Water markets as a response to scarcity

Water Policy ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 625-649 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Debaere ◽  
Brian D. Richter ◽  
Kyle Frankel Davis ◽  
Melissa S. Duvall ◽  
Jessica Ann Gephart ◽  
...  

Existing water governance systems are proving to be quite ineffective in managing water scarcity, creating severe risk for many aspects of our societies and economies. Water markets are a relatively new and increasingly popular tool in the fight against growing water scarcity. They make a voluntary exchange possible between interested buyers and sellers of water rights. This paper presents direct evidence from seven water markets around the globe to document key economic and ecological challenges and achievements of water markets with respect to water scarcity. We specifically approach water markets as localized cap-and-trade systems, similar to those for carbon emissions. We examine whether water use remains within the set limits on use of water rights (i.e., under the cap), the degree to which water markets help protect the health of ecosystems and species, and whether (as predicted by economic theory) the explicit pricing of water is accompanied by improving efficiency, as less productive water users decide to sell water to more productive water users.

2004 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Erik Swyngedouw

O artigo aborda criticamente o projeto global de privatização e mercantilização de recursos hídricos. Na primeira seção, as políticas neoliberais de privatização são contextualizadas histórica e politicamente. Em uma segunda seção, o discurso da “escassez” da água é explorado, relacionando-o com a lógica da privatização. Na seção subseqüente, as estratégias das corporações globais que dividem o mercado de água são examinadas. Isso, por sua vez, nos leva a considerar a centralidade contínua do Estado e o controle na regulamentação do setor de saneamento, assim como a uma discussão sobre a posição enfraquecida do cidadão vis-à-vis esses modos de controle da água. Por fim, as contradições da privatização da água são exploradas.Palavras-chave: recursos hídricos; privatização; saneamento. Abstract: The paper critically engages with the global project of commodifying and privatizing water resources. In the first part, neo-liberal privatization policies are contextualized historically and politically. In a second part, the discourse of water ‘scarcity’ is explored in relation to the logic of privatization. In a subsequent part, the strategies of global corporations that share the water markets will be examined. This, in turn, leads to a consideration of the continuing centrality of the state and of ‘governance’ in the regulation of the water sector, and to a discussion of the weakened position of the citizen vis-à-vis these modes of water governance. Finally, the contradictions of water privatization will be explored.Keywords: water resources; privatisation; sanitation.


Author(s):  
Rhett B. Larson

Increased water variability is one of the most pressing challenges presented by global climate change. A warmer atmosphere will hold more water and will result in more frequent and more intense El Niño events. Domestic and international water rights regimes must adapt to the more extreme drought and flood cycles resulting from these phenomena. Laws that allocate rights to water, both at the domestic level between water users and at the international level between nations sharing transboundary water sources, are frequently rigid governance systems ill-suited to adapt to a changing climate. Often, water laws allocate a fixed quantity of water for a certain type of use. At the domestic level, such rights may be considered legally protected private property rights or guaranteed human rights. At the international level, such water allocation regimes may also be dictated by human rights, as well as concerns for national sovereignty. These legal considerations may ossify water governance and inhibit water managers’ abilities to alter water allocations in response to changing water supplies. To respond to water variability arising from climate change, such laws must be reformed or reinterpreted to enhance their adaptive capacity. Such adaptation should consider both intra-generational equity and inter-generational equity. One potential approach to reinterpreting such water rights regimes is a stronger emphasis on the public trust doctrine. In many nations, water is a public trust resource, owned by the state and held in trust for the benefit of all citizens. Rights to water under this doctrine are merely usufructuary—a right to make a limited use of a specified quantity of water subject to governmental approval. The recognition and enforcement of the fiduciary obligation of water governance institutions to equitably manage the resource, and characterization of water rights as usufructuary, could introduce needed adaptive capacity into domestic water allocation laws. The public trust doctrine has been influential even at the international level, and that influence could be enhanced by recognizing a comparable fiduciary obligation for inter-jurisdictional institutions governing international transboundary waters. Legal reforms to facilitate water markets may also introduce greater adaptive capacity into otherwise rigid water allocation regimes. Water markets are frequently inefficient for several reasons, including lack of clarity in water rights, externalities inherent in a resource that ignores political boundaries, high transaction costs arising from differing economic and cultural valuations of water, and limited competition when water utilities are frequently natural monopolies. Legal reforms that clarify property rights in water, specify the minimum quantity, quality, and affordability of water to meet basic human needs and environmental flows, and mandate participatory and transparent water pricing and contracting could allow greater flexibility in water allocations through more efficient and equitable water markets.


