Integrated Water Resource Management and Water Sharing

Matthew D. Davis1

Abstract: Integrated water resource management 共IWRM兲 and water sharing concepts are described. Various definitions of IWRM are
presented. It can be described as a facilitated stakeholder process to promote coordinated activities in pursuit of common goals for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 05/01/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

multiple objective development and management of water founded in sustainable water resource systems. Sustainable water resource
systems support social objectives into the indefinite future without undermining hydrologic and ecological integrity. IWRM is comprised
of objectives, institutions, implementation, and adaptation, reflecting merging of top-down and bottom-up approaches. It can assume many
institutional forms, and is best implemented at the river basin or subbasin scales. Several water sharing models and principles are
introduced. Examples of mature yet different IWRM governance structures in California and France are presented. Wide-scale adoption
of IWRM remains elusive. Changing societal values, increasing water demands, growing water use conflicts, and link to poverty reduction
and economic development provide impetus to adopt IWRM; it remains a promising mechanism to better use and share water to balance
economic, environmental, and social aspects that underpin sustainable development.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9496共2007兲133:5共427兲
CE Database subject headings: Water resources; Water management; Sustainable development; France; Integrated systems.

Introduction mandates. It is a process that supports underlying objectives that

explicitly attempt to link economic, environmental, and social
A broad review of integrated water resource management aspects that underpin sustainable development. It is presented
共IWRM兲 and water sharing concepts is presented. IWRM requires here that undertaking IWRM results in better water use, support-
both strategic and operational planning approaches 共Mitchell ing economic and social objectives, while maintaining environ-
1990兲. The strategic approach encompasses “big picture” thinking mental ecosystems. The simple premise is that this can be
and planning. It addresses principal issues, structure, organiza- achieved through integrated, collaborative, and multiple objective
tion, and primary objectives. Operational planning deals with strategic and operational planning and implementation processes
water resource assessment and implementation. In this paper, that involve stakeholders, rather than fragmented, single focus
broad strategic concepts are discussed, with focus on water shar- planning and implementation with limited participation. However,
ing, including IWRM definitions, institutions, and participatory adopting and implementing IWRM has not been easy.
aspects. Case briefs in two locations with mature yet different The focus of this paper is limited to general concepts and
IWRM governance demonstrate the application in practice: Cali- water sharing. IWRM and broader environmental management
fornia and France. consider more issues, such as water quality and habitat protection
Various definitions of IWRM are compiled and clarified. that extend into some form of land use planning. When linked
IWRM can take various forms, is best implemented at the river more integrally with wider societal and economic development
basin or subbasin scale, and is aligned with sustainable water objectives, the role and complexity of IWRM are more readily
resource systems criteria. Sustainable water resource systems sup- apparent. In fact, the potential complexity of IWRM is exhibited
port social objectives into the indefinite future without undermin- by the limited number of issues addressed in this paper, with
ing the hydrologic and ecological integrity 共ASCE and UNESCO several important aspects dealt with concisely and others ex-
1998; Gleick et al. 1995兲. Water sharing is an important compo- cluded. For example, integration of: 共a兲 surface and groundwater;
nent of IWRM; several water sharing models and principles are and 共b兲 water quantity and water quality are not discussed fully.
introduced. IWRM builds upon water rights administration, seek- In addition, explicit discussion of transboundary issues is not pre-
ing to facilitate coordination of water sharing and minimizing sented within this paper. Transboundary issues add the complica-
conflict across water sectors, multiple objectives, and legislative tion of simultaneously addressing the water management issues
and reconciling different institutions across borders, including
1 levels of development, and political and cultural influences. Last,
Senior Water Resource Engineer. CAL Engineering Management,
37 Almorah Rd., Epsom, Auckland City 1003, New Zealand; and, WAI
technical aspects and sound science that underpin IWRM are not
Institute c/o 801 Malaga Ave., Davis, CA 95616. E-mail: mddavis67nz@ dealt with in this paper.
yahoo.co.nz or mddavis.cal@woosh.co.nz
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 2008. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by Definitions of IWRM
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on April 18, 2006; approved on November 16, 2006. The term IWRM is used in different manners; no universal defi-
This paper is part of the Journal of Water Resources Planning and nition exists. Moreover, it is not a term commonly used in the
Management, Vol. 133, No. 5, September 1, 2007. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733- United States; a variety of terms are utilized that reflect IWRM
9496/2007/5-427–445/$25.00. concepts or components 共e.g., water development plan, water re-

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007 / 427

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2007.133:427-445.

 Table 1. IWRM Definitions
Organization Integrated water resource management definitions and concepts
World Bank Perspective that ensures that social, economic, environmental, and technical
dimensions are taken into account in the management and development of water
resources 共World Bank 2003兲.
World Conservation Union No universally agreed definition exists. One manner—the integrated
management of all water resources 共i.e., surface water, groundwater, marine
waters, etc.兲. Second manner—integration of water with the management of other
natural resources 共such as soil and native vegetation and even dealing with
related management issues such as alien invasive species兲. The IUCN asserts
that only through the integration of conservation into IWRM can one ensure
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 05/01/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ongoing maintenance of the wide range of services provided by ecosystems and

the livelihoods that depend upon them 共IUCN 2003a,b兲.
Global Water Partnership 共GWP兲 A process that promotes the coordinated development and management of water,
land, and related resources to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare
in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital
ecosystems 共Argawal et al. 2000兲.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 共USEPA兲 A watershed approach is a flexible framework for managing water resource
quality and quantity within specified drainage areas or watershed, includes
stakeholder involvement and management actions supported by sound science and
appropriate technology 共USEPA 2005兲.
U.S. Corps of Engineers 共USACE兲 The coordination of activities in pursuit of a set of common goals for water
resources development and maintenance 共Cardwell et al. 2004兲.

source 共master兲 planning, river basin management, watershed includes both water and land management. In such classifications,
management, and shared vision planning兲. Nonetheless, recent however, inclusion of land is often linked to impacts on water
international and national definitions are becoming similar quality. As presented here, IWRM is restricted to water quantity
共Table 1兲. The Global Water Partnership definition is typical of and quality; integrated watershed or catchment management
international policy documents oriented towards less developed refers to integration of water, land, and other natural resources
countries in which IWRM is strongly linked with poverty reduc- 共including water quality兲. Moreover, here the term river basin
tion and economic development 共Guerquin et al. 2003兲. A draft management is used broadly to refer to all activities engaged
definition by the United States Corps of Engineers is purposefully within a particular river basin; it reflects the implementation of
broader in its definition, disaggregating specifics and describing it IWRM and other strategic natural resource planning 共Dourajeanni
as a process 共Cardwell et al. 2004兲. et al. 2002; Dourajeanni 2001; Newson 1997; Hooper 2005兲. To
Most definitions 共including those in Table 1兲 consider multiple reiterate, however, it is not uncommon to see these terms used
objectives and address sustainability in some manner. In this interchangeably and in somewhat different manners.
paper, a broad definition is used: IWRM is described as a facili- IWRM, natural resource management, and environmental
tated stakeholder process to promote coordinated activities in pur- management are items that contribute to sustainable development
suit of common goals for multiple objective development and 共Fig. 1兲. Sustainable development is comprised of economic, en-
management of water aligned with the sustainable water resource vironmental, and social components; the economic system is em-
system criteria. In practice, however, IWRM is defined through a bedded within the social system, both of which lie within the
combination of strategic and operational actions. natural system 共Fig. 2兲. This aspect is important to recognize, as
historic water infrastructure and exploitation systems tend to
focus predominantly on the economic system, equating economic
IWRM and Sustainable Development

IWRM as it is presented in international forums is strongly asso-

ciated with sustainable development concepts. IWRM is one com-
ponent of natural resource management, which in turn forms part
of environmental management. In some classifications, IWRM

Fig. 1. IWRM and sustainable development 关adapted from Fig. 2. Economic, social, and natural spheres 关Krantz et al. 共2004兲,
Dourajeanni et al. 共2002兲兴 with permission兴

428 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2007.133:427-445.

 growth with social improvement, and affording limited attention Matter of Degree and Coordination
to the natural system.
Sustainable development is another term with various defini- Cardwell et al. 共2006兲 make three observations about IWRM:
tions 共ASCE and UNESCO 1998兲. The most widely cited defini- 共1兲 it is a process; 共2兲 it is a goal-directed process; and 共3兲 it
tion is “sustainable development is development that meets the is a matter of degree. Thus, the adoption of IWRM does not
needs of the current generation without compromising the oppor- necessitate full integration and coordination of all possible as-
pects 共Cardwell et al. 2006兲. Jønch-Clausen 共2004兲 and Lee
tunities of future generations to meet their needs” 共WCED 1987兲.
共1999兲 further emphasize that to assure political interest and
Like IWRM, the true meaning is evidenced through a combina-
public support, institutions should develop with initial focus on
tion of strategic and operational practices and actions.
crucial, urgent matters where there is a demonstrated need and to
One challenge for IWRM 共and sustainable development
an appropriate scale. Precautionary principal advocates 共e.g.,
efforts兲 is to redress past imbalances among economic, environ-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 05/01/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Raffensperger and Tickner 1999兲, however, could argue that pro-

mental, and social components. In some instances, this requires
active IWRM 共i.e., prior to critical problems arising兲 is a precau-
supporting environmental restoration efforts, while in others it
tionary approach that helps avoid water management strife and
means rectifying adverse social effects introduced or accelerated
public and ecological health risks.
due to water development, particularly for historically marginal-
IWRM institutions can and do take various forms. Coordina-
ized and under-represented groups and values. In other instances,
tion, however, is a key aspect of the institutional framework and
it is about managing water and developing economically in a
its implementation, including horizontal and vertical synchroniza-
more balanced manner than historically undertaken.
tion across: 共a兲 national departments; 共b兲 state/regional depart-
ments; 共c兲 national, state/regional, and local government levels;
共d兲 public and private entities; and 共e兲 disciplines. Sabatier et al.
IWRM Concepts 共2005兲 identified four types of collaborative approaches that can
support IWRM: 共1兲 collaborative partnerships 共long-term, infor-
Benefits mal advisory collaboratives兲; 共2兲 collaborative superagencies
共long-term, formal authoritative collaboratives兲; 共3兲 collaborative
IWRM can provide a potential forum to better address: 共a兲 incor- engagements 共short-term, informal advisory兲; and 共4兲 collabora-
poration of the hydrologic cycle and hydrologic basins into the tive panels 共short-term, formal authoritative兲. An additional form
water supply and demand issues; 共b兲 coordination of surface and is collaborative facilitators 共long-term, formal advisory/
groundwater/conjunctive use; 共c兲 multiple water use objectives; facilitators兲 whose attributes combine characteristics of the first
共d兲 improvement of economic and water use efficiency; 共e兲 two types, yet do not conform to either.
reduction/mitigation of water user conflicts; 共f兲 evaluation of the Coordination can be motivated through local, private 共and
effects and alternatives to dams and hydraulic works; 共g兲 coordi- public-private兲 interest to manage a common pool resource
nated protection of environmental habitat and biodiversity; 共h兲 共Blomquist 1992; Blomquist et al. 2004; Ostrom 1990兲. Further-
incorporation of issues of equal access and social equity; 共i兲 en- more, coordination and wise water and land use can be encour-
gagement of stakeholders and decision making at the lowest level aged though economic incentives 共Lant 2004兲. Coordination and
feasible; 共j兲 facilitation of improved compilation and effective use sustainable practices, nonetheless, often require top-down legisla-
of information in decision making; 共k兲 coordination and improve- tion and a facilitating environment to motivate many water users
ment of water quality outcomes; 共l兲 coordination of water quantity and interests to participate.
and water quality; 共m兲 ensuring compliance with multiple, exist-
ing laws and different project mandates; and 共n兲 linkage to
IWRM and Governing the Commons
broader societal programs and objectives 共GWP 2000; ASCE and
UNESCO 1998; Guerquin et al. 2003; Heathcote 1998; Hooper IWRM institutions can be viewed as a combination of two gov-
2005; Newson 1997; USEPA 2005兲. Many of these aspects can be erning developments: 共1兲 top-down governance linked to provid-
progressed outside of a formal IWRM framework. However, an ing a facilitating environment that supports macrosocioeconomic
IWRM framework allows these items to be more readily objectives implemented through river basin/watershed gover-
achieved, since integration, coordination, and education are fun- nance; and 共2兲 bottom-up collective action to govern common
damental aspects of such a management program. In addition, resources. Ostrom 共1990兲 identified three influential models when
IWRM is adopted specifically to target one or more of these items dealing with collective action and the commons: 共1兲 the tragedy
in a strategic and prioritized manner to seek better water use of the commons; 共2兲 the prisoner’s dilemma game; and 共3兲 the
outcomes. logic of collective action. Ostrom 共1990兲 counters these theories
by describing cases where collective action was undertaken and
Territorial and Jurisdictional Scales local self-governance is achieved. These cases, however, are lim-
ited in scope, as they generally focus on maintaining viable eco-
Activities associated with an IWRM reflect territorial and juris- nomic productivity linked to an environmental good, and often
dictional scales. At the national scale, a general framework that are small scale.
creates an enabling environment and supports macrosocioeco- Many self-governing examples, in fact, rarely address wider
nomic objectives is appropriate, while specific outcomes in a par- issues associated with the sustainable water resource system cri-
ticular location are appropriate at the river basin scale. Individual teria, such as biodiversity protection or cultural matters, for ex-
project level capital works, and operational and maintenance ac- ample, and can confront difficulties addressing multiple issues.
tivities are most often appropriate at the subbasin level, which in For many years, two groundwater basins in Southern California,
turn should be consistent with larger river basin plans 共Hooper for example, were unsuccessful in forming management plans
2005; Newson 1997; National Research Council 1999兲. precisely, because of the large spatial extent and range of issues

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007 / 429

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2007.133:427-445.

