Groundwater Governance in the United States:Common Priorities and Challengesby Sharon B. Megdal1, Andrea K. Gerlak2, Robert G. Varady3, and Ling-Yee Huang4

AbstractGroundwater is a critical component of the water supply for agriculture, urban areas, industry, and ecosystems, but managing

it is a challenge because groundwater is difficult to map, quantify, and evaluate. Until recently, study and assessment of governanceof this water resource has been largely neglected. A survey was developed to query state agency officials about the extent andscope of groundwater use, groundwater laws and regulations, and groundwater tools and strategies. Survey responses revealed keyfindings: states’ legal frameworks for groundwater differ widely in recognizing the hydrologic connection between surface waterand groundwater, the needs of groundwater-dependent ecosystems, and the protection of groundwater quality; states reported arange in capacity to enforce groundwater responsibilities; and states have also experienced substantial changes in groundwatergovernance in the past few decades. Overall, groundwater governance across the United States is fragmented. States neverthelessidentified three common priorities for groundwater governance: water quality and contamination, conflicts between users, anddeclining groundwater levels. This survey represents an initial step in a broader, continuing effort to characterize groundwatergovernance practices in the United States.

IntroductionAround the nation and world, communities, agricul-

ture, and industry are increasing their use of groundwater,sometimes with adverse impacts to riparian habitatsand often with disregard for sustainability. Relianceon groundwater is not consistent across the UnitedStates. Nationwide, approximately 20% of total waterwithdrawals come from groundwater sources, whichtotals more than 28 trillion gallons of water annually(Kenny et al. 2009), but groundwater use varies widelyaccording to region and sector. Irrigated agriculture is amajor user: in 2005, it accounted for more than two-thirdsof the total fresh groundwater withdrawn (Kenny et al.2009). Groundwater constitutes the drinking water supplyfor half of the U.S. population, and it is expected toconstitute much of the future drinking water supply(Reilly et al. 2008). Reliance on groundwater varies: at

1Corresponding author: Water Resources Research Center, TheUniversity of Arizona, P.O. Box 210437, Tucson, AZ 85721; +1 520621 9591; fax: +1 520 792 8518; smegdal@email.arizona.edu

2School of Government and Public Policy and Udall Centerfor Studies in Public Policy, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ85721; agerlak@u.arizona.edu

3Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, The University ofArizona, Tucson, AZ 85721; rvarady@email.arizona.edu

4Water Resources Research Center, The University of Arizona,Tucson, AZ 85721; huanglingyee@email.arizona.edu

Received May 2014, accepted September 2014.© 2014, National Ground Water Association.doi: 10.1111/gwat.12294

one extreme, Hawaii relies on groundwater for 95% of itstotal water withdrawals; at the other extreme, states suchas West Virginia, Virginia, Connecticut, and Montanarely on groundwater for less than 5% of total water with-drawals. In general Western states, which are drier, relymore heavily on groundwater than Eastern states, whichtypically have more access to surface water resources.

Despite being a critical source of water, groundwateris often overlooked and undervalued (Campana 2014),and until recently its governance has been neglected(GEF 2013). Because water governance is decentralizedin the United States, it reflects state-by-state or region-by-region circumstances. The variety of approaches makes itdifficult to answer questions about which frameworks orpractices contribute to good groundwater governance andmanagement.

To better understand groundwater governance inthe United States, we conducted a nationwide surveyof how states address groundwater. In this article, wedefine groundwater governance and the components of agood governance framework and explore the relationshipbetween groundwater management and governance. Wethen introduce our survey methods and findings and dis-cuss significant observations on the national governanceframework. We address the major challenges facing statesas groundwater use and reliance increase. We concludeby discussing additional research designed to identifygood groundwater governance practices, particularly

NGWA.org Groundwater 1

those that connect surface water and groundwatermanagement.

Groundwater Governance and ManagementGroundwater governance is the overarching frame-

work of groundwater use laws, regulations, and customs,as well as the processes of engaging the public sector,the private sector, and civil society. It may involvecoordinating administrative actions and decision-makingbetween and among different jurisdictional levels. Thisframework fundamentally shapes how groundwaterresources are managed and how aquifers are used. Thelocal, regional, or national framework establishes whoparticipates in formulating strategies and is responsiblefor executing them. The “who” may include: the federal,state, tribal, or local governments; private businesses andenterprises; and individuals and the nongovernmental,nonprofit organizations that constitute civil society (Sala-mon and Anheier 1997; Richter 2014). The frameworkalso establishes how the different actors interact, forexample, through laws, regulations, voluntary programs,or institutions (Varady et al. 2013).

