Water bankruptcy in the land of plenty

Water Bankruptcy in the Land of Plenty POUPEAU_Book.indb i 4/4/2016 9:02:42 PM This page intentionally left blank Water Bankruptcy in the Land of Plenty Editors Franck Poupeau UMI iGLOBES, CNRS/University of Arizona, USA Hoshin Gupta Department of Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, USA Aleix Serrat-Capdevila UMI iGLOBES CNRS/Department of Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, USA Maria A Sans-Fuentes Biosphere 2, University of Arizona, USA Susan Harris Department of Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, USA László G Hayde UNESCO-IHE, Institute for Water Education, Delft, The Netherlands POUPEAU_Book.indb iii 4/4/2016 9:02:42 PM Cover illustration: László G Hayde, Landscape with Saguaros, Tucson region, Southern Arizona, USA, April 2012 Cover design: Peter Stroo, UNESCO-IHE, Institute for Water Education, Delft, The Netherlands © 2016 UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, The Netherlands Print edition published by: CRC Press/Balkema P.O Box 11320, 2301 EH Leiden, The Netherlands e-mail: Pub NL@taylorandfrancis.com www.crcpress.com – www.taylorandfrancis.com CRC Press/Balkema is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Typeset by V Publishing Solutions Pvt Ltd., Chennai, India Printed and Bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Although all care is taken to ensure integrity and the quality of this publication and the information herein, no responsibility is assumed by the publishers nor the author for any damage to the property or persons as a result of operation or use of this publication and/or the information contained herein Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Applied for ISBN: 978-1-138-02969-9 (Pbk), Taylor & Francis Group ISBN: 978-1-4987-7699-8 (eBook PDF), UNESCO-IHE, Delft, The Netherlands All rights reserved A pdf version of this work will be made available in open access via http://repository.tudelft.nl/ihe/ This version is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ POUPEAU_Book.indb iv 5/9/2016 1:18:05 PM Table of contents List of Acronyms Preface Introduction vii ix 1 The idea of a transatlantic dialogue Organization of the book and mind map Maps 17 Socio-historic perspectives on water in the American southwest 25 The Tucson basin 27 Laws of the river 45 Water for a new America 65 Sharing the Colorado River 79 The making of water policy 101 Narratives of urban growth 119 The social logic of urban sprawl 121 Water and urban development challenges of urban growth 141 POUPEAU-FM.indd v 5/10/2016 12:34:18 PM vi Table of contents 10 Comprehensive urban planning 159 11 Potential impacts of the continuing urbanization on regional climate 179 Ecosystem services and biodiversity 195 12 Quantification of water-related ecosystem services 197 13 Qualitative assessment of supply and demand of ecosystem services 223 14 The role of biodiversity in the hydrological cycle 249 Water use and groundwater management 289 15 Implications of spatially neutral groundwater management 291 16 Groundwater dynamics 321 17 Alternative water sources towards increased resilience 337 18 Differentiated approaches of groundwater management 363 Stakeholders’ perspectives 379 19 Presentation 381 20 Texts 383 Conclusion 399 21 Bringing all the stories together: Beyond the Tucson case study 401 22 Next steps: Collaborative research and training towards transdisciplinarity 417 Contents (full titles and authorship) Acknowledgments Subject Index POUPEAU-FM.indd vi 423 427 429 4/6/2016 5:30:57 PM List of Acronyms ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources AMA Active Management Areas ARS Arizona Revised Statutes AWBA Arizona Water Banking Authority AWS Assured Water Supply (AWS) certificate BCPA Boulder Canyon Project Act BOR Bureau of Reclamation BSC Biological Soil Crusts CAGRD Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment Districts CALS College of Agriculture and Life Science CAP Central Arizona Project CAPA CAP Association CAPLA College of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Architecture CAWCD Central Arizona Water Conservation District CGMI Citizen’s Growth Management Initiative CICES Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services CLS Conservation Lands System CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique DEM Digital Elevation Model DOI Department of the Interior EIS Environmental Impact Statement GCASE Groundwater, Climate and Stakeholder Engagement GIS Geographical Information System GMA Groundwater Management Act of 1980 GSFs Groundwater Saving Facilities GUAC Groundwater Users Advisory