 Fig. 3. Levels of participation 关Creighton 共2004兲, with permission兴
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 05/01/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

that were more complicated than neighboring basins where col-

lective action was successful 共Blomquist 1992; Ostrom 1990兲. Fig. 4. Orbits of participation 关adapted from Aggens 共1983兲兴

Implementation at River Basin Level Participation and Education

The current international IWRM effort attempts to merge the two Past models of central planning and implementation have not al-
ways reflected local needs adequately nor was education provided
processes: Top-down meeting bottom-up. The top-down approach
such that locals could make informed decisions. It is recognized
is represented by the national or regional adoption of IWRM
that bottom-up and local participation is necessary for successful
combined with the development and fostering river basin organi-
water resource planning and projects; involvement and decision-
zations and governance 共GWP 2006, 2004, 2000; Hooper 2005兲.
making at the lowest level feasible is now advocated 共GWP 2000;
Among other items, the top-down approach provides an enabling Creighton 2004; Delli Priscoli 2004; Sabatier et al. 2005兲. At the
environment 共e.g., legal, participatory, education兲, mechanisms same time, however, it must be recognized that exclusive local
for enforcement and conflict management, and protection of preference may not reflect national, environmental, social objec-
under-represented groups or sectors 共e.g., minority indigenous tives, or even sustainable practices.
groups or biodiversity兲. Levels of participation vary, as do orbits of involvement
IWRM is best implemented operationally at the river basin 共Figs. 3 and 4兲. Certain sectors, particularly under-represented
or subbasin levels—that is operational units comprised of hydro- and historically marginalized sectors require targeted outreach
geographic drainage basins. Environmental management, programs so that these groups are not further marginalized and
however, can extend beyond basins to what can be defined as actually move from being unaware to active participants 共Fig. 3兲.
problemsheds, for example, when addressing habitat protection. Creighton 共2004兲 identifies several steps in successful public par-
Problemsheds that extend beyond hydrologic boundaries may ticipation in the United States, for example 共Table 2兲. Moreover, it
require additional coordination among adjacent river basin orga- is important to identify special circumstances in participatory pro-
nizations or entail jurisdictional adjustment that conforms to grams: 共a兲 Cultural/ethnic sensitivities; 共b兲 heavy interest from
the problemshed. Groundwater basins may also cross hydrologi- national stakeholder groups; 共c兲 distance 共i.e., scattered stakehold-
cal drainage basin limits, while integrated surface-coastal man- ers兲; 共d兲 issues connected politically to other issues 共i.e., difficult
agement may require dealing with multiple hydrologic drainage to separate from contentious related issues兲; and 共e兲 political sen-
basins. sitivities 共e.g., key political figures have interest to defend兲
River basin/watershed organizations exist with and without a 共Creighton 2004兲.
formal IWRM framework, however, with varying degrees of Meaningful stakeholder participation generally requires some
success. Leach and Pelkey 共2001兲 in a review of the California type of government oversight and support 共Creighton 2004兲.
and Washington collaborative watershed organizations, and Shared vision planning involving a wide-range of stakeholders
Andersson et al. 共2004兲 in review of 25 Hydrology for the and government oversight/supportive role, for example, has been
Environment, Life and Policy program basins found that success- particularly successful in a number of locations despite the lack of
ful governance and partnering are based on: 共1兲 funding and fi-
nancial incentives; 共2兲 broad and inclusive versus limited mem- Table 2. Stages of Public Participation Planning
bership; 共3兲 cooperative/collaborative, committed participants; 共4兲
effective leader/coordinator/facilitator; 共5兲 bottom-up initiation/ Decision analysis
leadership versus balanced local/state/regional/national partici- Clarify the decision being made.
pants; 共6兲 trust; 共7兲 low or medium level of conflict; 共8兲 well Specify the planning/decision-making steps and schedule.
defined hydrogeographic scope; 共9兲 limited versus broad scope of Decide whether to include public and for what purpose.
activities; 共10兲 adequate time; 共11兲 well-defined process structure Process design
and rules versus flexibility/informality; 共12兲 consensus rules: Yes Specify what is needed to be accomplished with the public at each
versus no; 共13兲 formal enforcement mechanisms; 共14兲 effective step of the planning/decision-making process.
communication; 共15兲 adequate scientific and technical informa- Identify the stakeholders—internal and external.
tion; 共16兲 education and outreach; 共17兲 monitoring outcomes; 共18兲 Identify techniques to be used at each step in the process, taking
training in collaborative skills; 共19兲 agency support and participa- account of the needs of various diverse populations.
tion; 共20兲 legislative encouragement; and 共21兲 community re- Link techniques in an integrated plan.
sources. Conversely, locations without these items or with diffi- Implementation planning
cult issues will require additional effort to make IWRM and Plan implementation of individual public participation activities.
collaborative partnerships successful. Note: Source: Creighton 2004, with permission.

430 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2007.133:427-445.

 Table 3. Techniques for Public Participation Based on Stakeholder effort to address pertinent issues, linking to broader societal goals
Type of stakeholder Possible technique where feasible and practical, while not unduly burdening society
with cumbersome and unnecessary institutions and rules. This
Co-decision maker Negotiation session effort occurs through the institutional reform.
Active participant Workshop or advisory committee In many less developed countries, the challenge is often to
Technical reviewer Peer review panel create or restructure institutions and internal capacity to manage
Commenter Public meeting resources, while adequately engaging stakeholders—including
Observer Newsletter or information bulletins those in informal sectors of society. In developed countries, it is
General public News releases more typical that institutions are well established. Historically,
Uniformed/informal/ Outreach and engagement existing institutions developed piecemeal to address particular
historically marginalized facets of water management, for instance, to develop energy 共hy-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 05/01/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Note: Source: Expanded from Creighton 2004, with permission. dropower兲 or mitigate flood effects or expand irrigated agriculture
in a particle location or river basin based on the understanding
strong enabling legislation 共e.g., Potomac River兲 共Delli Priscoli and politics at the time of promulgation. Each of the emerging
2004兲. Public participation techniques, moreover, vary by stake- institutions are governed by facilitating legislation, usually with
holder type 共Table 3兲. specific and limited mandates, some of which may be at odds
with one another or not aligned completely with the current soci-
etal norms embodied in the concepts such as sustainable water
Developed versus Less Developed Countries resource systems and sustainable development. The challenge,
Focus of an IWRM program, moreover, is dependent upon a therefore, exists for institutional change to allow existing policies,
country’s level of development. IWRM has regained prominence laws, and administrative organizations to more readily work to-
in recent years to assist poverty reduction and 共sustainable兲 eco- gether or morph into institutions that support IWRM and sustain-
nomic development objectives, most recently expressed in terms able development.
of the “millennium development goals.” Five of these, collec- Factors behind institutional and IWRM reforms include: 共a兲
tively known as WEHAB, involve some aspect of water manage- water scarcity/conflicts; 共b兲 water quality/environmental degrada-
ment: Water supply and sanitation, energy, health, agriculture, and tion; 共c兲 financial crisis/matters, 共d兲 macrosocioeconomic reforms;
biodiversity 共Guerquin et al. 2003; GWP 2006; Jønch-Clausen 共e兲 political reforms; 共f兲 social issues; 共g兲 donor/lender pressures;
2004兲. International aid agencies are fostering top-down national 共h兲 internal/external agreements; and 共i兲 institutional synergy/
government policies and enabling the environment to facilitate pressures 共Saleth and Dinar 2005兲. Thus, often institutional
achieving these development goals. Consequently, engagement of change is instigated in a reactive manner. Nonetheless, the current
IWRM in the less developed countries is strongly linked to the effort in the international arena to assist less developed countries
institutional change and provision of basic services for develop- takes more of a proactive stance.
ment needs.
In developed countries, re-examination of water management
practices and the need for increased coordination in managing Progression of IWRM
water continually occurs in context of changing societal objec-
tives, increasing water demands, growing water user conflicts, The preliminary stage of the implementation of IWRM is com-
recognition of historic environmental degradation, and existing prised of studies, plans, and the formulation of projects to develop
restoration opportunities 共CALFED 2000; DWR 2005; Falken- and make use of water and natural resources for economic and
mark 2004; Hooper 2005; Kallis and Butler 2001; Sabatier et al. social development. In the intermediate stage, investment occurs
2005; USBR 2001兲. to provide infrastructure and engage in activities to make use
Another important aspect of development is differences in in- of water and natural resources. In the permanent stage, coordi-
frastructure. In developed countries, dams and water infrastruc- nated operations and management of the infrastructure, conserva-
ture have largely been constructed. Issues concern reoperation tion of water resources, and natural resources occur 共Table 4兲
and improving use of existing facilities for multiple objectives, as 共Dourajeanni et al. 2002; Dourajeanni 2001兲. These stages are
well as rectifying environmental damage produced by installation described by Hooper 共2006兲 in analogous governance terms: 共1兲
of the existing water infrastructure. In less developed countries, initial/functionary; 共2兲 emerging auto-adaptive; and 共3兲 mature
dams and other large scale infrastructure may still be considered adaptive, described in five functional groupings 共Table 5兲. Par-
as part of macrosocioeconomic objectives. ticular aspects of IWRM institutions, however, 共e.g., water rights
or hydropower development兲 may conform to different stages,
resulting in a mixed development of institutional components
IWRM and Institutional Reform
共Molle 2003兲.
Despite recent, prominent national and international attention, Linear development from preliminary to permanent manage-
IWRM is an old concept, progressed in some countries under ment stages reflect typical, historic progression. Historically, it
different guises and terminology as many as 70 years ago and was not until effort exceeded individual ability and collective
discussed in the United States, for example, as early as the late group action was required to exploit a resource, address resource
1800s 共Biswas 2004; White 1998; Cardwell et al. 2004兲. Biswas scarcity, deal with user conflicts, or tackle environmental degra-
共2004兲 and White 共1998兲 note that IWRM has remained elusive. dation before active and more mature, institutional management
Biswas, moreover, is highly critical of the ability of IWRM to emerged. Proactive IWRM based on sustainable water resource
succeed 共as presented in recent international forums兲, as the scope criteria does not require that the historic step-wise process is fol-
has broadened from the focus on water to encompassing a wide- lowed. In fact, costly environmental restoration and protracted
range of societal programs, contending that it is likely unmanage- conflict potentially can be avoided or reduced through earlier es-
able. The challenge, thus, is to engage in an appropriate level of tablishment of more comprehensive IWRM, river basin, and en-

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007 / 431

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2007.133:427-445.

