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1965-0175</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1965-0175</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Montpellier: Water Alternatives Association</publisher><subject>adjudicated groundwater basins ; Adjudication ; Basins ; California ; Comparative analysis ; Comparative studies ; comparative study ; Configurations ; Exploitation ; facilitating conditions ; Groundwater ; Groundwater basins ; Groundwater levels ; Groundwater management ; Land use ; polycentric ; Resource management ; Socioeconomic factors ; special act groundwater districts ; Sustainability ; Sustainable use ; Water management ; Water rights</subject><ispartof>Water alternatives, 2018-10, Vol.11 (3), p.481-510</ispartof><rights>Copyright Water Alternatives Association Oct 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2119922750?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,25752,37011,44589</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ruth Langridge and Christopher Ansell</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative analysis of institutions to govern the groundwater commons in California</title><title>Water alternatives</title><description>The management of groundwater, a common-pool resource, is a fundamental collective action problem that can lead to over-exploitation. Our paper examines the management of two groundwater basins in California’s Central Coast region whose geographic proximity, land use patterns, socioeconomic characteristics, and timing of institutional formation provide an ideal basis for comparative study. However, each basin is governed by a distinctive institutional configuration. The Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency is a legislatively created Special Act District with a collective public management focus, while the Santa Paula Groundwater Basin is managed through a court adjudication with a rights-based focus. We compare the legal and administrative foundations of these institutional arrangements and examine their implications for the polycentric regulation of sustainable groundwater use. We find that while adjudication may specify groundwater rights, an approach that scholars argue can be critical for achieving sustainability, it also promotes insularity with a wider polycentric system and this ultimately limits its management strategies. The Special Act District, by contrast, does not encourage as clear an allocation of water rights, but does encourage a broad sustainability mission and wider polycentric engagement, though it still struggles with declining groundwater levels. Ultimately, neither institutional arrangement fully addresses the problem of groundwater sustainability. This suggests the need for further research on how institutional configurations and developmental pathways impact resource outcomes.</description><subject>adjudicated groundwater basins</subject><subject>Adjudication</subject><subject>Basins</subject><subject>California</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>comparative study</subject><subject>Configurations</subject><subject>Exploitation</subject><subject>facilitating conditions</subject><subject>Groundwater</subject><subject>Groundwater basins</subject><subject>Groundwater levels</subject><subject>Groundwater management</subject><subject>Land use</subject><subject>polycentric</subject><subject>Resource management</subject><subject>Socioeconomic factors</subject><subject>special act groundwater districts</subject><subject>Sustainability</subject><subject>Sustainable use</subject><subject>Water management</subject><subject>Water rights</subject><issn>1965-0175</issn><issn>1965-0175</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkMtqwzAURE1poWnafxB0bbiyLEtaFtNHINBNujbXeqQKtpVKckr-vmnTRVYzDIezmKtiQVXDS6CCX1_02-IupR1A0yiQi2LThnGPEbM_WIITDsfkEwmO-Clln-fsw5RIDmQbDjZOJH9aso1hnsw3ZhuJDuP4S_iJtDh4F-Lk8b64cTgk-_Cfy-Lj5XnTvpXr99dV-7QuTVWrXHIJlXTcUK6plgYk1QKshZ65qmKSKzQokGpbKyek4Shr5gBr7KFxRiJbFquz1wTcdfvoR4zHLqDv_oYQtx3G7PVgu4aDYMo5oaGvhWp6C1r2lnLumAVnTq7Hs2sfw9dsU-52YY6nQ1JXUapUVQkO7AchnGf4</recordid><startdate>20181001</startdate><enddate>20181001</enddate><creator>Ruth Langridge and Christopher Ansell</creator><general>Water Alternatives Association</general><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BFMQW</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20181001</creationdate><title>Comparative analysis of institutions to govern the groundwater commons in California</title><author>Ruth Langridge and Christopher Ansell</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-d249t-58028f5d15c1c8d081c70ee0b3f223859ada7a1ce49f78d5a843f0a4ab06fd8a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>adjudicated groundwater basins</topic><topic>Adjudication</topic><topic>Basins</topic><topic>California</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>comparative study</topic><topic>Configurations</topic><topic>Exploitation</topic><topic>facilitating conditions</topic><topic>Groundwater</topic><topic>Groundwater basins</topic><topic>Groundwater levels</topic><topic>Groundwater management</topic><topic>Land use</topic><topic>polycentric</topic><topic>Resource management</topic><topic>Socioeconomic factors</topic><topic>special act groundwater districts</topic><topic>Sustainability</topic><topic>Sustainable use</topic><topic>Water management</topic><topic>Water rights</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ruth Langridge and Christopher Ansell</creatorcontrib><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Continental Europe Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution &amp; Environmental Quality</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Water alternatives</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ruth Langridge and Christopher Ansell</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative analysis of institutions to govern the groundwater commons in California</atitle><jtitle>Water alternatives</jtitle><date>2018-10-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>481</spage><epage>510</epage><pages>481-510</pages><issn>1965-0175</issn><eissn>1965-0175</eissn><abstract>The management of groundwater, a common-pool resource, is a fundamental collective action problem that can lead to over-exploitation. Our paper examines the management of two groundwater basins in California’s Central Coast region whose geographic proximity, land use patterns, socioeconomic characteristics, and timing of institutional formation provide an ideal basis for comparative study. However, each basin is governed by a distinctive institutional configuration. The Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency is a legislatively created Special Act District with a collective public management focus, while the Santa Paula Groundwater Basin is managed through a court adjudication with a rights-based focus. We compare the legal and administrative foundations of these institutional arrangements and examine their implications for the polycentric regulation of sustainable groundwater use. We find that while adjudication may specify groundwater rights, an approach that scholars argue can be critical for achieving sustainability, it also promotes insularity with a wider polycentric system and this ultimately limits its management strategies. The Special Act District, by contrast, does not encourage as clear an allocation of water rights, but does encourage a broad sustainability mission and wider polycentric engagement, though it still struggles with declining groundwater levels. Ultimately, neither institutional arrangement fully addresses the problem of groundwater sustainability. This suggests the need for further research on how institutional configurations and developmental pathways impact resource outcomes.</abstract><cop>Montpellier</cop><pub>Water Alternatives Association</pub><tpages>30</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1965-0175
ispartof Water alternatives, 2018-10, Vol.11 (3), p.481-510
issn 1965-0175
1965-0175
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_650739ff7c0b4796be0c8be155f3e0fd
source Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)
subjects adjudicated groundwater basins
Adjudication
Basins
California
Comparative analysis
Comparative studies
comparative study
Configurations
Exploitation
facilitating conditions
Groundwater
Groundwater basins
Groundwater levels
Groundwater management
Land use
polycentric
Resource management
Socioeconomic factors
special act groundwater districts
Sustainability
Sustainable use
Water management
Water rights
title Comparative analysis of institutions to govern the groundwater commons in California
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T17%3A59%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20analysis%20of%20institutions%20to%20govern%20the%20groundwater%20commons%20in%20California&rft.jtitle=Water%20alternatives&rft.au=Ruth%20Langridge%20and%20Christopher%20Ansell&rft.date=2018-10-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=481&rft.epage=510&rft.pages=481-510&rft.issn=1965-0175&rft.eissn=1965-0175&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2119922750%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-d249t-58028f5d15c1c8d081c70ee0b3f223859ada7a1ce49f78d5a843f0a4ab06fd8a3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2119922750&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true