Chapter 2: The Water for Agriculture Project
Project Sites
Project Sites Overview
As noted earlier, the project was designed around the implementation of an adaptive, yet consistent engagement model in different water and agriculture contexts – including two in Pennsylvania, two in Nebraska, and one in Arizona. This section briefly describes the context in each of the five sites.
Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania site consists of Mifflin County in central Pennsylvania and the Upper Cowanesque and Triple Divide watersheds of northern Pennsylvania’s Potter and Tioga counties, both of which include watersheds that contribute nonpoint source pollution impairing water quality including within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Following the 1972 Clean Water Act, Pennsylvania and other states in the Chesapeake Bay Program are required by the Environmental Protection Agency to improve surface water quality as measured through total daily maximum loads (TDMLs) by 2025 (PA DEP 2019). Agriculture is the dominant cause of pollution loads to surface waters (PA DEP 2019). To address this, the state’s farmers (primarily producing corn, soy, dairy, and poultry) are encouraged to voluntarily adopt a range of best management practices to alleviate agricultural runoff, including streambank fencing, cover cropping, and vegetative buffers, with cost-sharing and technical assistance available through the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and county Conservation Districts (Chesapeake Bay Commission 2017). Historically, farmer participation in decision-making regarding water quality management policy has been at the county scale, membership and voice on conservation district boards and planning commissions.
Nebraska
The Nebraska site consists of the North and Central Platte Valley regions. Farmers who grow mainly corn, sugar beets, and dry edible beans and graze cattle in Nebraska’s North Platte Valley depend on surface irrigation as well as groundwater irrigation. In Nebraska’s Central Platte Valley, corn, soybeans, and grain farmers supplement precipitation primarily with groundwater irrigation. A history of nonpoint groundwater contamination stemming primarily from nitrogen fertilizer is prevalent across the Platte River Valley. Water use and nitrogen application standards are set by the respective Natural Resources Districts (NRDs), which hold regulatory oversight over groundwater use, and the state’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which controls surface water use. These entities participate in the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program which was designed to meet federal requirements for base flow into the river to protect endangered species.Â
Arizona
The Arizona site consists of the Verde Valley, where most farmers depend on surface irrigation from the Verde River and its tributaries to cultivate corn, wheat, barley, alfalfa, tomatoes, pecans, and other crops, as well as livestock (Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) 2009; National Agricultural Statistics Service 2017). The emerging wine industry primarily draws groundwater for irrigation. Ranchers on public lands depend on surface runoff and have been hard-hit by a twenty-year drought (Bausch et al. 2019). Population growth in Yavapai County municipalities has led to increased groundwater pumping and, along with drought, is suspected to have contributed to reduced base flow in the Verde River (ADWR 2009; Verde River Basin Partnership 2015). Ongoing surface water rights adjudication—and the fact that groundwater in most of the state is not regulated—contributes to uncertainty over water rights (Ferris et al. 2018), and suspicion toward management programs that might limit water consumption (Bausch et al. 2019; see also Whitmire 2013)Â
Tools & worksheets
Understanding Single, Double and Triple Loop Learning – Fact Sheet
This fact sheet describes the differences between single, double, and triple-loop learning.
The Role and Importance of Boundary Spanners – Fact Sheet
Describes the role played by “boundary spanners” – individuals who manage complexity and interdependencies and seek to establish new alliances, collaboratively develop innovative solutions, and encourage the transfer and translation of information – in engagement processes.
Additional resources
The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis
Gene Rowe & George Wright, International Journal of Forecasting 15 (1999) 353–375.
Abstract: This paper systematically reviews empirical studies looking at the effectiveness of the Delphi technique, and provides a critique of this research. Findings suggest that Delphi groups outperform statistical groups (by 12 studies to two with two‘ties’) and standard interacting groups (by five studies to one with two ‘ties’), although there is no consistent evidence that the technique outperforms other structured group procedures. However, important differences exist between the typical laboratory version of the technique and the original concept of Delphi, which make generalisations about ‘Delphi’ per se difficult. These differences derive from a lack of control of important group, task, and technique characteristics (such as the relative level of panellist expertise and the nature of feedback used). Indeed, there are theoretical and empirical reasons to believe that a Delphi conducted according to ‘ideal’ specifications might perform better than the standard laboratory interpretations. It is concluded that a different focus of research is required to answer questions on Delphi effectiveness,focusing on an analysis of the process of judgment change within nominal groups.
A conceptual framework for social, behavioral, and environmental change through stakeholder engagement in water resource management. Society & Natural Resources 2021
Eaton, Weston M., Kathryn Brasier, Mark E. Burbach, Walt Whitmer, Elizabeth W. Engle, Morey Burnham, Barbara Quimby, Anil Kumar Chaudhary, Hannah Whitley, Jodi Delozier, Lara B. Fowler, Amber Wutich, Julia C. Bausch, Melissa Beresford, C. Clare Hinrichs, Cheryl Burkhart-Kriesel, Heather E. Preisendanz, Clinton Williams, Jack Watson, Jason Weigle. Society & Natural Resources 34(8):1111-1132.
Abstract. Incorporating stakeholder engagement into environmental management may help in the pursuit of novel approaches for addressing complex water resource problems. However, evidence about how and under what circumstances stakeholder engagement enables desirable changes remains elusive. In this paper, we develop a conceptual framework for studying social and environmental changes possible through stakeholder engagement in water resource management, from inception to outcomes. We synthesize concepts from multiple literatures to provide a framework for tracing linkages from contextual conditions, through engagement process design features, to social learning, community capacity building, and behavioral change at individual, group, and group network levels, and ultimately to environmental change. We discuss opportunities to enhance the framework including through empirical applications to delineate scalar and temporal dimensions of social, behavioral, and environmental changes resulting from stakeholder engagement, and the potential for negative outcomes thus far glossed over in research on change through engagement.