 Table 4. Management Stages and Objectives
Management objectives
Water resource use and management
Natural resource use Environmental Sustainable
Management Sector Multiple/integrated and managementa managementb developmentc
stages 共a兲 共b兲 共c兲 共d兲 共e兲
Preliminary Studies, plans, and formulation of projects
Intermediate Sector water Multiple use 共integrated兲 Natural resource River basin Economic and social
resource water resource development development development development
development
Multisector 共integrated兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 05/01/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Permanent Sector water Natural resource Environmental Sustainable

resource water resource management management management development
management
Integrated watershed/catchment/river basin management Sustainability
Note: Sources: Based on Dourajeanni et al. 2002 and Dourajeanni 2001.
a
Simplified. Similar to water resources—sector and integrated natural resource development and management exist. The water resources category is one
sector of natural resources 共Fig. 1兲.
b
Simplified. Other categories exist, such as ecosystem management. The natural resources category forms a part of environmental management 共Fig. 1兲.
c
Simplified. Sustainable development consists of economic, environmental 共natural兲, and social components 共Fig. 2兲. All of the proceeding items
共columns兲 form part of sustainable development.

vironmental management practices than occurred in the past. protection of the Nation’s environment” 共US Federal Government
Similarly, the early adoption of IWRM can support macrosocio- 1983兲. The stated vision in the California Water Plan, moreover,
economic development objectives, as is being fostered in the in- is: 共a兲 vital economy; 共b兲 healthy environment; and 共c兲 high stan-
ternational arena. dard of living 共DWR 2005兲. These wider visions and goals are
translated into particular water policies and laws, which in turn
are administered.
IWRM Components Water resource assessment supports both the implementation
of water resource actions and the diagnosis of institutional per-
As presented here, IWRM is a process comprised of objectives,
institutions, implementation, and adaptation 共Fig. 5兲. Institution is formance that can provide adaptive feedback—a process of adap-
defined broadly to constitute policies, laws, and administration tive management 共Fig. 5兲. Various assessment protocols exist
共Fig. 6兲 共Bandaragoda, unpublished work, 2000; Saleth and Dinar, 共Davenport 2003; Heathcote 1998兲. In its simplest representation,
unpublished work, 1999兲. Strategic objectives are often broader it involves four steps: 共1兲 inventory and problem identification;
than particular water goals. For example, the 12 Millennium 共2兲 planning; 共3兲 implementation 共actions兲; and 共4兲 evaluation and
Development Goals were identified as a key to sustainable devel- adaptation. Adaptive management, then, involves evaluating the
opment 共Guerquin et al. 2003兲. Federal water resource develop- effectiveness of the current performance against the objectives,
ment agencies in the United States, on the other hand, are guided undertaking gap analysis, understanding improved and evolving
by the publication Principles and Guidelines: “The federal objec- scientific and technical knowledge, providing feedback, and
tive of water and related land resources project planning is to
modifying the water institutions to better meet the objectives.
contribute to national economic development consistent with the

Table 5. Functions of Management Stages 共Adapted from IWA Yearbook 2006, with Permission from the Copyright Holders, IWA兲
Preliminary Intermediate Permanent
Initial/ Emerging Mature
Functions functionary auto-adaptive auto-adaptive
Group 1. Data collection and processing, systems modeling, x x x
planning, stakeholder consultation and issue clarification.
Group 2. Project feasibility, design, implementation, operation, and x x x
maintenance, raising funds, ongoing community consultation, and
awareness raising.
Group 3. Allocating and monitoring shares, cost sharing principles. x x
Group 4. Policy and strategy development for economic, social and x
environmental issues, community awareness, and participation.
Group 5. Monitoring use and shares, monitoring contamination, x
and environmental conditions, oversight and review role for
projects promoted by partners, monitoring and assessing ecological
heath, monitoring sustainability of resource management, review of
strategic planning and implementation of modified plans.
Note: Source: Hooper 2006, with permission.

432 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2007.133:427-445.

 Table 6. GWP Interpretation of the Dublin Principles
No. Description
1. Water as a finite and vulnerable resource
a. A holistic approach
b. Resource yield has its natural limits
c. Effects of human activities
d. Upstream-downstream user relations
2. Participatory approach
a. Real participation
b. Participation is more than consultation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 05/01/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

c. Achieving consensus
d. Creating participatory mechanisms and capacity
e. Involvement and decisions at the lowest appropriate level
Fig. 5. IWRM components 3. Important role of women
a. Involvement of women in decision-making
b. Women as water users
Principles That Guide IWRM
c. Gender awareness
Several agencies and researchers are focusing on what constitutes 4. Water as an economic good
sound water governance, principles that underpin IWRM, and a. Water has a value as an economic good
measures to assess sustainability of water practices 共Andersson b. Value and charges are different
et al. 2004; GWP 2000; ASCE and UNESCO 1998; Cardwell c. Goal of full cost recovery
et al. 2004; Dourajeanni et al. 2002; Dourajeanni 2001; d. Managing demand through economic instruments
Falkenmark 2004; Hooper 2005, 2006; Rogers and Hall 2003; e. Financial self-sufficiency versus water as a social good
SWRR 2005兲. Note: Source: GWP 2000, with permission.
In international aid circles, renewed advocacy of IWRM is
based on the 1992 Dublin principles: 共a兲 freshwater is a finite and
vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life, development, and the 共UNESCO兲 derived sustainability criteria for the water resource
environment; 共b兲 water development and management should be systems. As introduced earlier, sustainable water resource systems
based on participatory approach involving users, planner, and are defined as supporting social objectives into the indefinite
policy-makers at all levels; 共c兲 women play a central part in the future without undermining the hydrologic and ecological
provision, management, and safeguarding of water; and 共d兲 water integrity 共ASCE and UNESCO 1998; Gleick et al. 1995兲. Hydro-
has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be logic integrity reflects maintaining a natural water balance 共in-
recognized as an economic good 共Solanes and Gonzáles-Villarreal cluding natural flow regime and groundwater stocks兲 to the extent
1999兲. The Global Water Partnership developed an interpretative possible. Achieving ecological integrity is central to the sustain-
understanding of the Dublin Principles 共Table 6兲. able development. Three forms of integrity are necessary for con-
The American Society of Civil Engineers 共ASCE兲 and United tinued ecosystem functioning: Biological, chemical, and physical
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization integrity.
Six categories were identified by ASCE/UNESCO for con-
sideration under the sustainable water resource systems: 共1兲 de-
sign, management, and operation of the physical infrastructure;
共2兲 environment and ecosystems; 共3兲 economics and finance;
共4兲 institutions and society; 共5兲 health and human welfare; and
共6兲 planning and technology. Each category is further defined by
up to 16 sample guidelines, summarized in Table 7 共ASCE and
UNESCO 1998兲.
In part, historic project development and resource exploitation
were undertaken with a limited view of the water value. While
important, market value or even economic value can form a small
portion of the total 共ecological兲 water value 共Fig. 7兲. Basing water
decisions on the market value can lead to imbalances to achieve
sustainable water resource systems. Difficulty can exist to quan-
tify the total water value, and in some cases it is not possible or
desirable, for instance, when contemplating cultural or indigenous
water use and value 共i.e., elements of nonmarket value to human
capital and ecosystem services兲. In other instances, additional
quantification can contribute to more informed and improved
water management decisions. Economic techniques exist to help
quantity nonmarket goods 共Emerton and Bos 2004; Loomis
2000兲. Many of these techniques seek to better quantify the ben-
Fig. 6. Water institutions 关Bandaragoda 共unpublished, 2000兲, with efits of the instream flows, providing improved understanding of
permission兴 the instream versus offstream benefits of water use, for example.

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007 / 433

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2007.133:427-445.

 Table 7. Important Guidelines for Planning and Management of
Sustainable Water Resource Systems
Number Description
1 Develop a shared vision of desired social, economic, and
environmental goals benefiting present as
well as future generations and identifying ways in which all
parties can contribute to achieving that shared vision.
2 Develop coordinated approaches among all concerned and
interested agencies to accomplish these goals, collaborating
with all stakeholders in recognition of mutual concerns.
3 Use approaches that restore or maintain economic vitality,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 05/01/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

environmental quality, and natural ecosystem biodiversity

and health.
4 Support actions that incorporate sustained economic, Fig. 7. Total value and cost of water 关Lant 共2004兲, with permission兴
sociocultural and community goals.
5 Respect and ensure private property rights, while meeting
community goals and working cooperatively with private floods兲; 共f兲 rules for conflict mitigation/access to courts; 共g兲 use
stakeholders to accomplish these common and shared goals. preference/basic human right to water; 共h兲 environmental flows/
6 Recognize that economies, ecosystems, and institutions are environmental protection/minimization of ecological harm/
complex, dynamic, and typically heterogeneous over space environmental impact assessment; 共i兲 stakeholder participation;
and time and develop management approaches that take into
共j兲 freedom of navigation; 共k兲 rules for transboundary issues; and
account and adapt to these characteristics.
共l兲 integrated resource management 共Dellapenna 2003, 2006;
7 Integrate the best science available into the decision-making
process, while continuing scientific research to improve
Draper 2002, 2006; ILA 2004兲. The model codes and general
knowledge and understanding. rules correspond strongly with core principles of sustainable de-
8 Establish baseline conditions for system functioning and
velopment, sustainable water resource systems, and IWRM.
sustainability against which change can be measured.
9 Monitor and evaluate options to determine if goals and Water Sharing Concepts
objectives are being achieved.
Water sharing is an important component of IWRM. A broad
Note: Source: ASCE and UNESCO 1998.
definition of water sharing is control and allocation of water from
headwaters to sea or sink. This definition entails water extraction
The Sustainable Water Resource Roundtable has taken one step and restitution, water impoundments and release schedules,
further and proposed indicators to measure the sustainable water groundwater management and interaction with river flow, and
use practices 共SWRR 2005兲. environmental allocation. It involves quantity and timing of the
While providing important direction, the Dublin and ASCE/ surface and groundwater flows to achieve multiple objectives
UNESCO principles, nevertheless, still remain broadly defined in 共economic, environmental, and social兲.
terms of the ability to implement concrete actions. Stakeholder In most countries, water is considered a national asset under
participation, and public education, and consultation are impor- public ownership. In others, it is a de facto common resource with
tant aspects of IWRM 共together with technical work and sound little oversight. Water rights provide legal grounds for water use.
science兲 that help translate principles into directives for action. Water rights are an important aspect of water sharing. Various
Decision-making needs to include a wide-range of participants: water rights allocation mechanisms exist, each with advantages
Vertical 共national, regional, and local兲 and horizontal 共across and disadvantages 共Table 8兲.
agencies兲, involving public and private interests 共GWP 2000; Water rights regimes are instituted to implement one or more
Creighton 2004; Delli Priscoli 2004; Sabatier et al. 2005兲. of the general water allocation and reallocation mechanisms pre-
sented in Table 8. Two common water right regimes are riparian
and appropriative rights. States within the United States, for ex-
IWRM and Water Sharing ample, generally follow one of these rights regimes. Riparian
rights are based on reasonable water use of land owners adjacent
to rivers and water bodies. Generally, reasonable use includes not
Model Water Codes
adversely affecting another’s right to make use of his or her ri-
Many countries and states are currently in the process of redevel- parian right. Appropriative rights were developed in the arid west-
oping water policy strategies and progressing laws that deal with ern United States where economic activities like mining took
water. ASCE and the International Law Association developed place far from rivers and water bodies. Appropriative rights are
model water codes and general legal rules for water resources often based on the principal of “first in time, first in right.” Hybrid
共Dellapenna 2003, 2006; Draper 2002, 2006; Eheart 2002; situations and modified rules exist under the two common water
ILA 2004兲. These codes and rules lay out guiding principles for rights regimes 共e.g., California兲. Several eastern states in the
sound water management based on the United States and inter- United States, furthermore, have converted to water right permit
national legal codes and court rulings. Major principles include: systems 共Getches 1997兲.
共a兲 recognition of the hydrological cycle and conjunctive use of Another aspect is duration of the right. Permanent or long-
the surface and groundwater; 共b兲 right of access to water/water term rights provide incentive to right holders to invest in infra-
rights; 共c兲 equitable and reasonable use; 共d兲 social/economic structure and technology, which can lead to improvements in
impact assessment/no-harm rule/avoidance and mitigation of physical and economic efficiency. However, it can also provide
third party impacts; 共e兲 rules for extreme events 共droughts and inflexibility due to rights being tied up in certain uses or right

434 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2007.133:427-445.

 Table 8. Water Allocation Mechanisms
Mechanisms Description Advantages Disadvantages
Marginal cost Price of water equals marginal Theoretically efficient; full cost recovery; Difficult to determine marginal cost; marginal
pricing cost of supplying the last unit potentially can incorporate social and other cost depends upon time period; difficult to
of water. costs; price can reflect undesirability of estimate social costs; requires volumetric
overuse of resource. monitoring.
Administrative Public allocation. Potential economies of scale; potential Often inflexible to rapid changes; potential
incorporation of public good, public trust, corruption/special interest influence.
environmental allocation, and protection of
underrepresented/ marginalized groups.
Markets 共Re兲allocation by market forces. Usually more flexible; potential reallocation Market failures 共externalities, nonmarket
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 05/01/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

to higher value uses; potential reallocation to goods, monopolies, etc.兲; equity issues; may
environmental uses. accelerate resource use.
User-based Collective action, usually by Collective action usually reflects local Conflict resolution; potential lack of river
local user group district. decisions and values 共shareholder based兲. basin efficiencies and management; potentially
undervalues uses that are not user-based focus.
Note: Source: Expanded from Dinar et al. 1997; Eheart and Lund 1996.

holders that may be inefficient or not reflect the modern water to technology issues related to its exploitation. Consequently,
demands and values. Conversely, limited duration water right many current laws do not adequately recognize the linkage be-
terms provide more flexibility, yet less incentive for investment. tween surface and groundwater 共Tarlock et al. 1993; Kemper
In the arid western United States, water rights are generally per- 2003兲. Groundwater legislation varies from substantial absence
manent, provided that they are used “beneficially” 共Getches of national or state rules 共DWR 2005兲 to full integration with
1997兲. Similarly, in Chile water rights are permanent 共Bauer surface water rights 共European Union 2000兲. In some states 共e.g.,
2004兲. In the Waikato Region of New Zealand, water rights pos- California兲, groundwater management is local, whereas in other
sess durations of less than 20 years with common expiration dates countries 共e.g., Chile兲 national rules exist. Groundwater entails
共Environment Waikato 2006兲, while Mexican water law allows 5 additional technical and management issues, including hydrogeo-
to 50 years in duration 共Garduño 2001兲. In France, water rights logical uncertainties, land use practices that impact recharge rates
are renewed each year 共Thoyer et al. 2001兲. and groundwater quality, saline intrusion, sustainable yield, and
Water rights are also about how to share the resource when it interaction with neighboring groundwater pumpers and stream
is scarce, like during a drought, and if certain uses take prece- flow. Advanced groundwater laws can consider drought year
dence over others. Water sharing under drought takes many stressing of groundwater stocks and rules to permit groundwater
forms, including rules on whose rights are suspended and in what banking and conjunctive use 共Blomquist et al. 2004兲.
order or how water is shared equitably. In the Otago Region of Rules about water sharing also involve clear mechanisms for
New Zealand, for example, when river flows drop below a certain conflict resolution, including important meditation and other
level, rostering of water takes occurs. If river levels drop further, methods that can be pursued prior to referral to the courts. In New
irrigators can be cut-off from water deliveries. Human and stock Zealand, a dedicated Environment Court exists, while in Colorado
take, however, remain outside of water delivery restrictions there is a Water Court 共Tarlock et al. 1993; Williams 1997兲. In
共Davis and Threlfall 2006兲. In the appropriative western United other locations, water conflicts are directed to court sections or
States, junior water rights are subservient to water deliveries to judges experienced in these matters. Often, however, specialized
senior water right holders. On the other hand, Chile follows a courts are not available and water cases are referred to the general
shared appropriative water law. In times of drought, all permanent court system, which can be insufficiently knowledgeable to pro-
water right holders must share equitably during water shortages duce effective and consistent legal rulings 共e.g., Bauer 2004兲.
共Bauer 2004兲. Court cases also may take many years to conclude, creating un-
Another aspect of water sharing, particularly in modern times, certainty regarding water rights, for example, impeding or delay-
is how environmental flows are protected legally, and how they ing water use and private investment in the infrastructure before
are dealt with in times of drought. In the Waikato Region of New the resolution.
Zealand, minimum environmental flows are identified and pro- A major issue in water sharing and water allocation is how to
tected by the regional government 共Environment Waikato 2006兲. deal with changes in water demands while faced with finite water
In Chile, the central government withholds environmental flows supplies, including growing urban demands due to population in-
from water rights available for acquisition. However, historically crease and increasing societal demand for recreation and environ-
limited to no monitoring has occurred such that it is unknown mental flows. One manner advocated is tradable water rights
whether the mandated flows are protected during times of drought 共Anderson and Snyder 1997; Easter et al. 1998; Howe et al.
共Davis and Riestra 2002兲. In California, environmental flows are 1986兲. Water markets 共in their various forms兲, however, can be
enforced principally by the State Water Resources Control Board contentious and opposed 共Dellapenna 2005兲. The ASCE model
共DWR 2005兲. Moreover, in times of drought, state and federal water codes provide guidance for water market transactions, al-
government programs exist to secure additional water for the en- beit highly restrained 共Dellapenna 2003, 2006兲, while another
vironment 共DWR 2005兲. ASCE publication provides guidance for permit trading in ripar-
Laws governing groundwater allocation and management ian doctrine states 共Eheart 2002兲.
typically have lagged behind surface water due to historic use of In the western United States, for instance, water market trans-
surface water, lack of understanding of interaction between actions are becoming more prevalent. In recent years, transactions
surface and groundwater, and historic lag in groundwater use due include the augmentation of environmental flows 共Loomis 2003兲.

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007 / 435

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2007.133:427-445.

 Moreover, water markets form official water management policy
in some western states—California, for example 共DWR 2005兲.
The nature of water 共stochastic supply, public good, and simulta-
neously, an input to economic activity and essential for life and
ecosystem services兲 makes treatment of water strictly as a com-
modity difficult and undesirable. Water is simultaneously an input
to economic activities and a nonmarket good. As discussed ear-
lier, private market value differs from total 共ecological兲 water
value 共Fig. 7兲. To ensure that total economic/ecological water
value is reflected in water sharing decisions, regulatory oversight
is necessary to incorporate the water markets within broader
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 05/01/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

water rights administration and IWRM systems to avoid known

market failures, particularly third party impacts, and protect non-
market values and environmental services that water provides
共Dellapenna 2003, 2006; Eheart 2002; Easter et al. 1999兲.

IWRM and Dams

Water storage and reservoir operating rules also are key aspects in
water sharing. Flow releases often are controlled by an array of
rules and variety of actors that involve water supply, flood con-
trol, hydropower generation, environmental flows, recreation,
water quality, water temperature, and other water uses. Histori-
cally, there has always been trade-offs in reservoir management:
For example, establishing a flood pool versus capturing excess
water for later release during the irrigation season. This tension
has expanded to address important recreational demands and to
cater for downstream ecological needs. A current trend is investi-
gating ways to improve reservoir operations to meet multiple
objectives, including environmental goals that were not part
of many original project authorizations 共Richter et al. 2003;
Fig. 8. Water resource assessment and environmental flows 关Richter
USBR 2001兲. Reservoir simulation and optimization modeling,
et al. 共2003兲, with permission兴
for example, can help assess multiple objectives by specifying
flow preferences for each use 共e.g., flood control, hydro-
power, water supply, environmental flows, recreation, and water
quality兲 to help derive improved reservoir operating rules 共Kirby International nongovernmental organizations call for full com-
1999兲. pliance with the World Commission on Dams recommendations
Another trend is selected dam removal 共Aspen Institute 2002兲. 共Bosshard 2004兲. In review of the Export Credit Agencies, it was
Due to the acknowledged conflict over existing dams and propos- found that, while compliance with the World Commission on
als for new dams, the interaction between dams and development Dams recommendations is not formally required, the same types
were recently reassessed by the World Commission on Dams, of issues are addressed in environmental impact assessments of
largely focused on issues confronting less developed countries large dams. However, the World Commission on Dams’ recom-
共WCD 2000兲. The World Commission on Dams developed seven mendations are frequently considered to be unrealistically ambi-
strategic priorities and corresponding policy principles for water tious and only partially applicable to Export Credit Agencies
and energy resource development: 共1兲 gaining public acceptance; 共Neumann-Silkow 2004兲.
共2兲 comprehensive options assessment; 共3兲 addressing existing
dams; 共4兲 sustaining rivers and livelihoods; 共5兲 recognizing en-
titlements and sharing benefits; 共6兲 ensuring compliance; and 共7兲 Water Sharing and the Environment
sharing rivers for peace, development, and security 共WCD 2000兲.
The World Commission on Dams report is largely based on the In countries where the water infrastructure is largely developed, it
sustainable development concepts and criteria encapsulated in is common for environmental restoration and reallocation to en-
sustainable water resource systems. These concepts are equally vironmental flows to be featured in IWRM efforts. A framework
applicable to situations where existing dam reoperation and res- for water resource assessment and adaptation based on an envi-
toration opportunities are being explored. ronmental management focus is presented in Fig. 8. This frame-
A possible implication of the World Commission on Dams work is also applicable to cases in which the riverine ecosystem is
findings is limited construction of new dams. On the other hand, not yet stressed—for example, involving the estimation of how
dams provide a range of services, including provision of water much water can be extracted without causing the ecosystem
for residences and industries, input to food production, and a stress. Such a situation exists in southern Chile, for example,
relatively clean source of renewable energy. They also play sig- where administrators are confronted with a large number of water
nificant roles in flood control, navigation and recreation 共ICOLD right requests on rivers that are largely unexploited. Recent
1997兲. Dams and water infrastructure are strongly linked to sus- changes to legislation allow administrators to reserve environ-
tainable economic growth 共Grey and Sadoff 2005兲. mental flows at much higher levels than previously allowed in the

436 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2007.133:427-445.

 country 共as well as many international standards兲 共Republic of tanks actively advocate and assist less developed countries to
Chile 2005兲. adopt IWRM plans. The Global Water Partnership summarized
Evaluations are aided by environmental flow assessments that the current status of national efforts to development IWRM and
use indicators or target species of interest within the riverine eco- water efficiency plans in less developed countries: 21% plans in
system. Methods include hydrologic, hydraulic, habitat, and place or substantial progress made, 53% some steps, and 26% of
“holistic”/expert panel, each with advantages and disadvantages countries are in initial stages 共GWP 2006兲. However, the survey
involving different levels of data requirements and producing reflects plans and not the actual implementation of IWRM. The
varying levels of confidence in their results 共Arthington and Global Water Partnership recognizes that in less developed coun-
Zalucki 1998兲. Tharme 共2003兲 documents environmental applica- tries: 共a兲 development processes are slow; 共b兲 society generally is
tions employed throughout the world. not inclusive; 共c兲 society is ill prepared at all levels 共lack of
An important aspect in conserving the riverine ecosystems is awareness and capacity兲; 共d兲 societal demands occur hurriedly
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 05/01/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

