Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
trained engineers, economists etc.), the ability for operational professionals to apply
their knowledge and expertise (i.e. setting rules for sustainable groundwater abstrac-
tion) is hampered by the inflexible legal framework and political dominance in
water governance, since the separation between the political and operational ele-
ments of water resource governance is weak. Legally binding decisions at the
Supreme Court level (i.e. 2004 Supreme Court decision on 'factor de uso') have
been shown to lead to severe consequences at the basin level, for which there are
now limited options to improve the situation, since the DGA is powerless to impact
property rights. 1 Furthermore, the local courts have a role in water governance as the
responsible body for conflict resolution, yet a number of local stakeholders com-
mented on the lack of specific knowledge and proficient resolution that reduced the
effectiveness of judicial decisions on water related cases.
In the Swiss case, the challenges of limited authority at federal and canton levels
was highlighted across all scales of governance. For example, stakeholders at the
regional and national levels pointed to the lack of canton oversight as a key barrier
to coordinated planning and directives for water management during critical phases
for water provision. Local autonomy and decentralisation means that the canton
only plays a supporting role in conflict resolution and water governance. While it is
the role of the canton to assist local level actors (i.e. managers of the canal capture
points, water utilities etc.) in finding solutions to water provision during critical dry
periods, it was noted that they cannot propose solutions, but only help them come to
solutions. This was highlighted as both a bridge and a barrier, since while it enables
local ownership of planning and issue resolution, it can detract from a coherent and
coordinated strategy across the basin, and take a long time. Furthermore, the small
scale political arrangement of water management in the Valais, heightens the
difficulty for municipalities to coordinate uses and comprehensively plan for
longer-term challenges.
In Chile, a pervasive issue was the difficulty of addressing mounting challenges
in water resource management through the legal framework, despite the 2005
changes. Key issues were the inability to strike a balance between economic and
environmental provisions, so that laws were not weighted to favour exploitation, but
to improve incentives for conservation, and to improve the enforcement of environ-
mental provisions and illegal exploitation. Stakeholders also pointed out that the
length of time needed to make small changes to the law was incommensurate with
1 Perhaps the best example of this comes from another Chilean basin, the Copiapo. 'Rio Copiapo,
is a symbol for the existing water rights and water laws in Chile in that they are not able to solve
this problem. So in the Copiapo, you have a very high level of groundwater extraction and the bal-
ance is very negative, up to 18,000,000 m 3 per year of over exploitation - and they cannot find a
solution - that is legal extraction'. (Interview, MMA, November, 2010). Another example comes
from the negotiation of water rights on the Huasco River between Barrick Good and the Juntas.
Negotiations took place with the Junta rather than the individual farmers themselves. Juntas do not
have the right to enter into an agreement on water rights, as they do not own them, so it is 'ultra
vires'. However, the DGA in this case was unable to stop the agreement, as only the court has the
power to do so, by which point individual actors may no longer have the capacity to bring a case
forward. (Catholic University of Chile, November, 2010).
Search WWH ::




Custom Search