Councils HOAs Home Owners’ Associations HRUs Hydrological Response Units HWB Human Well-Being Submodel IID Imperial Irrigation District INAs Irrigation Non-expansion Areas IPAG Institutional and Policy Advisory Group POUPEAU_Book.indb vii 4/4/2016 9:02:43 PM viii List of Acronyms IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature LSM Land Surface Model LTSC Long-Term Storage Credits LULC Land Use and Land Cover MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment MAF Million Acre Feet MLP Market Land-Price Submodel MuSIASEM Multiscale Integrated Analysis of Societal and Ecosystems Metabolism NARR North American Regional Reanalysis NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NIMBY Not In My Back Yard PAMA Phoenix Active Management Area PDI Precipitation Drought Index PSWP Pacific Southwest Water Plan PVA Public Values Assessment RAMS Regional Atmospheric Modeling System ROD Record of Decision RWH Rainwater Harvesting SALC Southern Arizona Leadership Council SBS College of Social Behavioral Sciences SCWEPM Santa Cruz Watershed Ecosystem Portfolio Model SDCP Sonoran Desert Conservation SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SPRC Southern Pacific Railway Company SRP Salt River Project SWAN Sustainable Water Action Network Project SWAT Soil and Water Assessment Tool TDS Total Dissolved Solids TDW Transatlantic Dialogue on Water TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity TEP Tucson Electric Power UCM Urban Canopy Model UK NEA UK National Ecosystem Assessment UMI International Centre for “Water, Environment and Public Policy” CNRSUniversity of Arizona UMI-iGLOBES Interdisciplinary and Global Environmental Studies, CNRS-University of Arizona USFs Underground Storage Facilities WAAs Water Accounting Areas WCPA Water Consumer Protection Act WFD Water Framework Directive WRDC Water Resource Development Commission WRES Water-Related Ecosystem Services WRF Weather Research and Forecasting model POUPEAU-FM.indd viii 5/9/2016 2:07:37 PM Preface Editors By all standards, water is today’s most coveted resource, and it will continue to be so in the future Most observers generally agree that, with continued population growth, conflicts around water are likely to harden, and will involve severe risks of social and political unrest, both in the South and in the North Worrying trends include recurring flooding, increasing volatility of resource availability, the melting of glaciers (and consequent sea level rise), resource contamination due to industrial pollution, degradation of soils due to intensive farming, and insufficient access to adequate sanitation, but also, and most of all, drought In this context, the semi-arid Southwestern United States, which is currently enduring its most severe “drought” to date, is of considerable scientific and political interest Droughts are not uncommon in the Southwest Advances in paleo-climate reconstruction and instrumental records have revealed that several major droughts have occurred in the region during the past 200 years However, projected changes in climate and an over-exploitation of resources are generally considered as primary causes of ecological disasters that may be expected to follow Of course, to reduce the complexity of this phenomenon to simply a matter of “scarcity of natural resources” would ignore the fact that the character of a drought has many dimensions, including meteorological (prolonged below-average precipitation), hydrologic (the manifestation of meteorological drought as reduced streamflow and depleted aquifers), agricultural (driven by, and impacts to, agriculture demand) and socioeconomic (driven by, and impacts to, other socio-economic sectors) While drought can be viewed as a perturbation imposed upon a coupled natural and human system, the resulting scarcity of water is clearly the product of a complex interplay between physical availability, the operation of the environment, and the behaviors of human and the demands they impose In other words, the public narratives of “drought” and “water scarcity” are, in today’s world, largely a social construct associated with progressive economic growth and a widespread adoption of consumptive lifestyles Regardless of whether the scarcity of water is actually due to natural climatic variability, global warming, hydrologic change, land cover change, or the ever growing urban and agro-industrial pressures placed on a finite resource, the public focus is most often on the insufficiency of physical supply and the perceived “scarcity” of natural resources, rather than on the analysis of human processes that mediate the governance and management of that