Fighting to Cooperate: Litigation, Collaboration, and Water Management in the Upper Deschutes River Basin, Oregon

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Hannah Satein ◽  
Edward Weber

Water management systems in the western United States prioritize historical economic uses of water, but are being tasked with addressing growing populations, unmet ecosystem needs, and climatic changes. Collaborative governance scholars posit that collaborative processes generate solutions better suited to resolving wicked natural resource problems than traditional regulatory approaches. However, scholars dispute how collaboration and regulatory enforcement in the form of litigation interact: does litigation destroy collaborative efforts or does litigation facilitate collaboration? In the Upper Deschutes River Basin in central Oregon, stakeholders engaged two collaborative processes to lay the foundation for a new water management regime. However, a participant in these processes was concerned that they were not progressing and filed a lawsuit under the Endangered Species Act. This research finds that litigation, strategically applied under specific conditions, can facilitate collaboration.

Water Policy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina Mancheva

Abstract This study aims at advancing collaborative governance theory by investigating the interaction between two different collaborative arrangements within the same forested area of high ecological and social value in the Vindel River basin. Semi-structured interviews, policy documents and observations of board meetings were analysed based on analytical typologies of collaborative arrangements to answer the following questions: which factors can explain why a new collaborative arrangement was established within an area where one already existed? In what way do the two arrangements compete with or complement each other? And, to what extent do they address the effects of forestry on water? The analysis shows that a new collaborative arrangement was formed because the existing arrangement did not materialise certain stakeholders' expectations. Moreover, the two collaborative arrangements do not compete but rather complement each other. The newly established organisational/action collaborative arrangement presented those stakeholders most interested in on-the-ground action with the appropriate venue while freeing them from the organisational/policy arrangement that did not match their aims. However, both arrangements experienced power misbalances as certain stakeholders were perceived as having more influence on their agenda. Collaboration at this local-regional level was found to focus on limited problems with concrete and feasible solutions, such as fish migration, rather than on the complex problems with solutions marked by ecological uncertainty and power asymmetries, e.g. diffuse pollution from forestry.


2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 1032-1040 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. M. Zielinski ◽  
H. V. Lorz ◽  
J. L. Bartholomew

2016 ◽  
Vol 85 (4) ◽  
pp. 348-367
Author(s):  
Julie Gjørtz Howden

This article takes a closer look at water cooperation among Nordic countries, and in particular the newly established Finnish-Norwegian River Basin District. It addresses the effectiveness of water governance within the structure chosen for managing the River Basin District and compares this with the main features of the community of interest approach in international water law. Serving as backdrop for this comparison is the earlier Finnish-Swedish Frontier Rivers Commission, which was considered a pioneer project of common water management, and the common values that unite the Nordic countries. Cooperation over shared water resources challenges the principle of territorial sovereignty in international law, and requires engaged cooperative regimes. While Norway and Finland have excellent opportunities to create a progressive water management regime, their current solution has some significant shortcomings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document