Water ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kurt Schwabe ◽  
Mehdi Nemati ◽  
Clay Landry ◽  
Grant Zimmerman

Efforts to address water scarcity have traditionally relied on changing the spatial and temporal availability of water through water importation, storage, and conveyance. More recently, water managers have invested heavily in improving water use efficiency and conservation. Yet as new supply options become harder to find and/or appropriate, and demand hardens, society must consider other options to, if not reduce scarcity, minimize the impacts of such scarcity. This paper explores the role water markets are playing in addressing water scarcity in the American southwest: a water-limited arid and semi-arid region characterized by significant population growth rates relative to the rest of the US. Focusing on three representative southwestern states—Arizona, California, and Texas—we begin by highlighting how trends in water supply allocations from different water sources (e.g., surface water, groundwater, and wastewater) and water demand by different water users (e.g., agricultural, municipal, and environmental) have changed over time within each state. We then present recent data that shows how water trading has changed over time—in terms of value and volume—both at state level and sector level aggregates. We end with a discussion regarding some institutional adjustments that are necessary for water markets to achieve their potential in helping society address water scarcity.


Author(s):  
Sue Jackson

Indigenous peoples confront challenges that constrain their ability to bargain for secure and remunerative livelihoods based on water and to participate in decisions that govern water allocation, use, and management. Water governance systems at all scales have failed to provide sufficient recognition, respect, and autonomy for indigenous laws, values, aspirations, and water-use practices and continue to discriminate against indigenous norms. Describing the water injustices experienced by indigenous communities, this essay charts the means by which indigenous peoples assert their water rights and interests in water governance. It provides a globalized account of water justice by analyzing the character of justice claims articulated by the emergent indigenous water-justice movement using Nancy Fraser’s multidimensional formulation of justice. Indigenous articulations of justice and demands for redistribution, recognition, and representation call for equal weight to be given to the socioeconomic, cultural, and political causes of water injustice and strategies for change.


Water Policy ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 1075-1091 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gustavo Velloso Breviglieri ◽  
Guarany Ipê do Sol Osório ◽  
Jose A. Puppim de Oliveira

AbstractMarkets for managing natural resources have existed for many decades and have gradually made their way into the mix of discourses on water policy. However, there are not many established water markets functioning worldwide and little understanding about how and why water markets emerge as allocating institutions. In order to understand the dynamics of the evolution of water markets, the experiences of selected cases with relatively mature water market systems were analyzed, namely: the Murray–Darling Basin in Australia; the Colorado-Big Thompson Project and the transfers between the Palo Verde and Metropolitan Water Districts in the USA; and Spain. We found that formal markets emerged in water scarcity situations where water rights already existed and were sometimes exchanged informally. Water markets have not always moved to reduce transaction costs, as some of those costs were necessary to achieve societal goals beyond economic efficiency. There is a significant difference between the idea of water markets as proposed by economic theory and actual practice in the water sector. As institutions, markets are humanly devised rules embedded in a social and political context and do not always lead to efficient or effective solutions for the management of resources.


2019 ◽  
Vol 05 (03) ◽  
pp. 1950002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kris Toll ◽  
Craig D. Broadbent ◽  
Quinn Beeson

As water markets continue to evolve throughout the western U.S., understanding what factors influence the price of water is informative to water users seeking to engage in transactions. Using 690 water lease transactions and 1,351 water rights transactions from the journal Water Strategist we analyze and provide insights into the effect of user type in the transaction process, hydrologic conditions, geographic location and lease length upon water prices. This analysis is conducted for both a rights transfer and leasing marketplace.


Water ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 809 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Selena Taylor ◽  
Sheri Longboat ◽  
Rupert Quentin Grafton

The article constructively critiques the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) 12 Principles on Water Governance (the OECD Principles). The human rights standard, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), provided the foundation for conceptualizing Indigenous water rights. The analysis used a modification of Zwarteveen and Boelens’ 2014 framework of the four echelons of water contestation. The analysis indicates that the OECD Principles assume state authority over water governance, make invisible Indigenous peoples’ own water governance systems and perpetuate the discourses of water colonialism. Drawing on Indigenous peoples’ water declarations, the Anishinaabe ‘Seven Grandfathers’ as water governance principles and Haudenosaunee examples, we demonstrate that the OECD Principles privilege certain understandings of water over others, reinforcing the dominant discourses of water as a resource and water governance based on extractive relationships with water. Reconciling the OECD Principles with UNDRIP’s human rights standard promotes Indigenous water justice. One option is to develop a reinterpretation of the OECD Principles. A second, potentially more substantive option is to review and reform the OECD Principles. A reform might consider adding a new dimension, ‘water justice,’ to the OECD Principles. Before reinterpretation or reform can occur, broader input is needed, and inclusion of Indigenous peoples into that process.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 2473
Author(s):  
Sandra Ricart ◽  
Rubén A. Villar-Navascués ◽  
Maria Hernández-Hernández ◽  
Antonio M. Rico-Amorós ◽  
Jorge Olcina-Cantos ◽  
...  

