Book contents
- Sustainability of Engineered Rivers in Arid Lands
- Sustainability of Engineered Rivers in Arid Lands
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Challenge
- Part III Engineered Rivers
- Part IV Response
- 16 River Basin Management and Irrigation
- 17 “Intelligent” Water Transfers
- 18 Better Basin Management with Stakeholder Participation
- Part V Conclusion
- Index
- References
18 - Better Basin Management with Stakeholder Participation
from Part IV - Response
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 September 2021
Book contents
- Sustainability of Engineered Rivers in Arid Lands
- Sustainability of Engineered Rivers in Arid Lands
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Challenge
- Part III Engineered Rivers
- Part IV Response
- 16 River Basin Management and Irrigation
- 17 “Intelligent” Water Transfers
- 18 Better Basin Management with Stakeholder Participation
- Part V Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter reviews the role of irrigation districts, city water utilities, and environmental groups in basin management. Examples from two river basins – Rio Grande and Euphrates–Tigris – illustrate vast differences in stakeholder participation. The authors recommend that all SERIDAS rivers pay increased attention to this option for better management. The four options for creating sub-basin water councils recommended for the Rio Grande provide useful guidance. Other models, reflecting different basin conditions, may emerge. Whatever model is selected, stakeholders should always organize to address the water agenda of their sub-basin. Doing so directly contributes to reaching and maintaining sustainability of the river as a whole.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Sustainability of Engineered Rivers In Arid LandsChallenge and Response, pp. 260 - 270Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Anatolian Agency (2019). GAP kapsamındaki illerde içme suyu problemine son [An End to the Drinking Water Problem in the Provinces Covered by the GAP]. Available at www.aa.com.tr/tr/turkiye/gap-kapsamindaki-illerde-icme-suyu-problemine-son/1549063Google Scholar
Carter, K. et al. (2018). Stakeholder Engagement. In Sustainable River Management on the US–Mexico Border. Policy Research Project Report, Number 202. LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Centro de Estudios del Medio Ambiente, Universidad Autónoma de Cd. Juárez [Center for Environmental Studies, Autonomous University of Cd. Juárez] (2000). Planeación del Recurso Agua: Comparación de Planes de Administración del Agua en Cd. Juárez, Chihuahua [Water Resource Planning: Comparison of Water Management Plans in Cd. Juárez, Chihuahua].Google Scholar
Delipinar, S. and Karpuzcu, M. (2017). Policy, Legislative and Institutional Assessments for Integrated River Basin Management in Turkey. Environmental Science & Policy, 72, pp. 20–29.Google Scholar
Dixon, S., Moreno, E. R., and Sadozai, A. (2015). Syrian Civil Society and the Swiss Humanitarian Community. Geneva: The Graduate Institute Geneva. Available at https://docs.water-security.org/document/syrian-civil-society-and-the-swiss-humanitarian-communityGoogle Scholar
Divrak, B. B. and Demirayak, F. (2011). NGOs Promote Integrated River Basin Management in Turkey: A Case-Study of the Konya Closed Basin. In Kibaroglu, A., Scheumann, W., and Kramer, A., eds., Turkey’s Water Policy: National Frameworks and International. Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Draper, M. (2014). Envisioning the Farms of the Future: In Pursuit of Sustainable Agriculture in the Rio Grande Valley. University of New Mexico Digital Repository Online. Available at http://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article =1006&context=ltam.etdsGoogle Scholar
ESCWA (2003). Sectoral Water Allocation Policies in Selected ESCWA Member Countries, An Evaluation of the Economic, Social and Drought Related Impact. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
ETIC (2019). Available at https://euphratestigrisinitiativeforcooperation.wordpress.com/Google Scholar
European Commission (2000). Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Official Journal, 22 December 2000.Google Scholar
European Parliament and The Council of the European Union (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy. Official Journal of the European Communities. L327, 22.12.2000.Google Scholar
FAO (2008). Water Reports 34, Irrigation in the Middle East Region in Figures, Aquastat Survey.Google Scholar
International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) (2018). About the Rio Grande. Available at https://ibwc/CRP/riogrande.htmGoogle Scholar
Khalaf, R. (2015) Governance without Government in Syria: Civil Society and State Building during Conflict. St Andrews University: Syria Studies Journal.Google Scholar
Kibaroglu, A. (2002). Building a Regime for the Waters of the Euphrates–Tigris River Basin. London, The Hague, New York: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Kibaroglu, A. (2020). The Role of Irrigation Associations and Privatization Policies in Irrigation Management in Turkey. Water International, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Kibaroglu, A. and Scheumann, W. (2013). Evolution of Transboundary Politics in the Euphrates–Tigris River System: New Perspectives and Political Challenges. Global Governance, 19(2), pp. 279–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kibaroglu, A. and Schmandt, J. (2016). Sustainability of Engineered Rivers in Arid Lands: Euphrates–Tigris and Rio Grande/Brávo. Policy Research Project Report, Number 190. LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Kuczmanski, L. (2018) Public Affairs Officer, IBWC/US Section. Phone interview. Available at www.ibwc.gov/Citizens_Forums/citizens_forums.htmlGoogle Scholar
LBJ School of Public Affairs (2000). Water Planning Initiatives in the Paso del Norte: A Review of El Paso, Las Cruces, Doña Ana County and Far West Texas Planning Region.Google Scholar
LBJ School of Public Affairs (2001). Water Planning in the Paso del Norte: Toward Regional Coordination.Google Scholar
Nava, L. (2020). The Transboundary Paso del Norte Region: Stakeholders’ Preferences Allowing Water Resource Adaptation. Available at www.springerprofessional.de/en/the-transboundary-paso-del-norte-region/16802426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neto, S. (2017). The OECD Principles on Water Governance. Water International, Special Issue, 43(1).Google Scholar
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2015). Stakeholder Engagement for Inclusive Water Governance. OECD Studies on Water. Paris: OECD PublishingGoogle Scholar
Saade-Sbeih, M. et al. (2016). Post Conflict Water Management: Learning from the Past for Recovery Planning in the Orontes River Basin. Proceedings of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences, 374, pp. 17–21.Google Scholar
Stolp, C. and Schmandt, J. (2018). Sustainable River Management on the US/Mexico Border: Recommendations for the Paso del Norte. Policy Research Project Report, Number 202. LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Stockholm International Water Management Institute-SIWI (2006). Beyond the River, Sharing Benefits and Responsibilities: Final Programme. World Water Week. Available at www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/24632793/final-programme-beyond-the-river-world-water-weekGoogle Scholar
Svoboda, E. and Pantuliano, S. (2015). International and Local/Diaspora Actors in the Syria Response: A Diverging Set of Systems? Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG) Working Paper. Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar
Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) (2018). Historical Water Use Estimates. Available at www.twdb.texas.gov/waterplanning/waterusesurvey/estimates/index.aspGoogle Scholar
Turner, C., Hamlyn, E., and Ibanez, O. (2018). The Challenge of Balancing Water Supply and Demand in the Paso del Norte.Google Scholar
UN Environment (2018). Progress on Integrated Water Resources Management. Global Baseline for SDG 6 Indicator 6.5.1: Degree of IWRM Implementation.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by