maintenance of the natural flow regime 共Poff et al. 1997兲. The and often produce unsustainable solutions; and 共e兲 IWRM is not
basis of the Building Block Method, for example, is the natural easy and is a naturally slow process 共GWP 2004兲.
flow regime 共Arthington and Zalucki 1998兲, which seeks to The situation in developed countries is different in that insti-
mimic the variation of flows that a river experiences, including tutions and capacity generally are in place, albeit not necessarily
important flushing flows. The natural flow approaches can be ap- organized in a manner conducive to IWRM. Furthermore, gener-
plied to systems that are stressed, as well as unstressed rivers. ally a more active and informed public exists 共including special
Moreover, the methods can be applied to locations with limited interests that may or may not want to progress IWRM兲. In both
rainfall or flow records, making use of standard hydrologic and developed countries and less developed countries, adoption of
hydraulic computer model applications and techniques to simulate IWRM generally requires institutional change and/or facilitation.
the ungauged rivers to estimate flows 共e.g., USACE 2006a,b, Institutional change is generally difficult in part due to: 共a兲
2007兲. human resistance to change and acceptance of the status quo; 共b兲
well established mechanisms within existing institutional water
sectors; 共c兲 well established relationships between the water sec-
IWRM and Financing tor and other sectors; and 共d兲 institutional and political power
based on existing structures that may feel threatened by changes.
Establishing IWRM institutions, and constructing and operating a In less developed countries, this situation is compounded by com-
water infrastructure requires funding. Two major trends have peting interest for limited funds and need for institutional capacity
emerged. The first is to establish systems that are self-financing building and meaningful stakeholder engagement and outreach,
共e.g., European Union 2000兲. Establishment of French river ba- including to informal sectors that may operate outside of institu-
sins was partially instigated as a manner to finance water infra- tional norms and laws.
structure 共World Bank 2006兲. Self-financing involves eliminating In developed countries, IWRM governance varies from pre-
subsidies and charging full cost for water services. However, liminary 共initial/functionary兲 to mature autoadaptive governance.
there are instances where subsides for certain water services The case briefs in the California and France demonstrate mature
should remain, for example, in provision of water supply and autoadaptive institutions, and informed and active stakeholder
sanitation to the poorest sectors. participation. Within the United States, however, substantial dif-
The second trend is to generate or attract sufficient capital to ference exists across states and regions with respect to integration
develop and maintain the infrastructure. This is particularly true of water uses and development of IWRM or watershed participa-
in less developed countries to provide basic services, such as tory organizations 共Sabatier et al. 2005; Tellman 1996; Viessman
water supply and sanitation services. This item often involves a and Feather 2006兲. Similar varying levels of adoption of IWRM
mixture of central government commitment within less developed exist in Europe 共Bressers and Kuks 2004兲.
countries, aid from developing countries and multilateral lending Several activities, nonetheless, provide the impetus for a more
agencies, and private financing. Some of the most heated discus- integrated water resource/river basin approach: 共a兲 increased
sions at international forums consider the role of privatization and water user conflicts and costly and sometimes ineffective litiga-
private involvement in the provision of water services. Many are tion; 共b兲 implementation of river basin based water quality man-
convinced of the need to involve private capital 共Lee and Floris agement; 共c兲 environmental restoration; 共d兲 reoperation of exist-
2003; Winpenny 2003兲, while others voice opposition to private ing reservoirs 共including for objectives not part of initial
involvement in providing basic services 共Barlow and Clarke authorization兲; 共e兲 increased focus on flood control; and 共f兲 source
2002兲. In developed countries, attraction of private capital can be water supply protection. Furthermore, these activities are taking
undertaken through issuance of bonds and community support, place under wider stakeholder forums.
like what has occurred in California 共DWR 2005兲. Water sharing is a major aspect of IWRM. An IWRM frame-
work does not dictate the form of water allocation, but rather
seeks to work within the existing legislative mandates, while at
IWRM and Water Sharing Discussion the same time encouraging institutional change toward legal
frameworks that are more conducive to IWRM. An IWRM frame-
General consensus exists regarding the concepts of the sustain- work can enhance water rights administration to encompass
able water resource systems and IWRM benefits. Some opposi- broader water management objectives. In particular, by its defini-
tion exists from those who believe in strong private property tion, an IWRM framework can serve to better: 共1兲 address the
rights, primacy of markets, and reduced government roles. Diffi- hydrogeographic extent of the basin and deal with the conjunctive
culty lies in building consensus for institutional change and trans- surface and groundwater; 共2兲 establish an enhanced forum for
lating the broad concepts into operational actions. Wide-scale cooperation and stakeholder participation such that the conflicts
adoption of IWRM, in fact, still remains elusive. are less likely to arise; and 共3兲 consider explicitly the total value
In the international sector, aid agencies and water policy think of water, including values held by nonwater title holders.

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007 / 437

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2007.133:427-445.

 In summary, ten major themes emerge from the review of enables the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to authorize
IWRM and water sharing: 共1兲 importance of national and local hydropower reservoirs. The United States, moreover, was at the
institutional/organizational enabling environments where top- forefront in the world in re-embracing an environmental focus
down meets bottom-up approaches; 共2兲 integration 共sectors, dis- 关e.g., Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 共1968兲, National Environmental
ciplines, technical and social, private and public, surface and Policy Act 共1969兲, Clean Water Act 共1972兲, and Endangered Spe-
groundwater, water supply/sanitation and environment, etc.兲 that cies Act 共1973兲兴, all of which have substantial influence on water
evolves along a strategic and priority basis; 共3兲 collaborative ap- management.
proaches and stakeholder involvement 共national, regional, local; The United States Bureau of Reclamation operates a number
public and private, technical and layperson兲; 共4兲 scale factors, of water supply dams and projects in the western United States.
where management and decision-making are promulgated at ap- Also, the United States Corps of Engineering operates a number
propriate national, regional, river basin, and/or subbasin levels; of dams and projects to perform its flood control and navigation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 05/01/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

共5兲 IWRM in developed countries often involves some form of mandates; it also undertakes functions in wetland permitting and
environmental restoration; 共6兲 IWRM in less developed countries environmental restoration. The United States Fish and Wildlife
often involves institutional capacity building and stakeholders service conserves, protects, and enhances fish, wildlife, and plants
outreach and support—with focus on provision of basic services; and their habitat, while the National Marine Fisheries Service
共7兲 IWRM generally is underpinned by balanced, multiple objec- protects and preserves living marine resources, including anadro-
tive sustainable water resources systems criteria as core guiding mous fish. The United States Department of Agriculture manages
principles; 共8兲 recognition that water is simultaneously an eco- forests and watersheds. Protecting human health and safeguarding
nomic input and noneconomic good; 共9兲 movement toward sus- the environment is the responsibility of the United States Envi-
tainable financing and cost recovery with targeted subsides for ronmental Protection Agency 共DWR 2005兲. States, however,
poor sectors; and 共10兲 the international adoption of the IWRM are now major players in water management, in some cases
framework as the preferred water management institutional struc- administering federal laws, while in other cases enacting and ad-
ture, while also recognizing slow yet progressive uptake of ministering state legislation and water projects 共Tellman 1996;
IWRM. Viessman and Feather 2006兲. As presented earlier, water rights in
the United States are usufructuary based on two doctrines: Ripar-
ian and appropriative. Another important right, particularly in the
IWRM Practice western United States, is the reserved right associated with the
federal reserve lands 共Getches 1997; Tarlock et al. 1993兲.
Case briefs in California and France are presented to demonstrate State water and environmental laws influence or control water
concepts discussed in the first part of this paper. In each location, management. United States water management is also heavily in-
mature IWRM institutions or planning procedures exist, albeit in fluenced by litigation—perhaps more so than any other country.
different forms. For each location, an orientation is first provided, Lawsuits can delay the implementation and unduly increase costs
followed by review of the major themes just identified, with focus of promising projects and management practices. At the same
on enabling environment, institutions, and participation. Further- time, lawsuits can produce positive affects, for example, forcing
more, in each case a particular aspect is highlighted: State-wide agencies and the private sector to comply with established laws,
planning and nongovernmental organization participation in Cali- and to coerce negotiation to improve project design or operational
fornia, and historic development and hierarchy of vertical integra- practices. Together, the laws, litigation, and actors influence and
tion in France. The two locations are atypical in that sophisticated provide a complex mix of responsibilities and water sharing chal-
integration of water management practices is undertaken. It is not lenges in the United States.
suggested that it is necessary to copy these models. Rather, the Several activities provide impetus towards a more integrated
two case briefs demonstrate that IWRM can be carried out under water resource and river basin approach in the United States: 共a兲
different institutional structures. At the same time, however, the implementation of water quality and total maximum daily loads
two locations reveal that despite engagement of IWRM based on required under the Clean Water Act; 共b兲 growing concern and
multiple objective decision-making criteria that consider sustain- popular support for environmental restoration and custodianship
able water resource system criteria, challenges remain to improve 共e.g., the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, Kissimmee River, and
water management in these two locations. Florida Everglades兲; 共c兲 reauthorization of hydropower plants
共i.e., Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing兲; 共d兲
flood control and reoperation of reservoirs for multiple objectives;
United States and 共e兲 source water supply protection.
Within the United States, the “watershed approach” has been
The situation in the United States represents fragmented water adopted at the federal level in a multidepartmental agreement
management and partial incorporation of principles that guide 共USDA et al. 2000兲, while watershed partnerships at the local
IWRM, while the state of California has adopted planning and level are becoming more common 共Sabatier et al. 2005; Genskow
implementation policies more in line with an IWRM framework. and Born 2006兲. Currently, however, watershed management is
No national water policy statement or law calls for or provides typified by highly technical characterization of the watershed and
authority to facilitate top-down or bottom-up multiple agency or- water bodies, while watershed organizations generally lack legal
ganization of IWRM or river basin management in the United mandates to coordinate and implement actions 共Genskow and
States 共AWRA 2007; Loucks 2003兲. Legislation has followed a Born 2006兲.
typical, historic pattern: Laws addressing particular issues were
promulgated piecemeal; resultant federal laws and programs are California Water Management
quite involved and complex—more than 40 federal agencies pos-
sess some aspect of water programs or statutory responsibilities California encompasses 268,680 square kilometers and is home to
共Tarlock et al. 1993兲. For example, the Federal Power Act 共1938兲 38 million inhabitants. In 2004, it produced a per capita gross

438 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2007.133:427-445.

 state product of $35,000. Rainfall varies across the state from less ships 共i.e., “regional collaborative partnerships”兲, developing and
than 100 mm in the southeast to 1,000 mm in the northwest. A documenting the plans, and diversifying regional water portfolios
large scale water infrastructure was developed from the late 1930s 共DWR 2005兲.
through 1970s to meet the imbalance of water supply and demand Special interest groups, nongovernmental organizations and
in the state and fuel the state’s economy, creating an intercon- researchers play active roles in influencing water resource man-
nected water storage and delivery system that encompasses most agement through direct participation in the state and local plan-
of the state. Water is delivered to the Central Valley and far south ning processes, conducting studies, and lodging lawsuits, bringing
agriculture and urban areas from storage located in the north and both positive and negative effects to the water management pro-
eastern parts of the state 共DWR 2005兲. cess. Nongovernmental organizations and research institutes
Groundwater, moreover, is used extensively in the Central Val- helped develop the Environmental Water Account, and have
ley for agricultural and urban purposes, reaching 20–30% of total shown benefits of additional conjunctive surface and groundwater
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 05/01/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