As Varady et al. (2013) note, a groundwater gov-ernance framework includes four principal dimensions:political-institutional, sociocultural, economic, andecological. A good governance framework will betransparent, accountable, responsive, and efficient. Thisframework also acknowledges and incorporates the localor regional sociocultural values of water. The economicdimension typically includes pricing water to recognizethe essential nature of water resources for humanwellbeing. It also includes using rate structures thatdiscourage inefficient uses of water and that incorporatetreatment costs for improving groundwater quality.Finally, good governance also considers environmentaluses of groundwater.

Significantly, groundwater is a classic common-poolresource. If use is unconstrained, each rational user iseffectively free to pump an unlimited amount of a limitedresource (Hardin 1968). Effective governance of a sharedresource is easier when: (1) its use can be monitored andverified at a low cost; (2) the user population, the uses,and economic and social conditions are relatively stableor change only moderately; (3) communities using theresource interact frequently with each other; (4) outsiderscan be easily excluded; and (5) users support monitoringand enforcement (Dietz et al. 2003). Under these condi-tions, groundwater governance begins at a disadvantage:many aquifers have not yet been mapped, modeled,or quantified, and acquiring such information requiresexpensive technologies and human effort; rates of pump-ing are increasing almost uniformly across the UnitedStates (Konikow 2013); and it is unclear if or how userscoordinate among themselves and whether they supportrestrictions on use. Detecting contaminated groundwateris difficult, and remedying contaminated groundwateris even more difficult (Knuppe and Pahl-Wostl 2011).Uncertainties, including those related to socioeconomic

change and climate change impacts, compound thesedisadvantages for successful groundwater governance.

Where groundwater governance generates laws, poli-cies, and decisions, groundwater management comprisesthe actions to implement those laws, policies, and deci-sions. It consists of the routine, practical, and effectiveways that enable us to achieve predetermined goals andobjectives (Varady et al. 2013). As surface water suppliesbecome overused, groundwater demands increase. Man-agers and stakeholders have noted a major paradigm shiftin water resources management. The relative abilitiesof actors are improving as states, local governments,and nongovernmental organizations have enhanced theirresource bases and increased their abilities in multipleareas of water management (Feldman 2007). Alongwith engineering and technical approaches, managementpractices are also incorporating culture and social learning(Pahl-Wostl et al. 2008). New pressures, such as popu-lation growth, urbanization, economic development, andclimate change, will stress existing water supplies(Famiglietti et al. 2011) and require the transformationof water management institutions (U.S. GovernmentAccountability Office 2003; Brekke et al. 2009).

Significant attention has been paid to integratingsurface water and groundwater management to reflecttheir complex interactions. The idea of integrated surfacewater and groundwater management has been a topic ofdiscussion in U.S. water policy for more than 40 years(National Water Commission 1973). Today, scientificagencies at the federal and state level, as well aswater management organizations across the country, haveembraced integrated approaches to surface water andgroundwater management (e.g., AWRA 2011; Barlow andLeake 2012; Shabman and Scodari 2012). However, manyof these integrated approaches have yet to materialize inpractice.

Legal systems that integrate surface water andgroundwater are more efficient and responsive thanlegal systems that distinguish between them (Hoffmanand Zellmer 2013). Historically, water management—especially water allocation—has been decentralizedacross the United States. The federal government hastaken the lead on setting water quality standards, butit has deferred to states to implement those standards,to allocate water quantity, and to determine water use(Leshy 2008; Getches 2009; Abrams 2012).

As a result, each state maintains significant authorityand autonomy over groundwater regulation and gov-ernance. State laws have been slow to recognize thehydrologic connection between groundwater and surfacewater, frequently treating them as separate resources andunder separate laws (Bryner and Purcell 2003; Sax et al.2006). In general, surface water allocation laws in theUnited States are split geographically on either side ofthe 100th meridian: the wetter, Eastern states tend to useriparianism or regulated riparianism, and the drier, West-ern states use prior appropriation. The legal doctrines forgroundwater do not mirror this split (Reiblich and Klein2014). Instead, they fall into several categories, may vary

2 S.B. Megdal et al. Groundwater NGWA.org

Table 1Summary of Key Survey Responses

Yes No No Response

States have groundwater laws (formal or informal) 50 0 1State law recognizes the connection between surface water and

groundwater25 23 3

State law recognizes groundwater quality 43 5 3State law recognizes groundwater conservation 36 12 3State law recognizes groundwater-dependent ecosystems 25 21 5State agencies have groundwater oversight and enforcement authority 48 0 3Local agencies have groundwater oversight and enforcement authority 31 1 19Different state agencies oversee water quantity and water quality 36 15 0State agencies have sufficient capacity to carry out responsibilities 25 23 3Respondents have observed substantial changes in groundwater

management35 15 1

within a state, and tend to be more underdeveloped thanthe established and well-litigated surface water doctrines(Leshy 2008; Dellapenna 2013). Both holders of waterrights and governmental agencies have frequently opposedany changes that threaten to interfere with establishedrights and traditional jurisdiction (Thompson 2011).