water This book proposes and explores the purposely provocative notion of “water bankruptcy” so as to emphasize the socio-economic dimension of water issues in the POUPEAU_Book.indb ix 4/4/2016 9:02:43 PM This page intentionally left blank Chapter 22 Next steps: Collaborative research and training towards transdisciplinarity The SWAN Consortium TOWARDS A NEW WATER CULTURE The prevailing water management paradigm: One of the main interests of the case study, and of the transdisciplinary perspective presented in this book, is to provide new insights on more general debates related to water policy First, the complexity of local water issues questions the prevailing “state-engineering paradigm” which has contributed to the implementation of specific technical systems (in Europe and United States) characterized by a uniform and universal model of distribution and treatment of urban potable water (Cf Chapter 1) This “public-private” distribution model is typically presented as the best (or even the only) way to implement the objective of “water for everyone” The model implements a “supply network” over a territory and managed by an operator, and requires very specific skills in terms of administration and engineering, such that water management now constitutes an area of study that blurs the distinctions between science, action and expertise Meanwhile, the legitimacy of this model is reinforced by public teaching institutions, research and development services, private enterprise, and consultancy companies (Bakker 2005) Challenges to the prevailing paradigm: The relevance of this model (that favours a constant extension of universal services) is now being questioned In several places, people have shown the negative economic, social and/or environmental impacts of such water supply projects Such questioning is based on the failures of the accepted model to provide a universal service and, particularly, on its inability to i) effectively serve peri-urban and rural areas; ii) preserve local ecosystems This has led to proposals for alternative or hybrid models, based essentially on a decentralisation of technical and administrative services, enhanced symbiosis between technical systems (such as treatment and energy production), and the replacement of monopolistic organisations by a multiplicity of smaller institutions As one example, the “Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)” paradigm has recently emerged (in the 1990’s) to address some of the failings of the state-engineering paradigm By promoting ‘the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources’ (GWP 2000: 22), the IWRM approach seeks to maximize economic and social welfare in an equitable manner, without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems The pressing need for transdisciplinarity: Given such challenges to the prevailing model, it seems increasingly clear that a transdisciplinary approach to dealing with the scientific and political challenges of water management is necessary The essential challenge is not so much that “people” (i.e., their needs and perspectives) need to be incorporated into a new water paradigm, but rather that the terms of their inclusion POUPEAU_Book.indb 417 4/4/2016 9:07:22 PM 418 Water bankruptcy in the land of plenty in the socio-natural paradigm be restructured and revitalized In this regard, IWRM has come under the criticism that it does not escape from the gravitational pull of the state-engineering paradigm sufficiently to be able to achieve the desired equity and welfare goals Further, IWRM (and its spin-offs, such as Ecosystems Services, Adaptive Water Management, etc.) are perceived as not sufficiently engaging people as effective actors in the decisions that affect them Democratizing decision-making: So, whereas the state-engineering model treats people as passive beneficiaries of water services, Del Moral et al (2014) refer to the need to bring people into the heart of what they call a “new water culture”, in which public and stakeholder voices are brought centrally into the decision process (see also Pedregal et al 2015) This can be achieved in a number of ways including a) the opening of decision-making forums to non-expert water users, b) the recognition that people are not just passive consumers of a commodified water services product, and c) recognition of the importance of the non-monetary values associated with “water” The central point is that the lives of humans are inextricably intertwined with the dynamics of water, from which a key implication is that decision-making needs to be much more completely democratized Increasingly, given the pressures of climate change, population growth and concern for environmental degradation, public institutions now view the participation of citizens as a key factor in the development and legitimization of difficult and contentious decisions However, the institutionalized methods for such participation at the national and sub-national level have been criticized as being multifarious, complex and ambiguous (Arnstein 1969, Pretty 1995, White 1996, Callon 1999, Cornwall 2008) At the administrative level, participation is often limited by institutional cost, susceptible to paralysis by endless deliberations amongst stakeholders with conflicting values and interests, and subject to strategic manipulation by powerful institutions (Bickerstaff & Walker 2005, Staddon & James 2013) The possibility of a new mode of governance: It therefore remains to be seen whether a new and truly democratic mode of governance over our essential natural resources such as water will be realized in the near future In hinting at a radically different mode of governance, Swyngedouw (2005, 2011) points out that the “public-private partnership” model discussed above is characteristic of the form of governance implemented by Western democracies such as the US and the EU, in which the argumentative confrontation central to truly democratic politics is marginalized, and the resulting political vacuum is filled by “opinions on anything imaginable (as long as it does not question fundamentally the existing state of the neoliberal political economic configuration)” The consequence is that public participation is robbed of its truly deliberative and policy-shaping function, and reduced solely to its legitimizing function Ultimately, a truly transdisciplinary approach to dealing with the scientific and political challenges of water management will need to find ways to address this foundational issue of the structure by which democratic participation in decision making is realized TRAINING TOWARDS TRANSDISCIPLINARITY Merging perspectives: Our experience over four years of the SWAN project has provided a clear direction regarding how the practical implementation of a major POUPEAU_Book.indb 418 4/4/2016 9:07:22 PM Collaborative research and training towards transdisciplinarity 419 international scientific network to fully explore the many interrelated facets of water management can be achieved As shown by this book, the first steps have been taken towards a transdisciplinary water research strategy and agenda by researchers from Europe and the United States No question can exist that, given the complexity of the issues involved, a transdisciplinary approach must be applied to water issues This requires merging the expertise, knowledge and efforts of political and physical scientists, students, and policy makers, together with industry, agricultural and environmental organizations, to identify and implement workable solutions Achieving successful integration: To be successful, a transdisciplinary project must fully integrate the expertise and experience of the researchers’ and all affected stakeholders, so as to guide the investigation towards a holistic solution for the given problem This marks a sharp contrast to the conventional approach in which researchers work in parallel – or worse, in isolation – within the strictures of their respective disciplines; such an approach has time and again failed to develop and implement solutions that are able to comprehensively address a given water problem The important contribution of a scientific network (such as the one generated by the SWAN project) is that it can foster and facilitate the kinds of necessary interaction between stakeholders and researchers from different disciplines that is a necessary condition to be able to resolve complex problems The SWAN team greatly benefitted from the project structure, which permitted lengthy periods of daily interactions among the researchers in the framework of the UMI iGLOBES (Interdisciplinary and Global Environmental Research, CNRS/ University of Arizona) European students and researchers lived in Tucson, Arizona for periods of three to six months, giving them the opportunity to meet, discuss and work together In addition, week-long biannual meetings of the entire SWAN team provided forums for concentrated collaboration and development of the project While the SWAN team also conducted weekly online meetings of the EU and US researchers, it is clear that even the most advanced communication technologies cannot substitute for in-person meetings and workshops, or for the close daily collaboration that is possible when researchers work in close physical proximity