Advertisement

International Comparative Analysis of Regulations for Water Markets and Water Banks

  • María E. Milanés Murcia
Chapter

Abstract

Water markets and water banks are mechanisms to transfer water among different users. A legal and institutional framework is the tool that can protect third parties and ensure the success of the water market and the water bank. A comparative analysis of water markets and water banking in Chile, Australia, and the United States shows how strong regulations have a positive effect on the management of water markets and water banking. The case in Chile reveals that the 1981 Water Code lacks legal protection in areas such as environment, sociology, and the integration management of water resources. This has been a cause of the failure of the water market in Chile. Differently, in Australia, the environment is recognized as a legitimate water user for which states could specifically establish environmental water allocations. The United States has several examples of successful water banks such as the Kansas Water Bank, which has a very exhaustive regulation and has effectively promote water conservation and improve the use of groundwater resources.

Keywords

Transfer water Water banking International regulations of allocating water 

References

  1. Andrade Geywitz C (1991) Reforma de la Constitución Política de la República de Chile de 1980Google Scholar
  2. Ariño G, Sastre M (1999) Leyes de aguas y política hidráulica en España Comares, GranadaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer CJ, Orrego JP (2004) Canto de sirenas: el derecho de aguas chileno como modelo para reformas internacionales. BakeazGoogle Scholar
  4. Chile Water Code (1981) Decreto con Fuerza de Ley N. 1.122. Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
  5. Conner M (2009) Statement of Michael L. Connor. US. Bureo of ReclamationGoogle Scholar
  6. Dinar A, Rosegrant MW, Meinzen-Dick R (1997) Water allocation mechanisms: principles and examples. The World Bank, Washington, D.C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dixon LS, Moore NY, Schechter SW (1993) California’s 1991 drought water bank. Rand, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  8. Deltarevision E (2003) Study of transfer, development, and operation of the Kern Water Bank. Available at http://www.deltarevision.com/2010%20docs/kern_water_bank_study.pdf
  9. DWR (2010) California’s drought of 2007–2009 an overview. Department of Water Resources. Available at https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Water-Basics/Drought/Files/Publications-And-Reports/Californias-Drought-of-200709An-Overview.pdf
  10. DWR (2018) State water project. Department of Water Resources. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/State-Water-Project. 2018
  11. FAO (1993) The state of food and agriculture, vol 26. Food & Agriculture Organization, Rome. Available at http://www.fao.org/3/t0800e/t0800e.pdf
  12. Hansen K (2015) Water markets: from theory to practice (with focus on the USA). In: Dinar J, Schwabe K (eds) Handbook of water economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 355–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kansas Water Appropriation Act (1945) K.S.A. 82a-701 through 82a-737 and 82a-740 through 82a-742 and K.S.A. 42-303 and 42-313Google Scholar
  14. Kildea P, Williams G (2010) The Constitution and the management of water in Australia’s rivers. Sydney L Rev 32:595Google Scholar
  15. Landry C (1998) Market transfers of water for environmental protection in the western United States. Water Policy 1:457–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Le Quesne T, Pegram G, Heyden CVD (2007) Allocating scarce water: a WWF primer on water allocation, water rights and water markets. In: Allocating scarce water: a WWF primer on water allocation, water rights and water markets. WWF-UK. Available at http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/scarce_water.pdf
  17. Milanés-Murcia M (2017) Proposed international legal and institutional framework for conjunctive management of surface and groundwater along the us–Mexico border region. In: Management of transboundary water resources under scarcity: a multidisciplinary approach. World Scientific, pp 117–157. Availlable at https://doi.org/10.1142/9896 Google Scholar
  18. Navarro-Caballero TM (2006) Los instrumentos de gestión del dominio público hidráulico. Universidad de MurciaGoogle Scholar
  19. NWI (2004) Intergovernmental agreement on a National Water Initiative-between the Commonwealth of Australia and the state governments of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. National Water Initiative. Available at https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/water-reform/national-water-initiative-agreement-2004.pdf
  20. O’Brien M (1999) Possible solutions: policy tools to achieve flexibility to meet new conditions, preliminary thoughts for coping with future droughts. Nat Resour J 39:175–177Google Scholar
  21. Peck JC (1994) The Kansas water appropriation act: a fifty-year perspective. U Kan L Rev 43:735Google Scholar
  22. Pilz RD (2010) Lessons in water policy innovation from the World’s driest inhabited continent: using water allocation plans and water markets to manage water scarcity. U Denv Water L Rev 14:97Google Scholar
  23. Saliba BC, Bush DB (1987) Water markets in theory and practice Market transfers, water values, and public policy (Westview studies in water policy and management, No 12)Google Scholar
  24. Sophocleous M (2012) The evolution of groundwater management paradigms in Kansas and possible new steps towards water sustainability. J Hydrol 414:550–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Szeptycki LF, Forgie J, Hook E, Lorick K, Womble P (2015) Environmental water rights transfers: a review of state Laws prepared by water in the west for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  26. USBR Central Valley Project. US. Bureau of Reclamation (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • María E. Milanés Murcia
    • 1
  1. 1.SacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations