Science, Society, and Water Resources in New Zealand: Recognizing and Overcoming a Societal Impasse

Abstract

The Canterbury Regional Council, which manages 70 percent of New Zealand's irrigated land, has struggled to control the burgeoning demand for water resources as more land is converted to highly profitable, water intensive dairy farms relying on groundwater. At the center of Canterbury's struggle over water resources and its effective management are two competing groundwater science models. The different approaches and their implications for water management have led to a situation commonly described as a "science impasse" with scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders increasingly focused on "how to break the gridlock over science," particularly in one of the region's major watersheds, the Selwyn. In keeping with the traditional logical positivist, linear approach to science the expectation is that if the scientists can get the science right, then the ultimate goal of water sustainability will be made more likely since the "facts" will guide policymakers toward proper decisions. Yet our research found that while stakeholders do focus tightly on the dominant role of science and scientists when discussing solutions to the impasse, the underlying reality is a societal impasse grounded in the overarching adversarial setting, the logic of the wicked problem set, and the ultimate goal of sustainability. Seeing the "impasse problem" from this new perspective means that getting only the physical science right addresses the symptoms, not the underlying causes of the impasse. The article develops why the traditional instrumental, linear approach to science is unlikely to work in this case and why an alternative approach to science-civic science-offers promise as a way forward. A final section turns to the kind of steps most likely required to transition the Selwyn watershed's "societal impasse" dynamic from an adversarial setting to an effective collaborative governance arrangement conducive to the civic science enterprise. Regional Council-Environment Canterbury (ECan)-which manages 70 percent of NZ's irrigated land using 60% of all water allocated for consumptive use in NZ, is no exception. In the Selwyn watershed of Central Canterbury, ECan has struggled to control the burgeoning demand for water as more dryland farms (mainly sheep) and plantation forests are converted to more profitable water intensive dairy farms relying on irrigation from groundwater. These trends coincide with a period of lower than average rainfall. The result is that lowland streams now experience low or no flows for significant portions of the year.At the center of Canterbury's struggle over water resource management is the science that maps the hydrogeological characteristics of the region. Most dairy farmers, irrigators, and developers prefer a physical processes computer modeling approach--the "Aqualinc" groundwater model. The idea of an impasse runs contrary to the traditional logical positivist, linear approach to science in the policy process that is based on a rational planning model. Implicit to this line of reasoning is the bel...

Contemporary Water Governance: Navigating Crisis Response and Institutional Constraints through Pragmatism

“…In recent years, an increasing number of scholars have characterized water governance as a wicked problem (e.g., [24,65,66]). Wicked problems are wicked because they are not readily solvable.…”

Regulating agricultural land use to manage water quality: The challenges for science and policy in enforcing limits on non-point source pollution in New Zealand

“…It is this situation, as well as high profile adversarial court cases over water allocation for dairy farming in Canterbury (New Zealand Environment Court, 2005;Weber et al, 2011), that recent reforms seek to avoid (MfE 2013a;New Zealand Government, 2012a). The portrayal of the freshwater planning system as "slow, litigious, expensive and uncertain" (New Zealand Government 2012a, p. 2) provides a persuasive argument in support of the proposal to provide an option to regional councils to suspend appeal rights on regional plans (and the nutrient limits they set) to the Environment Court and limit appeals to the High Court on points of law.…”

“…The political ambition to 'rule by numbers' in Canterbury, is conditional upon institutional arrangements that curtail democratic rights to challenge decisions in the Environment Court. In effect, these moves protect the models and the numbers from the legal system (New Zealand Environment Court, 2005;Russell et al, 2011;Weber et al, 2011) and those who disagree with setting resource limits and where they are set. Given the historical context of expensive litigation, seemingly unbridled water allocation going to those that could pay for the best lawyers and most accomplished witnesses (Weber et al, 2011), and the regional council seemingly left with little control over water allocation, there is broad agreement that these arrangements are necessary to manage New Zealand's freshwater resources (Land & Water Forum 2012a, 2012b.…”

Converting Community Knowledge into Catchment Nutrient Limits: A Constructivist Analysis of a New Zealand Collaborative Approach to Water Management

“…This is significant given that, notwithstanding the implicit power sharing that emboldens the legitimacy and credibility of science and policy, the routine retreat to science to defend policy decisions has become increasingly contested in New Zealand. Indeed, a major reason for the pursuit of a collaborative approach and the setting of environmental limits under the CWMS is that the regional council has been unable to successfully defend its science and predictive modelling in court to limit cumulative environmental effects (New Zealand Environment Court 2005;Weber et al 2011;Russell et al 2011). Similar moves to collaborative governance to avoid the gridlock of judicial remedies on water issues have occurred in the United States (Scholz and Stiftel 2005).…”