water use in a typical year, and as much as 60% in drought use, urban water savings, and water allocation based on economic
years—which exceeds recharge 共DWR 1998兲. Natural river flow principles 共CALFED 2003; Gleick et al. 2003; Jenkins et al.
regimes and habitat have been altered significantly. Two-thirds 2004; Lund et al. 2007; Purkey et al. 1998兲. Many aspects of
of the native freshwater fish in California are listed or likely can- these studies were subsequently incorporated in some form into
didates for listing as threatened or endangered, or are already the California Water Plan.
extinct 共Moyle 2002兲. The Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta is a focal point in state
Water is shared under the full gamut of existing laws and water resource management. It is a rich ecosystem that has been
project mandates. California is a hybrid state in that both riparian significantly modified. The Delta also serves as the water delivery
and appropriative rights are observed. Reserved rights, pueblo conduit to populous Southern California, home to more than 20
rights 共associated with a limited number of communities founded million inhabitants. The CALFED Bay-Delta program, initiated in
when the Spanish ruled California兲, the public trust, and interstate 1995, is a cooperative effort by 23 federal and state agencies, and
compacts also exist. The State Water Project and the Central Val- local and private interests 共a collaborative superagency兲 to forge a
ley Project hold water rights that, in turn, are contracted to third consensus regarding water management and environmental pro-
parties. Water rights and water quality control are administered by grams associated with the degraded Bay-Delta ecosystem. Key
the State Water Resources Control Board. Environmental flow is points of the program comprise levee system integrity, water use
enforced through various means, including State Water Resource efficiency, water transfers, watershed management, storage, Delta
Control Board rulings 共water quantity and water quality兲, Central conveyance, water quality, and ecosystem restoration 共CALFED
Valley Project Improvement Act reallocation, Federal Energy 2000兲. Despite a significant effort, however, Delta smelt 共consid-
Regulatory Commission hydropower licenses, public trust, and
ered an indicator of Delta ecosystem health兲 are at record low
litigation 共e.g., regarding Mono Lake and Klamath River兲. More
populations in 2006 and major rethink of the Delta efforts have
recently, additional environmental flows have been secured
been called for 共Lund et al. 2007兲.
through water market transactions under the Environmental Water
Financing and water service payment in California reflect the
Account 共CALFED 2003; DWR 2005兲.
myriad of enabling statutes, implementing regulations, agency
The California legislature recognized the importance of water
mandates, and actors in water management. For example, it is not
early in the 1900s and introduced statewide water resource master
uncommon for water supplied to an end-user to be handled con-
planning, eventually taking form as the California Water Plan.
tractually or physically by several layers of water supply agency
The California Department of Water Resources fulfills a “collabo-
rative facilitator” role to produce the California Water Plan, one hierarchies, each with its own financing and water charging
that now involves significant stakeholder and public participation. mechanisms.
The California Water Plan serves as a forum to assess and coor- The California Water Plan represents an IWRM planning and
dinate water sharing and management in the state among federal, facilitating forum; it does not implement or mandate actions. As a
state, county, local, and private water users and interested parties, planning and facilitating forum, it has played an important role in
mandated in the California water code. The California Water Plan IWRM, contributing a positive supporting role in the document-
has evolved from a primary focus on water development to one ing water resource development and management needs with sig-
seeking a balance among divergent mandates, interests, and ob- nificant public participation. No clear federal legislative IWRM
jectives. Bulletin No. 3, the first California Water Plan, was pro- mandate exists. However, IWRM and participatory organizations
duced in 1957, representing a master water development plan to exist in the state at various levels from statewide planning to local
augment the water supply, largely conceived and planned by en- groundwater subbasin management. Nonetheless, sustainable
gineers 共DWR 1957兲. Much of this plan was enacted. Currently, a water resource systems remains elusive, however, due to historic
California Water Plan is produced every 5 years, known as Bul- environmental damage produced by construction and continued
letin 160. The latest California Water Plan involved the largest operation of the water resource infrastructure, large water extrac-
public participation to date, addressing the full-range of state tions, and continued groundwater overdraft. In addition to the
water management issues and assisted by professional third party Delta smelt, the Klamath River Chinook salmon in northern Cali-
facilitators. Significant participation by a wide-range of stake- fornia were at record low levels in 2006, for example. In early
holders with differing interests delayed publication by two years 2006, the Department of Water Resources and the United State
共DWR 2005兲. Bureau of Reclamation were ordered by the State Water Re-
A key initiative in the 2005 California Water Plan calls for the sources Control Board to curtail Delta pumping to Southern Cali-
development of integrated regional water resource plans. The fornia, while a court order required releasing additional Klamath
California Water Plan identified 25 strategies to help meet re- River environmental flows for salmon. A primary pending issue is
gional water management objectives, including water use effi- how California will deal with the continuing demand for water as
ciency, recycling, desalination, and storage. The integrated urban areas grow, adding pressure on an already stressed environ-
regional water resource plans include fostering regional partner- ment and encroachment on agriculture water and lands.

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007 / 439

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2007.133:427-445.

 Table 9. Evolution of Water Management in France
What Emphasis
Napoleonic Codes 共c. 1804兲 Private water rights.
Water Law of 1898 Public health and public water rights and access.
Water Law of 1964 Creation of water basin agencies and committees; water quality management.
Law of 1976/Fishing Law of 1984 Protection of nature and aquatic environment are declared of public interest.
Water Law Amendment of 1992 Balanced water resource management; preservation of aquatic environment is
prerequisite for sustainable water management; wider stakeholder involvement.
EU Water Framework Directive of 2000 Good ambient water status 共other items described in main text兲.
Water Law Amendments of 2003 and 2006 Rectification of French law with EU Water Framework Directive.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 05/01/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Note: Source: Expanded from MEDD 2003.

French River Basin Committees and Agencies 共d兲 promoting a combined approach of emission limits and ambi-
ent quality standards with incentive-based instruments to reduce
River basin management in France reflects a high degree of ver- contamination; 共e兲 cost recovery and transparency; 共f兲 public par-
tical integration and adoption of IWRM practices. France is a ticipation in management decisions; and 共g兲 streamlining existing
country of 547,030 square kilometers and 60 million people, with legislation 共European Union 2000兲. Prior to the passage of the
a $30,000 purchasing power parity per capita gross national prod- Water Framework Directive, nearly 30 directives were enacted
uct in 2005. Its climate varies from Mediterranean in the south- since 1975 that dealt in some manner with the water quality con-
east to generally cool winters and mild summers and rainfall trol and management. The Water Framework Directive, conse-
throughout the year in other areas. Average annual rainfall varies quently, reflects a synthesized and coherent treatment of the water
from 600 mm to over 2,000 mm, resulting in runoff that varies up quality management based on river basins, while recognizing
to four times across the country. Current water challenges include transboundary issues and existing organizations that were formed
the overallocation and discrepancy between supply and demand to deal with them. It calls for the protection of the aquatic ecol-
共particularly in the southwest兲, and nonpoint source pollution ogy, unique and valuable habitats, drinking water resources, and
from the agriculture 共e.g., Brittany and Parisian basins兲. bathing water 共MEDD 2003兲.
Over the last 50 years, IWRM in France has evolved from an Economic aspects of the Water Framework Directive were not
establishment of River Basin Committees, whose focus initially considered explicitly. Considerable expenditure is expected.
was the point source water quality discharges to a full-scale focus However, several Water Framework Directive provisos exist with
on ambient receiving water health in conjunction with the public respect to the cost benefit analysis to justify the delays for achiev-
participation 共Table 9兲. The 1964 Water Law created separate ing good status of heavily-modified water bodies. Some argue that
public agencies for each of the six major river basins in the coun- legal enforceability is weak and that expenditure and meeting
try 共River Basin Committees兲. The 1992 water law raised receiv- good quality water in all locations may not occur 共Kallis and
ing water health to an equal status with other water uses, while Butler 2001兲. Most aspects called for in the Water Framework
also tempering control of development that tended to be domi- Directive already formed part of the French law; consequently,
nated by national services operating for the general interest to a compliance with the Water Framework Directive in France was
more flexible management regime that offers wider explanations easier than in other European union countries. The main levels of
and negotiations among stakeholders 共Piégay et al. 2002兲. The the organization of water management in France are classified in
2000 European Union Water Framework Directive further galva- Table 10.
nized the focus on receiving water health. Quantitative aspects of the water resource management are not
Consequently, France follows a “public utility” model for explicitly emphasized in the Water Framework Directive. It is
water allocation and water quality management. It is comprised of considered in relation to the provision of good status of water
the River Basin Committees 共collaborative superagencies兲 based quality and in reference to the pricing rules that should be de-
on hydrographic basins and public participation founded in signed to promote a more efficient use of water 共Kallis and Butler
French law and reinforced by the Water Framework Directive. 2001兲. Water quantity, consequently, is governed largely by the
Key goals of the Water Framework Directive are: 共a兲 expanding French law and regulations. The Napoleonic Codes were devel-
the scope of the water protection to surface and groundwater; oped after the French revolution, outlining property ownership
共b兲 achieving “good status” 共ecological and chemical兲 of receiv- and individual rights; basic water rights reflected private property
ing waters by 2015; 共c兲 managing water based on river basins; ownership. In 1892, water was returned to state ownership, which

Table 10. Governance Levels in France

Level Membership Description
European community European Union country members Directives to which national legislation must conform.
National government France Rules and general principles of management,
and coordination of state actions and actors
Six River Basin Committees National government, Resource planning and management,
and River Basin Agencies regional government, and users financing through pollution and consumption fees.
Communities and intercommunal bodies Subbasin and local government and users. Service provision and technical, administrative,
and political management
Note: Source: Dziedzicki and Larrue 2004, with permission.

440 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2007.133:427-445.

 prevails today. Navigable watercourses remain in the public do- dates in 1992, 2003, and 2006. Governance and execution is
main; the national government governs their use. Public authori- largely organized based on the hydrographic boundaries where
ties grant usufructuary water use rights to private parties through integration is sought through participation of public and private in
temporary licenses. The use licenses are theoretically assessed the River Basin Committees and local River Basin Agencies. The
and approved each year. However, in practice, the licenses are committees’ activities are self-financed through user charges.
routinely renewed and a situation of overallocation and water France faces a situation of rectifying the past water overallocation
stress exists in many rivers, particularly in regard to environmen- and environmental damage due to contamination. This situation is
tal flows. However, the 1984 Fishing Law requires that new water reinforced by the Water Framework Directive, however, which
infrastructure 共e.g., dams兲 must ensure that a minimum discharge among other items seeks to achieve good water status by 2015.
of 10% of average annual flows over the previous 5 years must be
maintained 共Thoyer et al. 2001, 2004兲.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 05/01/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The River Basin Committees are comprised of equal represen- Case Brief Comparison
tation from: 共a兲 local councils; 共b兲 water users; and 共c兲 national
services. They develop water resource development and manage- In the United States, IWRM legislation does not exist, and na-
ment master plans, which were completed for all six river basins tional top-down mandates are largely absent. In their absence, the
by 1997 and are scheduled for renewal in 2009. The River Basin state of California has stepped in to provide a strong facilitating
Agency is a public administrative agency in charge of implement- role to encourage IWRM practices and improve the coordination
ing the decisions made by the corresponding River Basin Com- among many parties. In France, IWRM practices have grown
mittees. A River Basin Agency levies water contamination and predominantly from top-down mandates. In the 1960s, France
extraction fees, and in turn provides financial assistance for water reorganized water governance based on river basins, which were
related activities and works, including water infrastructure, moni- reaffirmed in the Water Framework Directive in the 1990s. Some
toring, and other aspects of water resource management 共Piégay argue, however, that the Water Framework Directive differs from
et al. 2002兲. IWRM in a number of ways 共Mizanur Rahaman et al. 2002兲.
Local development and management plans to manage water The United States federal government places net economic
collectively at the subbasin level are optional and are produced development as the primary objective, while complying with the
through local initiative. The development of these plans occurs established environmental laws 共US Federal Government 1983兲.
within the constraints and objectives spelled out in the master The 1992 French water law places environmental concerns on an
plans. For example, the master plan may identify permissible even footing with economic and social aspects. However, others
water extractions and discharges along a river reach. The local contend that the Water Framework Directive seeks good water
management plans are elaborated by ad hoc local committees status without full consideration of the economic implications
comprised of water users 共25%兲, local government representatives 共Kallis and Butler 2001兲.
共50%兲, and national government representatives 共25%兲. The na- In California, active public participation occurs from dynamic
tional government, however, holds final decision-making status: It involvement in formal state water resource planning, progressing
can veto all decisions, and can impose its own solution when novel ideas 共some of which are later adopted in the state water
locals are unable to compromise, although it rarely invokes this plan兲, to litigation that can force compliance with existing laws
right 共Thoyer et al. 2001兲. Water infrastructure and water quality and consideration of alternative water management practices
control measures are undertaken at the local level 共subbasin and 共CALFED 2003; DWR 2005; Gleick et al. 2003; Jenkins et al.
local governments兲, often with substantial financial participation 2004; Purkey et al. 1998兲. The state water plan has, in fact, pro-
and involvement of basin agencies and the national government. duced a centralized water management master planning effort 共as
The River Basin Agency charges to public or private parties opposed to decentralization兲 to enable information sharing and
according to the amount of disturbance that their activities cause education, wider stakeholder participation, multiple objective
to the aquatic environment based on the “polluter pays” principle. planning, and explicit acknowledgment of the interconnected
Charges are proportionate to the quantity of the contaminant dis- water storage and delivery system that creates a “river basin/
charged to natural receiving environments or the volume of water problemshed” encompassing nearly the entire state. Specific ac-
extracted where feasible, otherwise a fixed fee is levied. The col- tions, however, originate from both centralized and decentralized
lected money is then redistributed in the form of financial assis- sectors.
tance for actions to tackle the water quality contamination, protect In France, public involvement involves decentralization of de-
aquatic environments, or improve the access to water resources. cisions and the implementation from the historical, highly centrist
The financial assistance takes the form of subsidies or an interest state planning to the six River Basin Committees and a multitude
free loan repayable in 10 years 共ALLB 2006兲. The River Basin of local River Basin Agencies and municipalities, although the
Agencies, thus, are self-financing. Charges provide incentive to national government retains final say; much public involvement
manage water better 共e.g., decreasing contaminant discharge re- to date has taken more of a consultative form than active partici-
sults in less fee charge兲. For example, the Loire-Bretagne River pation 共Piégay et al. 2002; Thoyer et al. 2001兲.
Basin Committee is one of six in France. Its master plan identifies In both California and France, historic imbalances transpired,
six objectives: 共1兲 collect and treat wastewater; 共2兲 improve in- compromising healthy riverine ecosystems. In many cases, imple-
dustrial discharge quality; 共3兲 improve agricultural nonpoint mentation of IWRM requires restoration of flows and habitat, and
source runoff; 共4兲 improve potable water supply quality; 共5兲 im- improving the water quality, while managing the growing demand
prove water resource management; and 共6兲 rehabilitate aquatic for water quantity and pressure on the water quality.
environments. In 2004, for instance, the Loire-Bretagne RBA pro- The most straightforward financing model exists in France,
vided €147 million of financial assistance of the €468 million of where fees collected for water extractions and discharge are used
capital works undertaken in the river basin 共ALLB 2005兲. to fund water infrastructure and management practices within the
In summary, France possesses a strong enabling environment river basin. In fact, a principal driving force behind the creation of
since 1964, more recently reflected in the three Water Code up- the river basin was to finance water activities 共World Bank 2006兲.