to each other As discussed in the literature, many barriers exist to achieving the recursive integration necessary to a successful transdisciplinary research project, but surprisingly little attention has been paid to one of the major characteristics of the SWAN project, i.e., the importance of having a physical location for real (i.e., non virtual) interaction, on-going research, and periodic meetings This single component greatly enhances the opportunities for collaboration and eliminates the significant barriers created by distance, multiple time zones, and technological hiccups that can render a meeting or conversation useless The need for a trained facilitator: Realistically, a transdisciplinary project should also include a director or facilitator trained or experienced in collaborative research Just as a symphony requires a conductor, and the construction of a skyscraper requires a project manager, a properly funded and staffed transdisciplinary team requires a coordinator in order to improve efficiency, identify the entire class of relevant stakeholders, and achieve more integrated results Team participants can focus on the water problems that affect many people and the environment and not be distracted by administrative issues, or hampered by a lack of coordinated efforts, pointless internal conflicts or a failure to completely engage An effective manager or POUPEAU_Book.indb 419 4/4/2016 9:07:22 PM 420 Water bankruptcy in the land of plenty facilitator can enable the team to accomplish work in a timely manner, productively incorporate the efforts of students (whose participation is necessarily transient), and constructively resolve conflicts In addition, support is required from a staff able to fully engage stakeholders to obtain more than just the views of the stakeholders; it needs to also obtain their commitment and efforts towards the implementation of well-researched, well-reasoned solutions The value of engaging the public and role of new technologies: Engagement can occur through a range of methods, from involvement in projects focused on problems affecting a specific group of stakeholders to broader structures for engagement with broader impacts (Jasanoff 2007) Today’s rapidly growing fields of open knowledge and citizen science research provide new opportunities for the development of the kinds of collaboration necessary for transdisciplinary investigation (Giampetro et al., 2012) Citizen scientist projects are those in which a variety of citizens (from all walks of life) can collaborate with governmental and non governmental organizations, universities and communities, to participate in environmental research projects that may require significant amounts of repeated observational data over large geographic areas or long periods of time, or both In this regard, the possibilities created by new technologies and “big data” need to be taken into account As shown by Hernandez-Mora et al (2015) in Spain, the involvement of citizen and social movements in water management can be enhanced by using such technologies to improve coordination, to aid in evaluation of administrative data, and to facilitate production of new data While such projects can generate large amounts of extremely valuable information (Edwards 2013), they can also motivate a wide variety of stakeholders to go into the field and the laboratories to understand the science underlying societal and environmental issues Towards truly transdisciplinary solutions: Reflecting upon our experiences over the four years of the SWAN project, we are now convinced that the most effective way forward would be the establishment of a new ”Institute for Open Knowledge” Building upon the experiences and insights described above, such an organization would provide an effective and efficient mechanism by which to produce collaborative research, and to generate truly transdisciplinary solutions to pressing human problems One of the main issues that must necessarily inform the design and structure of such an Institute is that a major obstacle to the realization of open collaborative research on water (the new water culture referred to above) is the fact that most researchers are poorly prepared to operate in a transdisciplinary manner Not only scientists, engineers and managers struggle when required to work across multiple disciplinary contexts, they are also not well versed in strategies for engaging with citizens from non academic backgrounds So the most important challenge may actually be the implementation of a mechanism for “training in transdisciplinarity” This will involve, of course, an education that exposes “students” to