Water consumption continues to grow globally, and it is estimated that more than 160% of the total global water volume will be needed to satisfy the water requirements in ten years. In this context, non-conventional water resources are being considered to overcome water scarcity and reduce water conflicts between regions and sectors. A bibliometric analysis and literature review of 81 papers published between 2000 and 2020 focused on south-east Spain were conducted. The aim was to examine and re-think the benefits and concerns, and the inter-connections, of using reclaimed and desalinated water for agricultural and urban-tourist uses to address water scarcity and climate change impacts. Results highlight that: (1) water use, cost, quality, management, and perception are the main topics debated by both reclaimed and desalinated water users; (2) water governance schemes could be improved by including local stakeholders and water users in decision-making; and (3) rainwater is not recognized as a complementary option to increase water supply in semi-arid regions. Furthermore, the strengths–weaknesses–opportunities–threats (SWOT) analysis identifies complementary concerns such as acceptability and investment in reclaimed water, regulation (cost recovery principle), and environmental impacts of desalinated water.


2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 2967-3003 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Erfani ◽  
O. Binions ◽  
J. J. Harou

Abstract. To enable economically efficient future adaptation to water scarcity some countries are revising water management institutions such as water rights or licensing systems to more effectively protect ecosystems and their services. Allocating more flow to the environment though can mean less abstraction for economic production, or the inability to accommodate new entrants (diverters). Modern licensing arrangements should simultaneously enhance environmental flows and protect water abstractors who depend on water. Making new licensing regimes compatible with tradable water rights is an important component of water allocation reform. Regulated water markets can help decrease the societal cost of water scarcity whilst enforcing environmental and/or social protections. In this article we simulate water markets under a regime of fixed volumetric water abstraction licenses with fixed minimum flows or under a scalable water license regime (using water "shares") with dynamic environmental minimum flows. Shares allow adapting allocations to available water and dynamic environmental minimum flows can vary as a function of ecological requirements. We investigate how a short-term spot market manifests within each licensing regime. We use a river-basin-scale hydro-economic agent model that represents individual abstractors and can simulate a spot market under both licensing regimes. We apply this model to the Great Ouse river basin in Eastern England with public water supply, agricultural, energy and industrial water using agents. Results show the proposed shares with dynamic environmental flow licensing system protects river flows more effectively than the current static minimum flow requirements during a dry historical year, but that the total opportunity cost to water abstractors of the environmental gains is a 10 to 15% loss in economic benefits.


2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 675-689 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Erfani ◽  
O. Binions ◽  
J. J. Harou

Abstract. To enable economically efficient future adaptation to water scarcity some countries are revising water management institutions such as water rights or licensing systems to more effectively protect ecosystems and their services. However, allocating more flow to the environment can mean less abstraction for economic production, or the inability to accommodate new entrants (diverters). Modern licensing arrangements should simultaneously enhance environmental flows and protect water abstractors who depend on water. Making new licensing regimes compatible with tradable water rights is an important component of water allocation reform. Regulated water markets can help decrease the societal cost of water scarcity whilst enforcing environmental and/or social protections. In this article we simulate water markets under a regime of fixed volumetric water abstraction licenses with fixed minimum flows or under a scalable water license regime (using water "shares") with dynamic environmental minimum flows. Shares allow adapting allocations to available water and dynamic environmental minimum flows vary as a function of ecological requirements. We investigate how a short-term spot market manifests within each licensing regime. We use a river-basin-scale hydroeconomic agent model that represents individual abstractors and can simulate a spot market under both licensing regimes. We apply this model to the Great Ouse River basin in eastern England with public water supply, agricultural, energy and industrial water-using agents. Results show the proposed shares with dynamic environmental flow licensing system protects river flows more effectively than the current static minimum flow requirements during a dry historical year, but that the total opportunity cost to water abstractors of the environmental gains is a 10–15% loss in economic benefits.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document