The following are general recommendations for local leaders participating in groundwater governance. These came from local workshops that spanned jurisdictions and groundwater management areas.
Hyperlocal coordination
Regional groundwater planning conversations based on natural boundaries can happen even where planning groups do not exist and may come together around a specific need or topic. In the absence of statutory authority, it is still possible to convene groups at all levels of decision making to bring together Tribal, national, state, local and private stakeholders to discuss challenges and best practices. Getting well owners and residents engaged can be achieved by organizing helpful events like well-maintenance and water-testing clinics in partnership with non-profits and local community groups.
Knowledge-sharing, and data transparency
Transparency and coordination of technical data and knowledge production across a region promotes confidence in planning efforts. For example, making results from an ecological monitoring program or well network public can demonstrate good intentions even if other entities do not have the capacity to independently analyze those data sets. Independent, cross-jurisdictional groups like the USGS Upper Midwest Water Science Center commonly serve in this capacity. Data sharing is facilitated through the National Groundwater Monitoring Network that aggregates data from federal, state, Tribal and local groundwater monitoring networks. Groundwater models could similarly be shared across these jurisdictions.
Communication is a complex and multi-faceted solution. Policy, science and law must all be synthesized and translated for a non-technical audience. The needs of the community must also be explored, synthesized and explained to decision makers. Breaking down communication barriers can help make all other solutions possible. Expanding groundwater conversations beyond the technical managers and to a State or Tribe’s economic development agency is an efficient way to ensure that business development and growth are mindful of groundwater availability. Direct outreach with specific regional information from the state, county, an NGO, or academic partner could help under-resourced municipalities put groundwater sustainability issues in context. Trust in that relationship has to predate the conversation for it to be well-received.
Communication with community members will also lead to increased awareness of processes, planned events and industry partnerships. Overall, transparency where possible will improve trust and working relationships in the community at large.
Implementation and enforcement of existing rules
Enforcement of existing regulations is a first step, but enforcement is not simple. Leak detection, other conservation efforts, and reporting requirements may take staff or data that are not readily available. Periodically reviewing permitting processes for their consistent application or any unintentional loopholes is best practice. Agency review is critical if sustainability goals articulated in statute are to be upheld.
Future legal actions
Laws and statutes, rules, ordinances, and policies are all codified mechanisms that can be decided upon and then enforced by a community. When a group agrees on an action, a system of rules is set into place which includes expectations, accountability measures and consequences. To agree on the appropriate mechanisms, people ideally understand enough about a subject to make those decisions. Through education, collaboration, and knowledge sharing, communities can come together to enact rules to support those decisions.
Currently, there are robust legal protections for groundwater quality. There are options like a progressive public trust doctrine, which expands upon the traditional notion of navigable waterways as a natural resource for government use and asserts that the government owns and manages a broader range of water, including groundwater, for the benefit of the public. This has not gained real traction in any EPA Region 5 state. The EPA Treaty Reserved Rights Rule has offered more protection for Tribal sovereignty but focuses on surface water and, as of writing this report, has not yet been tested.
Regional laws and local ordinances establishing priority use for domestic residents offer a way to allow economic development while ensuring current communities are not casualties of extractive practices. Crucially, practical options that are robust, durable and avoid litigation are preferred.
Towards groundwater management agreements
Groundwater management agreements are both critical and necessary for groundwater governance to be effective but are difficult to establish. There are preexisting laws and policies pertaining to the various regions involved, competing sociopolitical priorities and needs, and potentially differing hydrogeology and groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Within international legal frameworks there have emerged similar foundations, and it is these which provide recommendations for what should be included in a multi-jurisdictional groundwater management agreement.
A successful legal framework for groundwater governance typically includes the following:
- A definition of the terms used in the agreement for shared understanding and for future agreements.
- Clarification of which waters and dependent systems are included, and which waters and dependent systems are not included in the agreement.
- A clear geopolitical scope of agreement boundaries.
- Establishment of a governance mechanism.
- Establishment of a dispute resolution mechanism.
- Mutual assurance and responsibilities including:
- Agreement that members are entitled to fair uses of agreement waters.
- Agreement that members are obligated to prevent harm to agreement waters, including through preventive measures.
- Agreement that members are responsible for shared management and protection.
- Encouragement of cooperation between agreement members through the exchange of relevant data and information, including planned activities with potential impact on agreement waters.
Of the existing international legal agreements for transboundary water groundwater governance currently in use, some of the joint management frameworks utilized by those agreements include frameworks like integrated water resources management, agreements for shared waters, and regionally appropriate management for shared waters.
The Global Environment Facility Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme (GEF TWAP) is an indicator-based framework developed to identify and evaluate changes in water systems caused by human activities and natural processes are shared by two or more nations. An indicator-based approach allows for a flexible framework that can be adapted to different water systems including groundwater, surface water, and large marine ecosystems. The GEF TWAP uses three different broad indicators to capture pressures and impacts: biophysical, socioeconomic, and governance. These are then categorized into lowest risk, low risk, moderate risk, high risk, and highest risk. These risk categories are used to address integrated areas with updated governance strategies.
In EPA Region 5, a similar joint management approach might include share geological and hydrogeological knowledge and other technical monitoring data of groundwater between participating partners to support governance decision-making; develop shared models based on relevant technical data; establish efficient recharge systems or other adaptative management strategies for the ecosystem; increase environmental education, social communication, and inclusive public and stakeholder participation practices.
Smaller jurisdictions, like municipalities or watershed districts, would benefit from a joint management practice that distributes the burden of gathering, monitoring and maintaining data records. This would allow costs, infrastructure development and upkeep to be disbursed between multiple units, as well as create a broader information network. When groundwater features cross geopolitical boundaries, members of a transboundary governance agreement should mutually benefit from participation.
Note: This information is part of a series of groundwater governance topics Freshwater explored during an 18-month project, which culminated in the report: Towards Collaborative and Equitable Groundwater Governance in EPA Region 5.