concepts from multiple disciplines But, more importantly, it pre-supposes a real change in the dispositions of the people involved—a rupture with the kind of “scholastic bias” (Bourdieu 2000) that causes every scholar to tend to engage in the “mind projection fallacy” (Jaynes 2003) that social life operates with the same logic that is used in the development of theory Only then, perhaps, can we be able to break with the viewpoint of the “new engineers” of the early 20th century, POUPEAU_Book.indb 420 4/4/2016 9:07:22 PM Collaborative research and training towards transdisciplinarity 421 who believed that any water problem in Southwestern USA could be solved through the application of technology and science Finally, beyond an educational experience that opens the mind to multiple alternative perspectives and points of view, and beyond an understanding that an effective search for solutions (based on a comprehensive understanding of the problem, and its greater context) must necessarily involve the participation of a variety of stakeholder interests (policy makers, water managers, scientists, the public, etc.), the search for truly transdisciplinary solutions requires at least one more mental shift And that is the realization that the important role of science (albeit disciplinary or multi-disciplinary) in helping to solve complex human problems is not found in the traditional “search for concrete solutions” Rather it is instead in the “co-production of knowledge and new ways of thinking” about the challenges posed by evolving human needs The fact is that water managers typically produce enough data and technical solutions that they usually not need the academic to this for them Instead, an invigorated collaboration leads to a revaluing of the coproduction of knowledge, and a rupture with traditional, institutionalized, ways of thinking REFERENCES Arnstein, S.R (1969) A ladder of citizen participation Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4): 216–224 Bakker, K (2005) Neoliberalizing nature? market environmentalism in water supply in England and Wales Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95: 542–565 Bickerstaff, K and Walker, G (2005) Shared visions, unholy alliances: power, governance and deliberative processes in local transport planning Urban Studies, 42(12): 2123–2144 Bourdieu, P (2000) Pascalian Meditations, Stanford Stanford University Press Callon M (1999) The lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge Science Technology Society, 4(1): 81–94 Cornwall, A (2008) Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings and practices, Community Development Journal, 43(3): 269–283 Del Moral, L and Do O.A (2014) Water governance and scalar politics across multipleboundary river basins: States, catchments and territorial powers in the Iberian Peninsula Water International, 39(3): 333–347 Edwards, P (2013) A Vast Machine Computer Models, Climate Data and the Politics of Global Warming, MIT Press Giampietro, M., Mayumi, K and Sorman, A.H (2012) The Metabolic Pattern of Societies Where Economists Fall Short London and New York: Routledge Global Water Partnership (2000) Integrated Water Resources Management, Global Water Partnership Technical Advisory Committee, Background Paper no.4 Hernández-Mora, N., Cabello, V., De Stefano, L and Del Moral, L (2015) Networked water citizen organizations in Spain: Potential for transformation of existing power structures in water management, Water Alternatives, 8(2): 99–124 Jasanoff S (2007) Designs on Nature Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States, Princeton & Oxford, Princeton University Press Jaynes, E.T (2003) Probability Theory: The Logic of Science New York, NY: Cambridge University Press Pedregal, B., Cabello, V., Hernández-Mora, N., Limones, N and Del Moral, L (2015) Information and knowledge for water governance in the networked society Water Alternatives 8(2): 1–19 POUPEAU_Book.indb 421 4/4/2016 9:07:22 PM 422 Water bankruptcy in the land of plenty Pretty, J.N (1995) Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture World Development, 23(8): 1247–1263 Staddon, C and James, N (2013) Water Security: genealogy of a new paradigm for water management? in, G Schneier-Madanes (Ed.) Globalised Water, Dortrecht, Springer: 261–276 Swyngedouw, E (2005) Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governancebeyond-the-state Urban Studies, 42(11): 1992–2006 Swyngedouw, E (2011) Interrogating post-democratization: Reclaiming egalitarian political spaces Political Geography, 30(7): 370–380 White, S.C (1996) Depoliticising development: the uses and abuses of participation, Development in Practice, 