Newswise — The significance of having a seat at the table and having voices heard cannot be overstated when it comes to managing natural resources. While this notion may seem obvious, it lacked substantial data to support it—until now.
A group of researchers from various regions of the country meticulously examined 108 groundwater management plans in California to evaluate their effectiveness in safeguarding the interests of stakeholders, including domestic well users, farmers, and ecosystems. Their analysis revealed that the plans that incorporated input from stakeholders provided better protection against groundwater depletion. However, disappointingly, only a mere 9% of the sustainability plans included these users in a comprehensive manner.
These findings hold significant implications for resource management, not only within California but also globally. The researchers published their independent analysis in Nature Communications, a prestigious scientific journal. The study's data and findings were shared with diverse stakeholders and organizations, who utilized them to shape policy recommendations.
Co-lead author Debra Perrone, an assistant professor in UC Santa Barbara's Environmental Studies Program, emphasized the importance of discovering empirical evidence that highlights the positive correlation between stakeholder integration and improved protection. She remarked, "It's a big deal that we found empirical evidence that stakeholder integration leads to better protection. There are very few published papers that show this connection empirically."
Co-lead author Courtney Hammond Wagner, formerly a postdoctoral scholar at Stanford University and presently affiliated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, expressed surprise at the outcome. She commented, "I was pretty stunned. I thought this was going to be a different paper."
An ambitious aim
By 2014, decades of unregulated pumping in California had resulted in the depletion of wells, aquifers running dry, and significant land subsidence in various parts of the state. These challenges were further exacerbated by an unprecedented drought gripping the region. To address this pressing issue, California enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), marking the state's first comprehensive endeavor to regulate groundwater resources.
Understanding the intricate nature of the task at hand, the newly implemented legislation adopted a decentralized approach to groundwater management. Local groundwater sustainability agencies were established and entrusted with the responsibility of achieving basin equilibrium within a 20-year timeframe. This equilibrium would be accomplished by either reducing pumping or enhancing groundwater recharge. Moreover, these agencies were mandated to develop plans that effectively mitigated undesirable outcomes, such as:
- 1.Lowering groundwater levels,
- 2.Depleting groundwater storage,
- 3.Preventing seawater intrusion,
- 4.Combating land subsidence,
- 5.Preserving groundwater quality, and
- 6.Safeguarding streamflow from depletion
In the event that a local agency falls short of achieving the prescribed sustainability objectives, the State Water Resources Control Board would assume control and oversee the implementation.
Numerous groundwater sustainability plans have been formulated following the enactment of SGMA. However, due to the localized nature of the planning process, it remained uncertain how these individual efforts contributed to the overall progress. To address this concern, co-lead authors Perrone, Wagner, and Melissa Rohde collaborated with a consortium of non-governmental organizations dedicated to addressing groundwater issues in California. Working together, they assessed the degree to which the sustainability plans integrated and safeguarded the interests of various stakeholders involved.
Evaluating impact
The researchers conducted a comprehensive survey of 108 management plans, comprising an extensive volume of over 160,000 pages of text. Their objective was to develop a standardized assessment framework to evaluate the integration of stakeholders in three distinct categories: domestic users, agriculture, and ecosystems. Specifically, they investigated the level of stakeholder awareness, representation, and the extent to which their water requirements were incorporated into these plans. Crucially, the researchers examined whether stakeholder input influenced the safeguarding of wells and ecosystems in the final versions of the plans.
The degree of stakeholder protection provided by a plan hinged on the establishment of minimum thresholds within the aquifer. These thresholds represented the lowest permissible water table levels before the potential occurrence of unfavorable consequences. Consequently, the management plan only safeguarded wells that exceeded this minimum threshold, as well as the root systems of plants within ecosystems. As a precautionary measure, the researchers also assumed that any well or ecosystem situated more than 1.5 miles away from a monitoring well would not receive protection.
Groundwater users and ecosystems would only benefit from the safeguards outlined in the management plan if their wells or root systems extended below the minimum threshold established by the policy. Otherwise, their access to water could not be guaranteed.
This study represents the culmination of years of meticulous analysis. Training the eight co-authors, who meticulously scrutinized the extensive technical documents, required an entire summer. Additionally, the process of thoroughly reviewing the management plans itself spanned an additional year and a half.
"I was deeply disappointed by the lack of protection afforded to the wells and ecosystems in our state under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)," expressed Rohde, an independent environmental consultant who previously worked at The Nature Conservancy during the study. Astonishingly, a mere 9% of the 108 management plans successfully integrated all three stakeholder groups. Disturbingly, these plans failed to safeguard 60% of agricultural wells, 63% of domestic wells, and a staggering 91% of groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Furthermore, 40% of the state's wells and 87% of its groundwater-dependent ecosystems fell outside the purview of SGMA's regulated basins.
These deficiencies were particularly apparent among stakeholders with limited political and economic influence, such as small farms and disadvantaged communities, as defined by state and federal governments. Perrone observed, "Economically vulnerable groups not only faced lower levels of integration in the planning process but also received lesser protection."
However, in the few instances where stakeholders were effectively integrated into the planning process, the management policies demonstrated commendable effectiveness in safeguarding their interests. Perrone elaborated, "This suggests that by explicitly mandating stakeholder integration in our policies, we can likely achieve better outcomes for all stakeholders."
Wagner expressed surprise at the correlation discovered between stakeholder integration and protection, stating, "I didn't anticipate finding such a strong association, considering the numerous variables that can influence policy outcomes, including geography, climate, economics, demographics, and more. It truly amazed me."
Broad implications
With adaptation in mind, SGMA was carefully crafted by legislators who recognized its initial imperfections, incorporating provisions for evaluation and improvement. The study at hand serves as one such evaluation, presenting an opportunity to rectify any missteps.
Nevertheless, the stakes remain high as farmers, communities, and ecosystems face dwindling water resources and ecological decline. In light of this, if management plans fail to safeguard the interests of stakeholders, can they truly be considered successful?
Regrettably, SGMA falls short of achieving its original aspirations. The groundwater sustainability plans, intended to protect a vast majority of wells and ecosystems, have proven inadequate, revealing the challenges of engaging diverse stakeholder groups with varying needs and values, especially in the wake of extensive groundwater depletion.
SGMA stands as a prime example of the double-edged nature of discretion. While granting considerable local control, it lacks the concrete guidance necessary to ensure efficacy.
To rectify this course, as Rohde suggests, state and local agencies must adopt a more intentional approach, guaranteeing that all stakeholders have a seat at the table and access to the technical and financial resources required to incorporate their water needs into the plans.
Globally, sustainability policies are gaining momentum to address society's most daunting challenges, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion. However, to achieve true success, these plans must deliberately incorporate the diverse needs of all stakeholders, particularly those who have historically been marginalized or disenfranchised, as highlighted by Rohde.
RSS