Search

With aquifers around the world stressed by over-extraction, water managers are increasingly turning to managed aquifer recharge (MAR), directly replenishing groundwater resources through injection wells, recharge basins, or other approaches. While there has been progress in understanding the geological and infrastructure-related considerations to make MAR more effective, critical evaluations of its institutional design and implementation are limited. This study assesses MAR projects, using a case study of projects proposed by groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) in California to comply with the state's Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014; these projects will almost double the number of MAR projects in the United States. We draw on content analysis of groundwater sustainability plans that propose these projects. We first assess the types of recharge projects proposed and the stated aims of the projects, to assess when and why agencies are turning to MAR as a solution. We find that recharge basins are by far the most common approach, and that GSAs hope these basins will improve water table levels, reduce subsidence, and improve water quality. We then analyze potential barriers to project implementation and assess the projects' ability to achieve the stated goals. Primary concerns identified include a potential lack of available water, a potentially challenging legal framework, and minimal consideration of funding and cumulative land needs. To conclude, we discuss broader considerations for ensuring that MAR is an effective water management tool.

Institutional authority and responsibility for allocating water to ecosystems ("ecologically available water" [EAW]) is spread across local, state, and federal agencies, which operate under a range of statutes, mandates, and planning processes. We use a case study of the Upper Missouri Headwaters Basin in southwestern Montana, United States, to illustrate this fragmented institutional landscape. Our goals are to (a) describe the patchwork of agencies and institutional actors whose intersecting authorities and actions influence the EAW in the study basin; (b) describe the range of governance mechanisms these agencies use, including laws, policies, administrative programs, and planning processes; and (c) assess the extent to which the collective governance regime creates gaps in responsibility. We find the water governance regime includes a range of nested mechanisms that in various ways facilitate or hinder the governance of EAW. We conclude the current multilevel governance regime leaves certain aspects of EAW unaddressed and does not adequately account for the interconnections between water in different parts of the ecosystem, creating integrative gaps. We suggest that more intentional and robust coordination could provide a means to address these gaps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]