6(1): 6–15 POUPEAU_Book.indb 422 4/4/2016 9:07:22 PM Contents (full titles and authorship) Preface ix EDITORS Introduction The idea of a transatlantic dialogue THE SWAN CONSORTIUM Organization of the book and mind map EDITORS Maps 17 Socio-historic perspectives on water in the American southwest 25 The Tucson basin: Natural and human history 27 ALEIX SERRAT-CAPDEVILA Laws of the river: Conflict and cooperation on the Colorado River 45 BRIAN O’NEILL, FRANCK POUPEAU, MURIELLE COEURDRAY & JOAN CORTINAS Water for a new America: The policy coalitions of the Central Arizona Project (Part 1) 65 JOAN CORTINAS, MURIELLE COEURDRAY, FRANCK POUPEAU & BRIAN O’NEILL Sharing the Colorado River: The policy coalitions of the Central Arizona Project (Part 2) 79 MURIELLE COEURDRAY, JOAN CORTINAS, BRIAN O’NEILL & FRANCK POUPEAU Contents (full titles and authorship).indd 423 5/10/2016 12:35:19 PM 424 Contents (full titles and authorship) The making of water policy in the American southwest: Environmental sociology and its tools 101 FRANCK POUPEAU, MURIELLE COEURDRAY, JOAN CORTINAS & BRIAN O’NEILL Narratives of urban growth The social logic of urban sprawl: Arizona cities under environmental pressure 119 121 ELIZA BENITES-GAMBIRAZIO Water and urban development challenges in the Tucson metropolitan area: An interdisciplinary perspective 141 GRACIELA SCHNEIER-MADANES, JUAN B VALDES, EDWARD F CURLEY, THOMAS MADDOCK III, STUART E MARSH & KYLE A HARTFIELD 10 Comprehensive urban planning: Implications for water management in Pima County (Arizona) 159 SERGIO SEGURA CALERO 11 Potential impacts of the continuing urbanization on regional climate: The developing Phoenix-Tucson “Sun Corridor” 179 ZHAO YANG, FRANCINA DOMINGUEZ, HOSHIN GUPTA, XUBIN ZENG & LAURA NORMAN Ecosystem services and biodiversity 195 12 Quantification of water-related ecosystem services in the Upper Santa Cruz watershed 197 KREMENA BOYANOVA, REWATI NIRAULA, FRANCINA DOMINGUEZ, HOSHIN GUPTA & STOYAN NEDKOV 13 Qualitative assessment of the supply and demand of ecosystem services in the Pantano Wash watershed 223 ROSITSA YANEVA 14 The role of biodiversity in the hydrological cycle The case of the American Southwest 249 MARIA A SANS-FUENTES & THOMAS MEIXNER POUPEAU_Book.indb 424 4/4/2016 9:07:22 PM Contents (full titles and authorship) 425 Water use and groundwater management 289 15 Implications of spatially neutral groundwater management: Water use and sustainability in the Tucson basin 291 VIOLETA CABELLO, NURIA HERNÁNDEZ-MORA, ALEIX SERRAT-CAPDEVILA, LEANDRO DEL MORAL & EDWARD F CURLEY 16 Groundwater dynamics: How is Tucson affected by meteorological drought? 321 NATALIA LIMONES 17 Alternative water sources towards increased resilience in the Tucson region: Could we more? 337 KRISTIN KUHN, ALEIX SERRAT-CAPDEVILA, EDWARD F CURLEY & LÁSZLÓ G HAYDE 18 Differentiated approaches of groundwater management: A comparison between the TAMA and the San Pedro basin 363 SUSAN HARRIS Stakeholders’ perspectives 379 19 Presentation 381 ALEIX SERRAT-CAPDEVILA, EDWARD F CURLEY & ALBA BALLESTER CIURÓ 20 Texts 20a Water Sustainability Program & Pima Association of Governments 383 383 CLAIRE L ZUCKER 20b Tucson Water 385 WALLY R WILSON 20c Central Arizona Project 387 DAVID MODEER 20d Southern Arizona Home Builders Association 389 DAVID GODLEWSKI 20e Pima County 391 JULIA FONSECA POUPEAU_Book.indb 425 4/4/2016 9:07:22 PM 426 Contents (full titles and authorship) 20f Southwest Conservation Advocate, Center for Biological Diversity 393 RANDY SERRAGLIO 20g Bureau of Reclamation 395 EVE HALPER 20h Arizona Department of Water Resources 397 TOM BUSCHATZKE Conclusion 399 21 Bringing all the stories together: Beyond the Tucson case study 401 ALEIX SERRAT-CAPDEVILA, VIOLETA CABELLO, KREMENA BOYANOVA, FRANCK POUPEAU, NURIA HERNÁNDEZ-MORA, HOSHIN GUPTA, ZHAO YANG, NATALIA LIMONES, BRIAN O’NEILL, SERGIO SEGURA CALERO, ELIZA BENITES-GAMBIRAZIO, ROSITSA YANEVA, MURIELLE COEURDRAY, JOAN CORTINAS, KRISTIN KUHN, SUSAN HARRIS, MARIA SANS-FUENTES, EDWARD F CURLEY, LEANDRO DEL MORAL, JUAN VALDES, GRACIELA SCHNEIER-MADANES, OWEN KING, DULCE B.B RODRIGUES & GLORIA SALMORAL 22 Next Steps: Collaborative research and training towards transdisciplinarity 417 THE SWAN CONSORTIUM POUPEAU_Book.indb 426 4/4/2016 9:07:22 PM Acknowledgments The SWAN Consortium is grateful to the professors and researchers who have accepted to review different chapters of this book: Bernard Barraqué (CNRS), Robert Glennon (University of Arizona), Stephanie Pincetl (UCLA), Tom Maddock University of Arizona), Sharon Medgal (University of Arizona), Tom Meixner (University of Arizona), Mitchel Pavao-Zucherman (University of