Survey Methodology and FindingsOwing to the increasing worldwide interest in ground-

water governance (GEF 2013) and our recognition of thedecentralized nature of water governance in the UnitedStates, an overview of these practices can contribute toboth national and international dialogues on successfulgroundwater governance. Our literature search unveiledno current compendium or analysis of current groundwa-ter governance and management practices in the UnitedStates. Although much research exists on different legalregimes or specific case studies (e.g., Bryner and Purcell2003; Torres 2012; Dellapenna 2013; and Stevens 2013),few researchers have examined trends and commonalitiesacross the country. Our research is designed to take afirst step toward filling that gap. We focus on three pri-mary components: (1) the broad groundwater governanceframework in each state; (2) the factors driving substan-tial changes to groundwater governance; and (3) states’priorities for groundwater governance.

A survey was developed to query state agencyofficials about the extent and scope of groundwater use,groundwater laws and regulations, and groundwater toolsand strategies. Survey respondents were identified throughthe network of federally authorized Water ResourceResearch Institutes at universities across the country.Targeted survey respondents included one state agencyrepresentative per state and the District of Columbia, fora total of 51 potential respondents.

The survey was conducted between November 2012and February 2013, using the online service SurveyMonkey. One respondent from each of the 51 jurisdic-tions participated in the survey for complete nationwidecoverage. Among the state agencies represented: 22 were

water quality agencies, and 19 were water quantity or allo-cation agencies. Seven respondents either listed a stateagency that addresses both quality and quantity or listedtwo agencies. In three instances where a state agency rep-resentative could not be identified, a water expert from astate university or water organization was substituted. Ofthe respondents: 33 identified themselves as a mid-leveladministrator (8), a manager (20), or a director/politicalappointee (5); 12 identified themselves as an engineer (4)or a hydrologist/geologist (8); five identified themselvesas a planner (3), a lawyer (1), or a researcher (1); and oneidentified as a public relations and outreach specialist.

All survey results, including individual stateresponses, are reported, “Groundwater Governance inthe U.S.—Summary of Initial Survey Results,” and theaccompanying appendix (Gerlak et al. 2013). Althoughthe results reflect information provided by a singlesource per jurisdiction, a complex and nuanced pictureof groundwater governance across the United Statesemerges.

The following section highlights survey findings inthe context of three main areas: the groundwater gov-ernance framework, substantial changes to groundwatergovernance, and priorities for groundwater governance.Table 1 summarizes many of the key responses.

Groundwater Governance FrameworkTo understand the legal anchors of states’ groundwa-

ter governance frameworks, we asked survey respondentsabout the scope of groundwater laws and regulations andthe authority and capacity to regulate groundwater.

Survey responses indicate that all states havegroundwater laws in place, ranging from formal, explicitlaws to a patchwork of laws that indirectly protectgroundwater (Table 1). Illinois’ groundwater quality codeand Nebraska’s Groundwater Management and ProtectionAct are examples of explicit regulations for groundwaterquality and allocation. Other states indirectly protectgroundwater. For example, the respondent from Pennsyl-vania replied that the state does not have an “overarchingstand-along statutes, policies, rules or [regulations] just

NGWA.org S.B. Megdal et al. Groundwater 3

for groundwater. . . . Groundwater quality protectionis addressed in a piecemeal fashion through specificstatutes or regulations for various activities.” Similarly,the Delaware respondent reported that groundwater useis regulated by the state’s Water Allocation Regulationswhile groundwater quality is “indirectly regulated througha host of related rules and regulations.”

Survey respondents reported that state laws recognizeto varying degrees the connection between surface waterand groundwater, groundwater quality, groundwater con-servation, and groundwater-dependent aquatic ecosystems(Table 1). Half of respondents said that state law explicitlyrecognizes or addresses the connection between surfacewater and groundwater. The Alabama respondent said pol-icy documents allude to the importance of the connectionbetween groundwater and surface water resources, but thatthe connection is not explicitly made in state water laws.The Louisiana respondent noted a “dawning recognition”but no explicit state law.

Forty-three respondents (84%) confirmed that statelaw explicitly addresses groundwater quality, and 36respondents (71%) said that water conservation regu-lations apply to groundwater use. Half of respondentsreported that state law considers the needs of groundwater-dependent ecosystems (Table 1). Respondents fromMontana and Nebraska reported indirect environmentalprotection through in-stream flow provisions.

