Public attitudes to inequality in water distribution: Insights from preferences for water reallocation from irrigators to Aboriginal Australians

Water allocation regimes that adjudicate between competing uses are in many countries under pressure to adapt to increasing demands, climate‐driven shortages, expectations for equity of access, as well as societal changes in values and priorities. International authorities expound standards for national allocation regimes that include robust processes for addressing the needs of ‘new entrants' and for varying existing entitlements within sustainable limits. The claims of Indigenous peoples to water represents a newly recognised set of rights and interests that will test the ability of allocation regimes to address the global water governance goal of equity. No study has sought to identify public attitudes or willingness to pay for a fairer allocation of water rights between Indigenous and non‐Indigenous people. We surveyed households from the jurisdictions of Australia's Murray‐Darling Basin, a region undergoing a historic government‐led recovery of water, and found that 69.2% of respondents support the principle of reallocating a small amount of water from irrigators to Aboriginal people via the water market. Using contingent valuation, we estimated households are willing to pay A$21.78 in a one‐off levy. The aggregate value calculated for households in the basin's jurisdictions was A$74.5 million, which is almost double a recent government commitment to fund the acquisition of entitlements for Aboriginal nations of this basin. Results varied by state of residency and affinity with environmental groups. An information treatment that presented narrative accounts from Aboriginal people influenced the results. Insights from this study can inform water reallocation processes

Law, Environment, and the “Nondismal” Social Sciences

Over the past 30 years, the influence of economics over the study of environmental law and policy has expanded considerably, becoming in the process the predominant framework for analyzing regulations that address pollution, natural resource use, and other environmental issues. This review seeks to complement the expansion of economic reasoning and methodology within the field of environmental law and policy by identifying insights to be gleaned from various “nondismal” social sciences. In particular, three areas of inquiry are highlighted as illustrative of interdisciplinary work that might help to complement law and economics and, in some cases, compensate for it: the study of how human individuals perceive, judge, and decide; the observation and interpretation of how knowledge schemes are created, used, and regulated; and the analysis of how states and other actors coordinate through international and global regulatory regimes. The hope is to provide some examples of how environmental law and policy research can be improved by deeper and more diverse engagement with social science

Access and allocation in earth system governance: Water and climate change compared

A significant percentage of the global population does not yet have access to safe drinking water, sufficient food or energy to live in dignity. There is a continuous struggle to allocate the earth's resources among users and uses. This article argues that distributional problems have two faces: access to basic resources or ecospace; and, the allocation of environmental resources, risks, burdens, and responsibilities for causing problems. Furthermore, addressing problems of access and allocation often requires access to social processes (science, movements and law). Analysts, however, have tended to take a narrow, disciplinary approach although an integrated conceptual approach may yield better answers. This article proposes a multi-disciplinary perspective to the problem of access and allocation and illustrates its application to water management and climate change. © The Author(s) 2010

THE MILWAUKEE POLLUTION CASE - IMPLICATIONS FOR WATER RESOURCES PLANNING 1

The Illinois v. Milwaukee Federal District Court decision is the most far reaching application yet of the federal common law of nuisance to interstate water pollution conflicts. Although a Federal Appelate Court recently rescinded part of the district court decision, Milwaukee must still upgrade its metropolitan sewage system to a level beyond that required by federal and state regulations. The improvements must be completed with or without federal aid. The case points out the apparent inability of the Clean Water Act, the most comprehensive federal legislation affecting the nation's water quality, to deal with certain interstate water quality conflicts. The Milwaukee decision could set a precedent for similar settlements elsewhere which may in turn affect the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's water quality clean up program. A more integrated, ecosystem conscious approach to management of shared water resources (e.g., the Great Lakes) would help reduce the need for court decisions like Illinois v. Milwaukee .Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/74344/1/j.1752-1688.1981.tb02584.x.pd