Not in My Watershed! Will Increased Federal Supervision Really Bring Better Coordination Between Land Use and Water Planning?

Abstract

This article challenges the assertion that increased federal leverage would successfully coalesce land and water planning throughout the country. Federalism will have the opposite effect, exacerbating tensions between competing management authorities and increasing the number of disparate policies to which local governments must adhere, as examples illustrate. Alternatively, we argue for enforcement of existing tools and creation of an institutional framework loosely modeled on federal–state–local partnership in transportation metropolitan planning organizations. While land use and water planning merit closer coordination, a more flexible institutional arrangement is preferable to expanded federal authority under the Clean Water Act.

Land Policy for Flood Risk Management—Toward a New Working Paradigm

“…FRM questions the institutional separation of water management and spatial planning (Hartmann & Driessen, 2017). This is in line with the academic debate in Europe (Moss, 2004; Wiering & Immink, 2006), and the USA (Calder, 2005; Dyckman & Paulsen, 2012), where the institutional divide seems to be even more entrenched than in Europe (Suykens et al., 2019; Tarlock, 2012). FRM thus echoes the call for more integrated water management (Gleick, 2000) in flood risk management (Hartmann et al., 2022).…”

Frontiers of land and water governance in urban regions

“…There is an ongoing academic discussion on connecting and integrating sectors and subsectors in the field of water management (Dyckman & Paulsen, 2012;Gleick, 2000;Wiering & Immink, 2006). What exactly integrated water resource management (IWRM) means, and what should be integrated in what, remains vague (Biswas, 2004).…”

Novel Methods, Novel Metrics: Using a Meta-Ethnography to Create a Plan Quality Framework for Sustainable and Resilient Social–Ecological Systems

“…Context and social cooperation comprise the foundation of the SCM approach for SESs that have been evolving since Ostrom’s (1990) seminal work in which she presented the concept of the polycentric (i.e., multiple stakeholders) and multi-scale governance structure for commons management. As previously noted, some of the “critical enabling conditions for sustainability on the commons” (Agrawal 2003, 253) include the small size of the CPR user groups; the identity of the resource users; the level of responsibility allocated; and the concept of nested scales of responsibility, also known as polycentricity (Ostrom 2009, 2010; Dyckman and Paulsen 2012). Both Agrawal (2003) and Anderies, Janssen, and Ostrom (2004) examined the institutional preconditions for “long-enduring” sustainable resource management.…”