In many states, authority for groundwater oversightand enforcement rests with both state and local agencies.Nearly all respondents identified state agencies asresponsible for oversight and enforcement, and roughlytwo-thirds of respondents also noted local agencies thathave oversight and enforcement authority. Authority forwater quantity and water quality rests with differentagencies in 36 states according to survey respondents(Table 1). The state-level agencies include environmentaland natural resources agencies and departments, waterresource boards and departments, and health depart-ments. Similarly, local-level authority rests with healthand environmental departments as well as municipaland county governments. These agencies use a variety oftools to oversee groundwater use and withdrawals, includ-ing monitoring, use permits, state- or regional-planning,designating protected areas, and voluntary activities.

States’ capacity to implement and enforce ground-water laws varies across the country, according to surveyrespondents. When asked whether these agencies havesufficient capacity to carry out their responsibilities,half the respondents replied yes, and half replied noor did not respond. Of the 23 respondents (45%) whoreplied no, ten cited insufficient staffing levels and lackof funding due to budget cuts and other priorities. TheHawaii respondent said that most staff time is spent“reacting to immediate disputes . . . and larger funda-mental long-term responsibilities become secondary.”The Oregon respondent echoed a common sentiment:the state agency charged with groundwater managementhas been “historically underfunded and understaffedto carry out the various duties required by statute and

rule.” According to the Minnesota respondent, “Currentmechanisms in state law make it very time consumingto make a case against illegal groundwater appropriators,and the penalties are often minor.”

Substantial Changes to Groundwater GovernanceThe survey asked state officials if they have observed

substantial changes in groundwater management in theirstate over the past few decades; 35 respondents (69%)replied yes (Table 1). These respondents cited similarreasons for these changes, including federal and state laws,increased awareness of water supply issues in the state,and increased use and reliance on groundwater.

The respondents suggested a variety of reasons foran increased awareness of water supply issues: currentand ongoing drought, conflicts between water users,impacts on natural resources from increased groundwaterpumping, and potential for contamination. Some of thesefactors have driven increased use and reliance on ground-water. Regional factors include a shift in agriculturaluses (Georgia) and increased oil-field industrial use forhydraulic fracturing (North Dakota). The respondent fromColorado noted that “changing hydrologic conditions,changes to river call conditions, and other factors haveled to tighter administration and inclusion of othernontraditional uses in administration [of groundwater].”

Specific examples of these changes to groundwa-ter governance included new management institutionsand strategies, emphasis on data and science, and estab-lishing voluntary conservation programs. For example,respondents from California and Texas noted an increasein groundwater management planning and new conser-vation districts to manage groundwater. The Indianarespondent cited changes to groundwater management,such as registering facilities that withdraw significantamounts of water, adding new permit requirements, andimposing liability for harm caused by large withdrawals.Respondents from Montana, Oklahoma, and Oregonexplained that in the past few decades their states beganrecognizing the connection between groundwater and sur-face water, leading to increased scrutiny for uses thataffect both resources.

Respondents from Kansas and Hawaii reported anincreased emphasis on collecting data and filling scientificgaps. In Kansas, changes include monitoring withdrawalsby requiring meters on wells and requiring annual wateruse reports. As a result, the Kansas respondent notedthat most major aquifers in the state are hydrologicallymodeled. Similarly, the Hawaii respondent noted thepassage of laws in 1978 that enabled the state to gatherreports of all groundwater use and estimate groundwateravailability.

Some states have established new voluntary ground-water management and conservation programs. TheCalifornia respondent cited the passage of Assembly Bill3030 in the 1992 Groundwater Management Act that ledto “a new era of voluntary, non-regulatory groundwa-ter management.” The Oregon respondent reported thatnew applications for groundwater use are more carefully

4 S.B. Megdal et al. Groundwater NGWA.org

2 (4%)

3 (6%)

8 (16%)

9 (18%)

12 (24%)

20 (40%)

32 (64%)

36 (72%)

45 (90%)

No ClearlyArticulated Priorities

Inter-agencyJurisdiction

Other

Access toGroundwater

Regulatory Disputes

Quantification ofWater Rights

Declining Groundwater Levels

Conflicts BetweenWater Users

Water Qualityor Contamination

Number of Survey Respondents (Percentage of Respondents)

Figure 1. Groundwater governance priorities selected bysurvey respondents.

evaluated for hydraulic connection with surface water inorder to “protect senior surface water rights, includingin-stream water rights.”

Priorities for Groundwater GovernanceRespondents were also asked to select among

nine issues as priorities for their state’s groundwatergovernance (Figure 1). The three most selected prioritieswere water quality and contamination (45 respondents),conflicts between water users (36 respondents), anddeclining groundwater levels (32 respondents). Otherpriorities included quantification of water rights (20respondents), regulatory disputes (12 respondents), andaccess (9 respondents). Respondents from Washingtonand Maine said there have been no clearly articulatedpriorities in their state.

