A substantial body of research has been conducted on transboundary water, transboundary water law, and the mitigation of transboundary water conflict. However, most of this work has focused primarily on surface water supplies. While it is well understood that aquifers cross international boundaries and that the base flow of international river systems is often derived in part from ground water, transboundary ground water and surface water systems are usually managed under different regimes, resulting in what has been described as "hydroschizophrenia." Adding to the problem, the hydrologic relationships between surface and ground water supplies are only known at a reconnaissance level in even the most studied international basins, and thus even basic questions regarding the territorial sovereignty of ground water resources often remain unaddressed or even unasked. Despite the tensions inherent in the international setting, riparian nations have shown tremendous creativity in approaching regional development, often through preventive diplomacy, and the creation of "baskets of benefits," which allow for positive-sum, integrative allocations of joint gains. In contrast to the notion of imminent water wars, the history of hydropolitical relations worldwide has been overwhelmingly cooperative. Limited ground water management in the international arena, coupled with the fact that few states or countries regulate the use of ground water, begs the question: will international borders serve as boundaries for increased "flows" of hydrologic information and communication to maintain strategic aquifers, or will increased competition for shared ground water resources lead to the potential loss of strategic aquifers and "no flows" for both ground water users?
The saga over exempt wells in the western United States and Canada epitomizes a new type of water conflict – a spaghetti‐western water war. The political melodrama stars local governments to serve as sheriff of water‐supply planning duties. Exempt wells number in the millions, and herding the growing numbers is testing the mettle of the states and provinces responsible for the management, allocation, and protection of natural resources. The separation of laws governing ground water and surface water, coupled with changes in geography and geology within a jurisdiction, compound the administrative riddle and give rise to a broad spectrum of conflicts, from differing interpretations of hydrogeologic data, economic impacts associated with increasing the herd, to differing identities associated with the use of ground water from the exempt wells. Despite the political melodrama of exempt wells, there is room and willingness for other trails and paths to keep the herd intact. This paper describes the different breeds of conflicts associated with exempt wells and gives examples of how the mysterious stranger of collaborative decision making processes and water governance systems can ride into town and lead to successful water management and conflict resolution.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.