Maryland), Stéphanie Pincetl (University of California, Los Angeles), Chris Scott (University of Arizona), Robert Varady (University of Arizona), Xubin Zeng (University of Arizona) The Tucson case study has also beneficiated of the contributions from Gita Bodner (The Nature Conservancy), David Brookshire (University of New Mexico), Tom Buschatzke (ADWR), Evan Canfield (Pima County), Kathy Chavez (Pima County), Edward F Curley (Pima County), Pierre Deymier (University of Arizona), Charlie Ester (Salt River Project), Tom Evans (University of Bloomington), Julia Fonseca (Pima County), David Godlewsky (Southern Arizona Home Builders Association), David Goodrich (United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service), Eve Halper (Bureau of Reclamation), Greg Harris (Lewis Rocca Rothgerber, LLP), Brad Lancaster (Desert Harversters), Michael McNulty (Office of the Pima County Attorney), Ralph Marra (Consultant), Mohammed Mammou (Central Arizona Project), Mead Mier (Pima Association of Governments), Michelle Moreno (ADWR), Brian Powell (Pima County), Linda Stitzer (Western Resources), Jeff Tannler (ADWR), David White (Arizona State University), Wally Wilson (Tucson Water), Claire Zucker (Pima Association of Goverments), Claire Zugmeier (Sonoran Institute) The development of the SWAN project would not have been possible without the active support of several persons, from: – – the CNRS: Patrice Bourdelais, Colette Doressoundiram, Hélène Leniston, Pascal Marty, Hélène Naftalski, Marie-Louise Perez, Marie Weiss; the University of Arizona: Thomas Alvarez, Andrew Comrie, Candice Crossey, Rhonda Dwyer, Olivia Hanson, Pierre Meystre, Joaquin Ruiz, Erma Santander, Julie Ann Stringer, Larry Winter, Judith-Ann Yandow POUPEAU_Book.indb 427 4/4/2016 9:07:22 PM This page intentionally left blank This page intentionally left blank A first of its kind, this book was developed through close collaboration of a broad range of natural scientists, social scientists, and resource managers from Europe and United States It constitutes a collective elaboration of a transdisciplinary approach to unveiling the inner workings of how water was fought for, allocated and used in the American Southwest, with a focus on Arizona Specifically, it offers an innovative scientific perspective that produces a critical diagnostic evaluation of water management, with a particular view to identifying risks for the Tucson region that is facing continuous urban sprawl and economic growth The book offers a diversity of complementary perspectives, including a statement of natural resources, biodiversity and their management, an analysis of water policy and its history, and a statement of ecosystem services in the context of both local biodiversity and also the economic activities that sustain economic growth Finally, it presents a concerted effort to explore the interplay between a variety of related scientific disciplines and frameworks including climatology, hydrology, water management, ecosystem services, societal metabolism, political economy and social science This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 294947 Partners PB_COVER_SWAN_173x247mm_(spine20,6mm)_vs060516.indd WATER BANKRUPTCY IN THE LAND OF PLENTY As the American Southwest faces its deepest drought in history, this book explores the provocative notion of “water bankruptcy” with a view towards emphasizing the diversity and complexity of water issues in this region It bridges between the narratives of growth and the strategies or policies adopted to pursue competing agendas and circumvent the inevitable A window of opportunity provided by this current long-term drought may be used to induce change by dealing with threats that derive from imbalances between growth patterns and available resources, the primary cause of scarcity WATER BANKRUPTCY IN THE LAND OF PLENTY Steps towards a transatlantic and transdisciplinary assessment of water scarcity in Southern Arizona Edited by Franck Poupeau Hoshin Gupta Aleix Serrat-Capdevila Maria A Sans-Fuentes Susan Harris László G Hayde 06-05-16 09:29 ... at each step of the management process – in the definition of the problem, in establishing the range of options, in selecting the range of acceptable solutions, and in designing the indicators... perspective(s) in the face of the continuing involvement of other stakeholders POUPEAU_Book.indb 4/4/2016 9:02:43 PM 10 Water bankruptcy in the land of plenty SECTION TWO: NARRATIVES OF URBAN GROWTH The. . .Water Bankruptcy in the Land of Plenty POUPEAU_Book.indb i 4/4/2016 9:02:42 PM This page intentionally left blank Water Bankruptcy in the Land of Plenty Editors Franck Poupeau