Observations on Survey FindingsThis preliminary survey demonstrates that groundwa-

ter governance across the United States is decentralized,complex, and far from uniform. States are in different andevolving stages of developing groundwater governance,but they face common challenges to address common pri-orities. The survey reveals considerable variation in howstates divide authority over groundwater and how statelaws define water, water quality, and water quantity. Statesalso differ in how complete their groundwater laws are,how they integrate with surface water laws, and whethersuch laws account for the needs of the environment andgroundwater-dependent ecosystems. States have commonand basic governance priorities: groundwater allocation,both to whom and how much, and groundwater quality.These priorities are influenced by diffuse and often frag-mented authority and by the artificial distinction betweensurface water and groundwater.

At best, the experiences of different states can serveas laboratory experiments. Where innovation is occur-ring, prospective lessons may be exported to other states.Survey responses signaled a growing recognition of theneed to integrate water management across sectors andacross resources, and to account for the often-ignored

environmental sector. But political and financial barriersremain, even though groundwater regulations are rela-tively new and do not carry the unwieldy legal historyof surface water laws. Interest in regulating groundwaterthus presents an opportunity to incorporate both lessonslearned from surface water laws and accurate hydrologicinformation. Below we highlight several of our major find-ings, based on an analysis of the survey results.

Fragmented GovernanceGroundwater governance across the United States is

fragmented: multiple governmental agencies at differentlevels may have authority over a particular facet ofgroundwater without a mandate to protect the entireresource. Survey respondents identified a range of state-and local-level government agencies that are responsiblefor allocating groundwater quantity and maintaininggroundwater quality. Within some states, respondentspointed out that separate agencies are responsible fordifferent aspects of groundwater, and quality may befurther subdivided into quality for human consumptionand quality for environmental use.

Fragmented authority may lead to ineffectiveand limited planning, gaps in or duplicate regulation,and ignored cumulative impacts. Governmental agen-cies with only partial authority over an environmentalproblem may sidestep a politically difficult question ordecision (Doremus 2009). However, fragmented authorityover a common-pool resource can have benefits. Withlarge-scale environmental issues or resources, such asgroundwater, agencies and stakeholders interact bothhorizontally (among government agencies at the samelevel) and vertically (among different tiers of government)to coordinate and sometimes contest governance. Thisinteraction may lead to an informal system of checks andbalances (Blomquist and Schlager 2005; Ostrom 2010).Finding the appropriate balance between fragmented andcentralized authority is an enduring theme in U.S. waterresource governance, one that will likely continue tochallenge groundwater governance practices.

Incomplete Legal FrameworksStates’ legal frameworks for groundwater governance

often do not reflect the current state of hydrologicknowledge and are not comprehensive. The surveyreveals two artificial distinctions present in many states:(1) between surface water and groundwater and (2)between groundwater quality and groundwater quantity.These distinctions illustrate how law and hydrology haveevolved in isolation and sometimes in opposition.

Surface water and groundwater are closely linkedthrough recharge and discharge; groundwater contributesto the base flow of many rivers and the base level of manylakes.

Half of states already explicitly recognize theconnection between surface water and groundwater;but the remaining half are only beginning to recognizethis interconnection, have only achieved piecemealrecognition, or simply do not. In addition, water quality

NGWA.org S.B. Megdal et al. Groundwater 5

and water quantity are also closely linked. Sufficientquantity can dilute otherwise harmful concentrationsof pollutants, decreasing the harm to water quality andto the aquatic environment. The common, misleadingdistinction between water quality and water quantity isevident in the survey responses: at least nine respondentsfrom water quantity agencies, when asked about explicitstate laws that address groundwater quality, referred to asister agency that deals with water quality.

States’ groundwater laws also fail to accountfor all groundwater needs, including environmentalneeds and those of groundwater-dependent ecosystems.Groundwater management serves the well-established,consumptive-use sectors—agriculture, industry, anddrinking water supplies—at the expense of the environ-ment and ecosystem services. In Arizona, for example,state water law does not require water managers to con-sider the needs of the environment, dubbed the “forgottensector” (Megdal et al. 2011). The environment may beconsidered on an ad hoc basis through voluntary efforts(Megdal et al. 2011), which are neither enforceablenor sustained. Other sectors have long quantified theirgroundwater needs, whereas the quantified water needsfor the environment generally do not exist.

Common Priorities for Groundwater GovernanceNotwithstanding the variations in groundwater gover-

nance frameworks across the United States, respondentsnevertheless confirmed two common priorities for ground-water governance: water quality and water allocation (howmuch and to whom). Addressing these common prioritieswill become paramount as changes in climate, land use,and population alter the hydrologic cycle (Georgakakoset al. 2014). Despite the array of institutions with partialresponsibility for governing groundwater, only a hand-ful of states identified interagency jurisdictional conflictas a priority. Perhaps this is due to the limited surveyaudience or to the relatively nascent state of groundwatergovernance in most states.

