Cities vs. agriculture: A review of intersectoral water re‐allocation

Abstract

Water demand management, or making better use of the water we have — as opposed to augmenting supply — is increasingly proposed as a way of mitigating water‐scarcity problems. Moving water away from agriculture to uses with higher economic value is one of the main measures widely seen as desirable. Sectoral “allocation stress” is seen as resulting from the disproportionate share, and inefficient use of water in the agricultural sector. This apparent misallocation is often attributed to the failure of government to allocate water rationally. This paper revisits this commonly‐accepted wisdom and examines the nature of urban water scarcity, showing the importance of economic and political factors, shaped by incentives to decision‐makers, and sometimes compounded by climatic conditions. It shows that cities’ growth is not generally constrained by competition with agriculture. In general, rather than using a narrow financial criterion, cities select options that go along the “path of least resistance,” whereby economic, social and political costs are considered in conjunction. The question of allocation stress is thus reframed into an inquiry of how transfers effectively occur and can be made more effective.

Socio-environmental drought response in a mixed urban-agricultural setting: synthesizing biophysical and governance responses in the Platte River Watershed, Nebraska, USA

“…Lincoln's de facto decision to make urban greenery a lower priority than agricultural production represents a novel type of relationship between urban and agricultural water users, in which outdoor urban water use represents a flexible water demand that can be rapidly curtailed to reduce potential conflict with other users. This is in direct contrast to the prevailing narrative in intersectoral water conflict literature, which assumes that urban water use is of higher value than agriculture (Molle and Berkoff 2009). The City of Lincoln's increasing population is counteracted by long-term conservation trends and decreasing per capita water use, and as such aggregate urban water use has slightly decreased while maintaining a constant level of greenness.…”

Urban growth, climate change, and freshwater availability

“…More generally, changes in land use or land management may free up water for urban dwellers or for the environment. In part of the southwestern United States, for instance, cities sometimes pay farmers to purchase the water the farmers have traditionally put on their fields, in effect freeing up water for cities by reducing the area of irrigated agriculture (23,24). Another example is in South Africa, where tree plantations of nonnative water-hungry species are being removed to increase groundwater recharge (25).…”

Robust Institutions for Sustainable Water Markets: A Survey of the Literature and the Way Forward

“…agricultural to urban or agricultural to agricultural). Secondly, the water district holds the rights to all return-flows and thirdly, transfers do not have to pass through the water court but require only the approval of the NCWCD board (Level 3 institutions) (Howe andGoemans, 2003, Molle andBerkoff, 2009). Therefore, in this case well-defined property rights strengthened the development of water resource allocations and kept the transactional costs low resulting in significant economic and environmental benefits for the participants.…”