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007 / 441

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2007.133:427-445.

 years adoption of IWRM has been promoted in a proactive man-
ner as a mechanism for poverty reduction and economic growth
in less developed countries, and as a means for intervention prior
to dire environmental degradation or acute conflict in developed
countries.
It must be recognized, moreover, that there are profiteers and
losers from approaches that differ from the existing water man-
agement practices. Those that anticipate a loss or feel threatened
will work against the integration and new water management in-
stitutions. A key to advance the adoption of IWRM and increased
coordination is to demonstrate and ensure that: 共1兲 tangible ben-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 05/01/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

efits exist; 共2兲 benefits outweigh disbenefits; and 共3兲 those who
lose out are compensated 共Ballweber 2006; Howe 2005兲.

Conclusion

Slow progress towards IWRM 共as evidenced through historic

water management based on sector focus, limited participation,
and restricted criteria兲 often has resulted in suboptimal outcomes
Fig. 9. Water management and influences
with certain sectors disenfranchised and other sectors adversely
affected, sometimes irreparably 共e.g., river habitat and biodiver-
Conversely, financing and cost in California reflect a large con- sity, indigenous communities兲. Movement toward more wide-
glomeration of methods, reflecting the myriad of enabling legis- spread adoption of IWRM plans is underway in many locations. It
lation, agency mandates, and actors in water management in the remains to be seen how plans are translated into legislative frame-
state. works, and how general frameworks are transformed into viable
river basin management and other modes of operational and local
management. Faced with shifting societal values, growing water
Discussion demand, increasing water quality degradation, and more prevalent
water use conflicts, IWRM remains a promising mechanism and
The majority of this paper was dedicated to general concepts. the current internationally recognized framework to achieve im-
Translating these general concepts into operational activities is a proved water management.
significant task. The issues addressed in this paper, moreover, are
limited to water sharing. IWRM, watershed/catchment manage-
ment, and environmental management consider multiple issues, Acknowledgments
such as water quality and habitat protection that extends into
some form of land use planning. When linked more integrally Darryl Davis, Joseph Dellapenna, and Sophie Thoyer are thanked
with wider societal and economic development objectives, the for feedback on portions of the text. Three anonymous reviewers
role and complexity of IWRM can become daunting as Biswas are also thanked for comments to improve the paper.
共2003兲 implies. The water sector, in fact, influences and is influ-
enced by a wide-range of issues within the national and interna-
tional settings, which can become more complex when dealing References
with transboundary issues 共Fig. 9兲.
IWRM is an old concept that has proven difficult to imple- Agence de l’eau loire-bretagne 共ALLB兲. 共2005兲. “Rapport d’activité
ment; wide-scale adoption of IWRM remains elusive. Resistance 2004.” ALLB, Orleans, France.
is found in difficulties in human and institutional change required Agence de l’eau loire-bretagne 共ALLB兲. 共2006兲. “Charges applied by the
Loire-Bretagne Water Agency.” 具http://www.eau-loire-bretagne.fr/
to establish and implement IWRM, as well as the potential range
english/a/fr_a3 angl.htm典; “Financial assistance provided by the
and complexities of issues that can be addressed. Emphasis
Loire-Bretagne Water Agency.” 具http://www.eau-loire-bretagne.fr/
should be placed on the degree of the coordination and based on english/a/fr_a2angl.htm典 共March 28, 2006兲.
priorities. Pertinent issues where an IWRM framework can help Aggens, L. 共1983兲. “Identifying different levels of public interest in par-
improve water sharing include consideration of the hydrogeo- ticipation, in public involvement and dispute resolution—Volume 1.”
graphic basin and surface and groundwater, improved forum for IWR Research Rep. 82-R1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washing-
collaboration and participation, and improved likelihood of con- ton, D.C.
sidering the total value of water, including instream and nonwater American Society of Civil Engineers 共ASCE兲 and United Nations Edu-
title holder values. cational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 共UNESCO兲. 共1998兲.
In developed countries, institutions are often entrenched and “Sustainability criteria for water resources systems.” ASCE, Reston,
relationships among departments well established. In undevel- Va.
American Water Resource Association 共AWRA兲. 共2007兲. “American
oped countries, society and institutions often require institutional
water resource association. Third national water resources policy
capacity building, which sometimes offers greater opportunity for dialogue.” 具http://www.awra.org/meetings/DC2007/index.html典.
institutional change and adoption of IWRM. Historically, institu- 共February 12, 2007兲.
tional change generally has been motivated by conflict or acute Andersson, L., Bonell, M., and Moody, D. 共2004兲. “Foreword.” 关Special
predicaments 共e.g., acute water quality degradation or scarcity兲 thematic issue: Hydrology for the Environment, Life, and Policy
rather than proactive, precautionary efforts. Nonetheless, in recent 共HELP兲 Program兴. Water Resources Development, 20共3兲, 267–274.

442 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2007.133:427-445.

 Anderson, T., and Snyder, P. 共1997兲. “Water markets. Priming the invis- and Institutions Committee Rep., American Society of Civil Engi-
ible pump.” The Cato Institute, Washington, D.C. neers, Reston, Va.
Arthington, A., and Zalucki, J. 共1998兲. “Comparative evaluation of envi- Delli Priscoli, J. 共2004兲. “What is public participation in water resources
ronmental flow techniques: Review of methods.” Occasional Paper management and why is it important.” Water Int., 29共2兲, 221–227.
No. 27/98. Land and Water Resources Research and Development Dinar, A., Rosegrant, M., and Meinzen-Dick, R. 共1997兲. “Water alloca-
Corporation, Canberra, Australia. tion mechanisms: Principles and examples.” Publication No. 1779.
Aspen Institute. 共2002兲. “Dam removal—A new option for a new cen- The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
tury.” The Aspen Institute, Queenstown, Md. Dourajeanni, A. 共2001兲. “Water management at the river basin level:
Ballweber, J. 共2006兲. “A comparison of IWRM frameworks: The United Challenges in Latin America.” Serie recursos naturales e infraestruc-
States and South Africa.” J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ., 135, 74–79. tura No. 29, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Car-
Barlow, M., and Clarke, T. 共2002兲. Blue gold, The New York Press, New ibbean, Division of Natural Resources and Infrastructure, Santiago,
York. Chile.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 05/01/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Bauer, C. 共2004兲. “Siren song.” Chilean Water Law as a model for inter- Dourajeanni, A., Jouravlev, A., and Chávez, G. 共2002兲. “Gestión del agua
national reform, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. a nivel de cuencas: Teoría y práctica.” Serie recursos naturales e
Biswas, A. 共2004兲. “Integrated water resources management: A reassess- infraestructura No. 46, Economic Commission for Latin America
ment. A water forum contribution.” Water Int., 29共2兲, 248–256. and the Caribbean, Division of Natural Resources and Infrastructure,
Blomquist, W. 共1992兲. “Dividing the waters.” Governing groundwater in Santiago, Chile.
Southern California, ICS Press, Ithaca, N.Y. Draper, S. 共2002兲. “Model water sharing agreements for the 21st cen-
Blomquist, W., Schlager, E., and Heikkila, T. 共2004兲. “Common waters, tury.” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va.
diverging streams: Linking institutions and water management in Draper, S. 共2006兲. “Sharing water in times of scarcity: Guidelines and
Arizona, California, and Colorado.” Resources for the future, Wash- procedures in the development of effective agreements to share water
ington, D.C. across political boundaries.” American Society of Civil Engineers,
Bosshard, P. 共2004兲. “An NGO perspective on the Equador principles.” Reston, Va.
Proc., Issues-based Workshop on Financing Dams and Sustainable Dziedzicki, J-M., and Larrue, C. 共2004兲. “An innovative but uncompleted
Development, United Nations Environment Program 共Dams and De- integration process. The audomariois and the sèvre nantaise in
velopment Program兲, Geneva, Switzerland. France.” Integrated governance and water basin management,
Bressers, H., and Kuks, S., eds. 共2004兲. “Integrated governance and water H. Bressers and S. Kuks, eds., Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The
basin management: Conditions for regime change and sustainability.” Netherlands.
Kluwer Academic, Boston. Easter, K., Rosegrant, M., and Dinar, A. 共1998兲. Markets for water: Po-
CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 共2000兲. “California’s water future. A tential and performance, Kluwer Academic, Boston.
framework for action.” California Department of Water Resources, Easter, K., Rosegrant, M., and Dinar, A. 共1999兲. “Formal and informal
Sacramento, Calif. markets for water: Institutions, performance, and constraints.” The
CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 共2003兲. “The environmental water World Bank Research Observer, 14共1兲, 99–116.
account. Reducing conflict between fishery management and water Eheart, J. 共2002兲. “Riparian water regulations: Guidelines for withdrawal
supply.” White paper, California Department of Water Resources, limitations and permit trading.” ASCE, Reston, Va.
Sacramento, Calif. Eheart, J., and Lund, J. 共1996兲. “Water use management: Permit and
California Department of Water Resources 共DWR兲. 共1957兲. “The Califor- water transfer systems.” Water resources handbook, L. Mays, ed.,
nia Water Plan.” Bulletin No. 3, DWR, Sacramento, Calif. McGraw-Hill, New York.
California Department of Water Resources 共DWR兲. 共1998兲. “The Cali- Emerton, L., and Bos, E. 共2004兲. “Value. Counting ecosystems as water
fornia Water Plan.” Bulletin No. 160-1998, Volumes I–II, DWR, infrastructure.” Gland, Switzerland, World Conservation Union
Sacramento, Calif. 共IUCN兲.
California Department of Water Resources 共DWR兲. 共2005兲. “The Cali- Environment Waikato. 共2006兲. “Proposed Waikato regional plan. Pro-
fornia Water Plan.” Bulletin No. 160-2005, Volumes I–V, DWR, posed variation No. 6—Water allocation.” Environment Waikato
Sacramento, Calif. Policy Series 2006/16, Environment Waikato, Hamilton, New
Cardwell, H., Cole, R., Cartwright, L., and Martin, L. 共2006兲. “Integrated Zealand.
water resource management: Definitions and conceptual musings.” European Union. 共2000兲. “Water framework directive.” Directive 2000/
J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ., 135, 8–18. 60/EU, EU Publications, Brussels, Belgium.
Cardwell, H., Cartwright, L., and Martin, L. 共2004兲. “Integrated water Falkenmark, M. 共2004兲. “Towards integrated catchment management:
resource management: Definitions and principles, impediments, and Opening the paradigm locks between hydrology, ecology, and policy-
solutions.” Draft version 3, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute making,” Water Res. Dev., 20共3兲, 275–282.
for Water Resources, Alexandria, Va. Garduño, V. H. 共2001兲. “Water rights administration: Experiences, issues
Creighton, J. 共2004兲. “Designing effective public participation programs: and guidelines.” FAO legislative study 70, United Nation Food and
A U.S. perspective.” Water Int., 29共3兲, 384–391. Agricultural Organization, Rome, Italy.
Davenport, T. 共2003兲. The watershed project management guide, Lewis, Genskow, K., and Born, S. 共2006兲. “Organizational dynamics of water-
New York. shed partnerships: A key to integrated water resource management.”
Davis, M. D., and Riestra, M., F. 共2002兲. “Instream flow policies and J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ., 135, 56–64.
procedures within integrated water management in Chile.” Proc., Getches, D. 共1997兲. Water Law in a nutshell, 3rd Ed., West Publishing,
Conf. on Environmental Flows for River Systems, Southern Waters, St. Paul, Minn.
Cape Town, South Africa. Gleick, P., et al. 共2003兲. “Waste not, want not: The potential for urban
Davis, M. D., and Threlfall, J. 共2006兲. “Integrated water resource man- water conservation in California.” Pacific Institute for Studies in De-
agement in New Zealand: Legislative framework and implementa- velopment, Environment, and Security, Oakland, Calif.
tion.” J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ., 135, 86–99. Gleick, P., Loh, P., Gomez, S., and Morrison, J. 共1995兲. “California water
Dellapenna, J. 共2003兲. “Regulated riparian rights model water code.” 2020: A sustainable vision.” Pacific Institute for Studies in Develop-
Standard No. 040-03, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, ment, Environment, and Security, Oakland, Calif.
Va. Global Water Partnership 共GWP兲. 共2004兲. “Integrated water resource
Dellapenna, J. 共2005兲. “Markets for water: Time to put the myth to rest?” management.” Proc., Powerpoint Presentation, Global Water Partner-
J. Contemporary Water Res. Educ, 131 共June兲, 33–41. ship, Stockholm, Sweden, 具http://www.gwpforum.org典 共February 8,
Dellapenna, J. 共2006兲. “Appropriative rights model water code.” Laws 2004兲.