Groundwater recharge is strongly influenced byclimate variability and extreme precipitation eventsacross varying temporal scales. Where the surface waterand groundwater connection is closely linked, the impactof climate change on groundwater recharge will be moreprofound. More indirectly, land-use change—driven bypopulation increases, economic growth, energy develop-ment, and urbanization—may have an even stronger influ-ence on the hydrologic cycle than climate change (Tayloret al. 2013). Human demand for freshwater and accom-panying land-use changes have led to a large-scale redis-tribution of freshwater from lakes, rivers, and aquifers toarable land. As a result, groundwater-irrigated areas over-lying aquifers have experienced significant groundwaterdepletion, such as has occurred in the Ogallala Aquiferof the High Plains (Konikow 2013; Russo et al. 2014).

The ability of states to address these commonpriorities is critical to good groundwater governance andmanagement. Questions of quality and quantity havechallenged surface water regulation for centuries, but

the relatively new body of groundwater law provides anopportunity to adopt successful practices and reconsiderunsuccessful approaches.

Remaining Challenges and Knowledge GapsMany challenges and obstacles remain in achieving

effective and robust groundwater governance. Overall,survey respondents indicate that multiple convergingfactors have driven increased interest in regulatinggroundwater and in strengthening groundwater gov-ernance. Respondents cited factors such as a shift ingroundwater uses (from agriculture to urban); regionaldrought; conflicts between junior and senior water appro-priators; and preventing contamination and preservingthe quality of groundwater. The ongoing expansion ofhydraulic fracturing and existing subsurface drillingand oil extraction have driven interest in protectinggroundwater quality through legislation (Pless 2012).

Many governance tools exist already, such as aquiferstorage and recovery programs, market-based transfers,mitigation programs, and partnerships between govern-ment agencies and nongovernmental organizations. Othertools are formal, such as compacts, negotiated settle-ments, and adjudications. Whether—and the extent towhich—states have implemented these tools or evaluatedhow effective these tools are in achieving sustainableoutcomes is unclear. Few sources in the literature havesuggested methods to evaluate the effectiveness andsubstantive outcomes of these tools. Our survey raisesquestions about the legal, administrative, and financialcapacity of state agencies to implement these tools in lightof state politics, competing interests, tight state budgets,incomplete hydrologic information, and other constraints.

Figure 2 overlays the percentage of each state’sreliance on groundwater (Kenny et al. 2009) with statesthat are concerned about declining groundwater, asreported by survey respondents. The figure shows that,regardless of the extent of groundwater dependence, manystates in different geographic locations and with differentclimatic conditions are concerned with declining levelsof groundwater. Combining survey responses and data,such as in Figure 2, raises many questions for additionalresearch: Do states that are highly depend on groundwaterand that cite declining groundwater levels as a priorityhave the legal and regulatory authority and tools toaddress declining groundwater levels? Do those stateshave the personnel and financial resources and capacity toaddress this priority? This survey raises other questions,such as: What are the groundwater priorities of thevarious stakeholder constituencies around the country?How do groundwater priorities fit into overall waterpriorities? Which tools, strategies, or approaches havebeen successful, and what lessons can be exported fromthose states or regions to other locations?

Perhaps the greatest challenges are to designgroundwater governance processes that achieve a balancebetween fragmented and centralized authority and thatintegrate hydrology into existing and future groundwaterlaws and regulations. A successful governance framework

6 S.B. Megdal et al. Groundwater NGWA.org

0 500 1,000250Kilometers

States Identifying Declining GroundwaterLevels as a Priority

0 - 6%

6 - 16%

16 - 32%

32 - 100%

Figure 2. Map of states’ reliance on groundwater for total water withdrawals (Kenny et al. 2009) and states concerned withdeclining groundwater levels (Gerlak et al. 2013).

should be designed to cope with imperfect knowledgeof the groundwater resource, to reconcile conflicts, tolink across temporal and spatial scales, and to adaptto changes as they arise (Ostrom et al. 2003). Fragmentedauthority, however, comes with benefits: different agen-cies with overlapping authority may contribute new ideasand approaches to management, and diverse interestgroups for each agency can help ensure that decisionsare not the result of a dominant interest. However, littleinformation and few case studies prescribe how best todivide authority over a common resource. Even morepressing is the need for groundwater laws to reflecthydrologic realities, namely, the connection betweensurface water and groundwater and the connectionbetween groundwater quality and quantity. Examples ofintegration exist, for example in Florida and in certainregions of Arizona, but nationwide more monitoring andinvestigation remain to be done.

