Opposite of 'whole': groundwater dependence in a rural agricultural community in Colorado, The

2014 Spring.As the American West faces increasing water demands and decreased access and flows due to the effects of climate change, increasing populations, and pollution it is more important than ever to examine governance structures of common pool resources like groundwater. In the San Luis Valley of south-central Colorado, the community's dependence on this resource has been concealed by the hiddenness of groundwater, which also obscured its role in shaping agriculture, expansion in farmland, and social structure in the Valley. This unsustainable use of groundwater--the opposite of 'whole'--made a 'tragedy of the commons' possible. In response, a local water management organization spearheaded a groundwater management plan with a main goal to preserve as many livelihoods as possible. Similar to other natural resource dependent communities, subdistrict #1 provides a case study of how a community is responding to their overuse through collective action. Support and opposition for this plan stems from different perceptions among community members influenced by their legal, geographical and social relationships with water and ability to access it; perceptions of who bears the responsibility for solving the issue of overdraft; perceptions of the state of the local farming based economy and community; and perceptions of the future of agriculture in the Valley. This case study relies on in-depth interviews with 25 people and participant observation. Critiquing Ostrom's (1990) framework for behavioral choice, this study finds that social vulnerability is unevenly distributed and thus, in order to return the aquifer to a sustainable level, there cannot be just one solution to the problem

Demand management and injustice in rural agricultural irrigation in western Colorado: an anatomy of ambivalence

Includes bibliographical references.2022 Fall.The Colorado River is overdrawn. Decisions made a century ago created an institutional framework allowing overuse while climate change has exacerbated it with increasing temperatures and reduced natural flows. 'Demand management', a key component of the 2019 Upper Basin Drought Contingency Plans, would utilize water conserved from consumptive use to create a 500,000 acre-foot storage pool, only used to protect the Upper Basin of the Colorado River in the event they were unable to meet water delivery obligation to the Lower Basin. Rural irrigators on Colorado's West Slope would be the prime contributors to such a program, but largely responded with ambivalence. Increasingly, collaborative water governance is cited as the best way to create change in water distribution. However, if rural irrigators respond with ambivalence, why would they participate voluntarily in such a program? Using a grounded theory approach, interviews and focus groups with 45 participants, and participant observation, I explore why rural irrigators were ambivalent towards a program that would, ostensibly, protect them in times of water shortage. Drawing from the concept of sociological ambivalence and the literatures of water justice, hydrosocial analysis, and rurality, I describe the symbolic and material landscape that shapes perceptions of 'demand management'. I argue irrigators were ambivalent because they understood the need for water conservation, but they also perceived injustice in terms of distribution, recognition, and representation. Since rural irrigators are the linchpin in any water conservation program that would address overuse in the Colorado River Basin, their perceptions of injustice must be addressed. Findings provide key insight into water governance as it relates to crafting effective water policy