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007 / 443

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2007.133:427-445.

 Global Water Partnership 共GWP兲. 共2006兲. “Setting the stage for change.” River Basin Manage., 1共1兲, 21–31.
GWP, Stockholm, Sweden. Lund, J., et al. 共2007兲. “Envisioning futures for the Sacramento—San
Global Water Partnership 共GWP兲 Technical Advisory Committee. 共2000兲. Joaquin Delta.” Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco.
“Integrated water resource management.” TAC Background Paper No. Ministère de l’Écologie et du Développement Durable 共MEDD兲. 共2003兲.
4, Global Water Partnership, Stockholm, Sweden. La directive cadre européenne sure l’eau, Republic of France, Paris.
Grey, D., and Sadoff, C. 共2005兲. “Water for growth and development: Mitchell, B. 共1990兲. “Integrated water management: International experi-
A framework for analysis.” A Baseline Document for the 4th World ences and perspectives.” Bellhaven Press, New York.
Water Forum. Theme 1: Water For Growth and Development, Molle, F. 共2003兲. “Development trajectories of river basins. A conceptual
World Water Council and the World Bank, 具http:// framework.” Research Rep. 72, International Water Management In-
www.worldwaterforum4.org.mx/home/show-docs.asp?lan⫽&cve stitute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
⫽13典 共March 19,2006兲. Moyle, P. 共2002兲. “Inland fishes of California.” Revised and Expanded
Guerquin, F., et al. 共2003兲. “World water actions: Making water flow for Ed., University of California Press, Berkeley, Calif.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 05/01/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

all.” World Water Council, Marseille, France. Mizanur Rahaman, M., Varis, O., and Kajander, T. 共2002兲. “EU water
Heathcote, I. 共1998兲. “Integrated watershed management: Principles and framework directive versus integrated water resource management:
practice.” Wiley, New York. The seven mismatches.” Int. J. Water Resour. Dev., 20共4兲, 565–575.
Hooper, B. 共2005兲. “Integrated river basin governance: Learning from National Research Council. 共1999兲. “New strategies for America’s water-
international experience.” International Water Association Publishing, sheds.” National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
London. Neumann-Silkow, F. 共2004兲. “A study of ECA’s environmental guidelines
Hooper, B. 共2006兲. “Integrated river basin governance and key perfor- with reference to the world commission on dams.” Proc., Issues-
mance indicators.” IWA yearbook, International Water Association, Based Workshop on Financing Dams and Sustainable Development,
London. United Nations Environment Program 共Dams and Development Pro-
Howe, C. 共2005兲. “The return to the river basin: The increasing cost gram兲, Geneva, Switzerland.
of jurisdictional externalities.” J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ., 131, Newson, M. 共1997兲. Land, water, and development, Routledge, New
26–32. York.
Howe, C., Schurmeier, D., and Shaw, W., Jr. 共1986兲. “Innovative ap- Ostrom, E. 共1990兲. “Governing the commons. The evolution of institu-
proaches to water allocation: The potential for water markets.” Water tions for collective action.” Cambridge University Press, New York.
Resour. Res., 22共4兲, 439–445. Piégay, H., Dupont, D., and Faby, J. 共2002兲. “Questions of water resource
International Commission on Large Dams 共ICOLD兲. 共1997兲. “Benefits management: Feedback on the implementation of the French SAGE
and concerns about dams.” ICOLD, Paris. and SDAGE plans 共1992–2001兲.” Water Policy, 4, 239–262.
International Law Association 共ILA兲. 共2004兲. “The Berlin rules on water Poff, N. L., et al. 共1997兲. “The natural flow regime: A paradigm for river
resources.” Proc., Berlin Conf. (2004), Water Resources Law, 4th conservation and restoration.” BioScience, 47, 769–784.
Report ILA, London. Purkey, D., Thomas, G., Fullerton, D., Moench, M., and Axelrad, L.
Jenkins, M., et al. 共2004兲. “Optimization of California’s water supply 共1998兲. “A maximal program of groundwater banking.” Natural Heri-
system: Results and insights.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., tage Institute, San Francisco.
130共4兲, 271–280. Raffensperger, C., and Tickner, J. 共1999兲. Protecting public health and
Jønch-Clausen, T. 共2004兲. “Integrated water resources management the environment: Implementing the precautionary principle, Island
共IWRM兲 and water efficiency plans by 2005. Why, what, and how?” Press, Covelo, Calif.
TEC background paper No. 10, Global Water Facility, Stockholm, Republic of Chile. 共2005兲. “Modifications to the 1981 Water Code.” Ley
Sweden. 20.017, Diario Oficial (Chile), Santiago, Chile.
Kallis, G., and Butler, D. 共2001兲. “The EU water framework directive: Richter, B., Mathews, R., Harrison, D., and Wigington, R. 共2003兲. “Eco-
Measures and implications.” Water Policy, 3, 125–142. logically sustainable water management: Managing river flows for
Kemper, K. 共2003兲. “Rethinking groundwater management.” Rethinking ecological integrity.” Ecol. Appl., 13共1兲, 206–224.
water management. Innovative approaches to contemporary issues, C. Rogers, P., and Hall, A. 共2003兲. “Effective water governance.” TEC back-
M. Figuères, C. Tortajada, and J. Rockström, eds., Earthscan Publica- ground paper No. 7, Global Water Partnership, Stockholm, Sweden.
tions Ltd., Sterling, Va. Sabatier, P., et al. 共2005兲. “Collaborative approaches to watershed
Kirby, K. 共1999兲. “Resolving conflict over reservoir operation. A role for management.” Swimming upstream: Collaborative approaches
optimization and simulation modeling.” RD-45, Army Corps of Engi- to watershed management, P. A. Sabatier, W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z.
neers Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, Calif. Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz, and M. Matlock, eds., MIT Press, Cam-
Krantz, R., Gasteyer, S., Heintz, T., Shafer, R., and Steinman, A. 共2004兲. bridge, Mass.
“Conceptual foundations for the sustainable water resources round- Saleth, R., and Dinar, A. 共2005兲. “Water institutional reforms: Theory and
table.” Water Resour. Update, 127, 11–19. practice.” Water Policy, 7, 1–19.
Lant, C. 共2004兲. “Water resources sustainability: An ecological econom- Solanes, M., and González-Villarreal, F. 共1999兲. “The Dublin principles
ics perspective.” Water Resour. Update, 127, 20–30. for water as reflected in a comparative assessment of institutional
Leach, W., and Pelkey, N. 共2001兲. “Making watershed partnerships work: and legal arrangements for integrated water resource management.”
A review of the empirical literature.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Man- TAC background paper No. 2, Global Water Partnership, Stockholm,
age., 127共6兲, 378–385. Sweden.
Lee, T. 共1999兲. Water management in the 21st century. The allocation Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable 共SWRR兲. 共2005兲. “Sustainable
imperative, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, Mass. water resources roundtable preliminary report.” Preliminary Rep.,
Lee, T., and Floris, V. 共2003兲. “Universal access to water and sanitation: 具http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/swrr/Rpt_Pubs/prelim_rpt/
Why the private sector must participate.” Natural Resources Forum, index.html典 共23 February 2006兲.
27, 1–12. Tarlock, A., Corbridge, J., Jr., and Getches, D. 共1993兲. “Water resource
Loomis, J. 共2000兲. “Environmental valuation techniques in water resource management. A casebook in law and public policy.” 4th Ed., Founda-
decision making.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 126共6兲, tion Press, New York.
339–344. Tellman, B. 共1996兲. “Why has integrated management succeeded in some
Loomis, J. 共2003兲. “Expanding institutional arrangements for acquiring states but not in others.” Water Resour. Update, 106, 13–20.
water for environmental purposes: Transactions evidence for the west- Tharme, R. 共2003兲. “A global perspective on environmental flow assess-
ern United States.” Water Resources Development, 19共1兲, 21–28. ment: Emerging trends in the development and application of envi-
Loucks, D. 共2003兲. “Managing America’s rivers: Who’s doing it?” Int. J. ronmental flow methodologies for rivers.” River Res. Appl., 19共5–6兲,

444 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2007.133:427-445.

 297–441. U.S. Federal Government. 共1983兲. Economic and environmental prin-
Thoyer, S., et al. 共2001兲. “A bargaining model to simulate negotiations ciples and guidelines for water and related land resources implemen-
between water users.” J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul., 4共2兲, 具http:// tation studies, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
jass.soc.surrey.ac.uk/4/2/6.html典 共March 27, 2006兲. Viessman, W., and Feather, T. 共2006兲. “State water resources planning in
Thoyer, S., Morardet, S., Rio, P., and Goodhue, R. 共2004兲. “Comparaison the United States.” ASCE, Reston, Va.
des procédures de décentralization et de négociation de la gestion de
White, G. 共1998兲. “Reflections on the 50 year International Search for
l’eau en France et en Californie.” Natures Sciences Sociétés,
integrated water management.” Water Policy, 1, 21–27.
12共2004兲, 7–17.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 共USACE兲. 共2006a兲. “Hydrologic modeling Williams, D. A. R. 共1997兲. Environmental and resource management law,
system.” HEC-HMS. User’s manual, version 3.1.0, USACE, Institute 2nd Ed., Butterworths, Wellington, New Zealand.
of Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, Calif. Winpenny, J. 共2003兲. “Financing water for all.” World Water Council and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 共USACE兲. 共2006b兲. “River analysis sys- Global Water Partnership, Marseille, France.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 05/01/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tem.” HEC-RAS. User’s manual, version 4.0. Beta, USACE, Institute World Bank. 共2003兲. “Water resources sector strategy.” Strategic direc-
of Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, Calif. tions for World Bank engagement, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 共USACE兲. 共2007兲. “Reservoir system World Bank. 共2006兲. “Integrated river basin management.” Briefing note
simulation.” HEC-ResSIM. User’s manual, version 3.0, USACE, In- 12, Stakeholder Partnerships, Participation, and Funding. The World
stitute of Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, Bank, Washington, D.C.
Calif. World Commission on Dams 共WCD兲. 共2000兲. “Dams and development. A
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 共USBR兲. 共2001兲. “Record of decision.” Cen- new framework for decision making.” Earthscan Publications Ltd.,
tral valley project improvement act. Final programmatic environmen- Sterling, Va.
tal impact statement, USBR, Sacramento, Calif. World Commission on Environment and Development 共WCED兲. 共1987兲.
U.S. Department of Agriculture 共USDA兲, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Our common future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.
U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. The World Conservation Union 共IUCN兲. 共2003a兲. “Basin management
Department of the Interior, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and devolution of authority.” Water law series—Issue 3, IUCN Envi-
Tennessee Valley Authority, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 共2000兲.
“Unified federal policy for a watershed approach to federal land and ronmental Law Centre, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K.
resource management.” Federal Regist, 65 共No. 202兲. The World Conservation Union 共IUCN兲. 共2003b兲. “Conservation and in-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 共USEPA兲. 共2005兲. “Handbook for tegrated water resource management.” Water law series—Issue 4,
development of watershed plans to restore and protect our waters.” IUCN Environmental Law Centre, Gland, Switzerland and Cam-
Draft. EPA-841-B-05-005, USEPA, Washington, D.C. bridge, U.K.

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007 / 445

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2007.133:427-445.