Concluding RemarksThis survey represents an initial step in a broader

effort to characterize groundwater governance practicesin the United States. This analysis, along with discussionswith national and international groundwater experts,indicates the demand for and value of additional researchon groundwater governance. Our two-tiered research plansinclude steps to expand our survey efforts: refiningthe questionnaire, reaching out to a broad spectrum ofexperts, and conducting in-depth analysis of case studies

in the United States. We will investigate in furtherdetail groundwater governance practices, approaches,trends, and innovations, focusing on catalysts of andimpediments to integrating groundwater and surface watermanagement. This work will allow us to assess theeffectiveness of existing governance frameworks and toidentify best practices for good groundwater governance.

AcknowledgmentsWe thank Nathaniel Delano for preparing the figures

for this article. We also thank three anonymous reviewersand Robert Merideth who provided helpful comments on aprevious draft of this article. This research was supportedin part by the Technology and Research InitiativeFund, through the University of Arizona (UA) WaterSustainability Program and Water Resources ResearchCenter (WRRC); the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. UdallFoundation in Tucson, Arizona; and the USGS WaterResources Research 104b Program, administered by theUA WRRC.

ReferencesAbrams, R.H. 2012. Legal convergence of east and west in

contemporary American water law. Environmental Law 42,no. 1: 65–91.

American Water Resources Association (AWRA). 2011. AWRApolicy statements: Integrated water resources managementin the US. http://www.awra.org/policy/policy-statements-IWRM.html (accessed March 2014).

NGWA.org S.B. Megdal et al. Groundwater 7

Barlow, P.M., and S.A. Leake. 2012. Streamflow depletionby wells—Understanding and managing the effects ofgroundwater pumping on streamflow. USGS Circular 1376.Reston, Virginia: USGS.

Blomquist, W., and E. Schlager. 2005. Political pitfalls ofintegrated watershed management. Society & NaturalResources: An International Journal 18, no. 2: 101–117.

Brekke, L.D., J.E. Kiang, J.R. Olsen, R.S. Pulwarty, D.A. Raff,D.P. Turnipseed, R.S. Webb, and K.D. White. 2009. Cli-mate change and water resources management—A federalperspective. USGS Circular 1331. Reston, Virginia: USGS.

Bryner, G., and E. Purcell. 2003. Groundwater law sourcebookof the western United States. Natural Resources LawCenter, University of Colorado School of Law. http://live.cacoastkeeper.org/document/groundwater-law-sourcebook-of-the-western-united-states.pdf (accessed January 2014).

Campana, M.E. 2014. Groundwater management: Quo vadis?Water Resources Impact 16, no. 1: 27–28.

Dellapenna, J. 2013. A primer on groundwater law. Idaho LawReview 49, no. 2: 265–323.

Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P.C. Stern. 2003. The struggle togovern the commons. Science 302, no. 5652: 1907–1912.DOI:10.1126/science.1091015.

Doremus, H. 2009. CALFED and the quest for optimalinstitutional fragmentation. Environmental Science & Policy12, no. 6: 729–732.

Famiglietti, J.S., M. Lo, S.L. Ho, J. Bethune, K.J. Anderson,T.H. Syed, S.C. Swenson, C.R. de Linage, and M. Rodell.2011. Satellites measure recent rates of groundwater deple-tion in California’s Central Valley. Geophysical ResearchLetters 38, no. 3: L03403. DOI:10.1029/2010GL046442.

Feldman, D.L. 2007. Water Policy for Sustainable Development .Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Georgakakos, A., P. Fleming, M. Dettinger, C. Peters-Lidard,T.C. Richmond, K. Reckhow, K. White, and D. Yates.2014. Water resources. In Climate Change Impacts in theUnited States: The Third National Climate Assessment , ed.J.M. Melillo, T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe, 69–112.Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Gerlak, A.K., S.B. Megdal, R.G. Varady, and H. Richards. 2013.Groundwater governance in the U.S. summary of initialsurvey results. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona.https://wrrc.arizona.edu/sites/wrrc.arizona.edu/files/pdfs/GroundwaterGovernanceReport-FINALMay2013.pdf(accessed January 2014).

Getches, D.H. 2009. Water Law in a Nutshell . St Paul,Minnesota: Thomson/West.

Global Environment Facility (GEF). 2013. Groundwater gover-nance: A global framework for action. http://www.groundwatergovernance.org/ (accessed March 2014).

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, no.3859: 1243–1248. DOI:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243.

Hoffman, C., and S. Zellmer. 2013. Assessing institutionalability to support adaptive, integrated water resourcesmanagement. Nebraska Law Review 91, no. 4: 805–865.

Kenny, J.F., N.L. Barber, S.S. Hutson, K.S. Linsey, J.K.Lovelace, and M.A. Maupin. 2009. Estimated use of waterin the United States. USGS Circular 1344. Reston, Virginia:USGS.

Knuppe, K., and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2011. A framework for theanalysis of governance structures applying to groundwaterresources and the requirements for the sustainable manage-ment of associated ecosystem services. Water ResourcesManagement 25: 3387–3411. DOI:10.1007/s11269-011-9861-7.

Konikow, L.F. 2013. Groundwater depletion in the United States(1900-2008). USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2013-5079. Reston, Virginia: USGS.

Leshy, J.D. 2008. Interstate groundwater resources: The federalrole. Hastings West-Northwest Journal of EnvironmentalLaw and Policy 14, no. Summer: 1475–1498.

Megdal, S., J. Nadeau, and T. Tom. 2011. The forgotten sector:Arizona water law and the environment. Arizona Journalof Environmental Law and Policy 1, no. 2: 243.

National Water Commission. 1973. Water Policies for the Future.Washington, DC: National Water Commission.

Ostrom, E. 2010. Beyond markets and states: Polycentricgovernance of complex economic systems. AmericanEconomic Review 100, no. 3: 641–67233. DOI:10.1257/aer.100.3.641.

Ostrom, E., P.C. Stern, and T. Dietz. 2003. Water rights in thecommons. Water Resources Impact 5, no. 2: 9–12.

Pahl-Wostl, C., D. Tabara, R. Bouwen, M. Craps, A. Dewulf,E. Mostert, D. Ridder, and T. Tailleiu. 2008. The impor-tance of social learning and culture for sustainable watermanagement. Ecological Economics 64, no. 3: 484–495.DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.007.

Pless, J. 2012. Natural gas development and hydraulic frac-turing: A policymaker’s guide. National Conference ofState Legislatures. http://www.ncsl.org/documents/energy/frackingguide_060512.pdf (accessed February 2014).

Reiblich, J., and C.A. Klein. 2014. Climate change and watertransfers. Pepperdine Law Review 41, no. 3: 439–508.

Reilly, T.E., K.F. Dennehy, W.M Alley, and W.L. Cunningham.2008. Ground-water availability in the United States. USGSCircular 1323. Reston, Virginia: USGS.

Richter, B. 2014. Chasing Water: A Guide for Moving fromScarcity to Sustainability . Washington, DC: Island Press.

Russo, T., U. Lall, H. Wen, and M. Williams. 2014. Assessmentof trends in groundwater levels across the United States.Columbia Water Center White Paper. http://water.columbia.edu/files/2014/03/USGW_WhitePaper_FINAL.pdf(accessed May 2014).

Sax, J.L., B.H. Thompson Jr., J.D. Leshy, and R.H. Abrams.2006. Legal Control of Water Resources . St. Paul, Min-nesota: Thompson/West.

Salamon, L., and H.K. Anheier. 1997. The civil society sector.Society 34, no. 2: 60–65. DOI:10.1007/BF02823101.

Shabman, L., and P. Scodari. 2012. Towards integrated waterresources management: A conceptual framework for U.S.Army Corps of Engineers water and related land resourcesimplementation studies. 2012-VSP-01. Alexandria, Vir-ginia: USACE.

Stevens, J. 2013. California’s groundwater: A legally neglectedresource. Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmen-tal Law and Policy 19, no. Winter: 3–37.

Taylor, R.G., B. Scanlon, P. Doll, M. Rodell, R. van Beek, Y.Wada, L. Longuevergne, M. Leblanc, J.S. Famiglietti, M.Edmunds, L. Konikow, T.R. Green, J. Chen, M. Taniguchi,M.F.P. Bierkens, A. MacDonald, Y. Fan, R.M. Maxwell,Y. Yechieli, J.J. Gurdak, D.M. Allen, M. Shamsudduha,K. Hiscock, P.J.-F. Yeh, I. Holman, and H. Treidel. 2013.Ground water and climate change. Nature Climate Change3: 322–329. DOI:10.1038/nclimate1744.

Thompson, B.H. Jr. 2011. Beyond connections: Pursuingmultidimensional conjunctive management. Idaho LawReview 47, no. 2: 273–323.

Torres, G. 2012. Liquid assets: Groundwater in Texas. YaleLaw Journal Forum 122: 143–166 http://www.yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/1118.pdf (accessed January 2014).

U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2003. Freshwater sup-ply: States’ views of how federal agencies could help themmeet the challenges of expected shortages. GAO-03-514.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Varady, R.G., F. van Weert, S.B. Megdal, A. Gerlak, C.A. Iskan-dar, and L. House-Peters. 2013. Thematic Paper No. 5:Groundwater policy and governance. Rome, Italy: GEF-FAO Groundwater Governance Project A Global Frame-work for Country Action. http://www.groundwatergovernance.org/resources/thematic-papers/en/ (accessed January2014).

8 S.B. Megdal et al. Groundwater NGWA.org