Transformations to groundwater sustainability: From individuals and pumps to communities and aquifers

(1)

Transformations

to

groundwater

sustainability:

from

individuals

and

pumps

to

communities

and

aquifers

Margreet

Zwarteveen

1

,

Marcel

Kuper

2

,

Cristian

Olmos-Herrera

3

,

Muna

Dajani

4

,

Jeltsje

Kemerink-Seyoum

5

,

Cleaver

Frances

4

,

Linnea

Beckett

6

,

Flora

Lu

7

,

Seema

Kulkarni

8

,

Himanshu

Kulkarni

9

,

Uma

Aslekar

9

,

Lowe

Bo¨rjeson

10

,

Andres

Verzijl

11

,

Carolina

Dominguez

Guzma´n

12

,

Maria

Teresa

Ore´

13

,

Irene

Leonardelli

14

,

Lisa

Bossenbroek

15

,

Hind

Ftouhi

16

,

Tavengwa

Chitata

17

,

Tarik

Hartani

18

,

Amine

Saidani

19

,

Michelaina

Johnson

7

,

Aysha

Peterson

7

,

Sneha

Bhat

8

,

Sachin

Bhopal

8

,

Zakaria

Kadiri

16

,

Rucha

Deshmukh

9

,

Dhaval

Joshi

20

,

Hans

Komakech

21

,

Kerstin

Joseph

21

,

Ebrania

Mlimbila

21

and

Chris

De

Bont

10

Ifthesuccessofagriculturalintensificationcontinuestorelyon

thedepletionofaquifersandexploitationof(female)labour,

transformationstogroundwatersustainabilitywillbe

impossibletoachieve.Hence,thedevelopmentofnew

groundwaterimaginaries,basedonalternativewaysof

organizingsociety-waterrelationsishighlyimportant.This

paperarguesthatacomparativedocumentationofgrass-roots

initiativestocarefor,shareorrechargeaquifersinplaceswith

acuteresourcepressuresprovidesanimportantsourceof

inspiration.Usingagroundedanti-colonialandfeminist

approach,wecombineanethnographicdocumentationof

groundwaterpracticeswithhydrogeologicalandengineering

insightstoenunciate,normativelyassessandjointlylearnfrom

theknowledges,technologiesandinstitutionsthatcharacterize

suchinitiatives.Doingthisusefullyshiftsthefocusofplanned

effortstoregulateandgoverngroundwaterawayfrom

governmenteffortstocontrolindividualpumpingbehaviours,

totheidentificationofpossibilitiestoanchortransformationsto

sustainabilityincollectiveaction.

Addresses

1

UniversityofAmsterdam,GovernanceandInclusiveDevelopment.IHE Delft,DepartmentofWaterGovernance

2_University_of_Montpellier,_UMR_G-Eau/Cirad,_Montpellier,_France 3_University_of_Amsterdam,_Governance_and_Inclusive_Development 4

LancasterEnvironmentCentre,LancasterUniversity

5_IHE_Delft,_Department_of_Water_Governance._University_of_Amsterdam,

GovernanceandInclusiveDevelopment

6_Colleges₉_&_10,_Division_of_Social_Sciences,_University_of_California

SantaCruz

7

DepartmentofEnvironmentalStudies,UniversityofCaliforniaSanta Cruz

8_Society_for_Promoting_{Participative}_Eco-system_Management,_Pune

(SOPPECOM)

9_Advanced_Centre_for_Water_resources_Development_and_Management,

ACWADAM

10_Department_of_Human_Geography,_Stockholm_University,_Stockholm,

Sweden

11_Governance_and_Inclusive_Development,_University_of_Amsterdam.

InternationalDevelopmentStudiesGroup,UtrechtUniversity

12

AnthropologyDepartment,UniversityofAmsterdam,theNetherlands

13

DepartmentofSocialSciencesofthePontificalCatholicUniversityof Peru´

14_IHE_Delft_Institute_for_Water_Education 15_University_{Koblenz-Landau}

16

UniversityHassanII,Casablanca

17

TheUniversityofSheffield,DepartmentofGeography

18_Laboratory_management_and_valorization_of_agricultural_and_aquatic

ecosystemsMorsliAbdellahTipazaUniversityCenter,OuedMerzoug 42000Tipaza,Algeria

19

CREAD,Algeria.AgronomyandVeterinarySciencesInstitute,IAV HassanII,Rabat,Morocco.SupAgro,Montpellier,France

20_School_of_Geosciences,_University_of_Edinburgh,_UK

21_WISE_–_Futures,_Nelson_Mandela_African_Institution_of_Science_and

Technology,Arusha,Tanzania

Correspondingauthor:Zwarteveen,Margreet(m.z.zwarteveen@uva.nl)

CurrentOpinioninEnvironmentalSustainability2021,49:88–97 ThisreviewcomesfromathemedissueonTransformationsto sustainability:criticalsocialscienceperspectives

EditedbyEmilyBoyd,EduardoBrondizioandEleanorFisher

Received:01August2020;Accepted:02March2021

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.03.004

1877-3435/CrownCopyrightã2021PublishedbyElsevierB.V.Thisis anopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense( http://creativecom-mons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Introduction

Overthepasthalfcentury,a‘groundwaterrevolution’[1] hasoccurred:ashiftfromusingrelativelyeasilyavailable

(2)

shallow subsurface watersto usingmuchdeeper under-ground waters that are not always replenishable. This shifthappenedbyreplacingoftencenturies-old technol-ogiesforcapturinganddistributingorstoring groundwa-ter(wells,qanats,drains,pozas)withnew—everbetter and cheaper — technologies for drilling, pumping and conveyingwater.Inagriculture—whichisthefocusof thispaper—theavailabilityofgroundwaterhasallowed the expansion of agricultural frontiers [2] by extending irrigatedareasandmakingfarmingpossibleinaridplaces. Currently,someforty-twopercentoftheworld’sirrigated lands isirrigatedwithgroundwater[3].

Bothscientificscholarshipandpolicystatements, under-scorethestrategicimportanceoftappingintopreviously inaccessible groundwater reserves for realizing present-day and future global water, food security and climate resilienceambitions[4–8].Yet,theyalso,andsomewhat paradoxically,drawattentiontotheoverexploitationand pollution of aquifers[9,10].Analysespoint outhow the intensified use of groundwaterfor agriculture resultsin rapidlyfallinggroundwatertables,decliningwater qual-ity,increasedratesofsaltwaterintrusionandland subsi-dence, while also drying up natural water bodies like wetlandsandriverswithdetrimentaleffectsto biodiver-sity. Excessive groundwater pumping may also

irreversiblydestroyorreduceundergroundstorage capac-ity as well as damage hydraulic connections between surfaceandgroundwatersystems[11].

Governing groundwateris notoriouslychallenging,with widespread scholarly agreement that past and current attempts are disappointing or ineffective [12,13–15]. Thisisbecausegroundwaterisinvisible,makingit diffi-cult,cumbersomeandoftenexpensivetodetermineand monitorquantitiesavailable.Itisalsobecause groundwa-ter flows are connectedto otherwater flows —surface, rain and subsurface — and becausethere are different typesofgroundwater,withsomebeingeasiertore-charge thanothers.Anadditionalcomplexityisthatgroundwater is a common pool resource with high subtractability, meaningthatoneperson’susecanchangetheavailability or quality for other current or future users. However, unlikeothercommonpoolresources,theneedfor infra-structure to access thewater increases thepotential for excludability. There are two types of tensions here: betweenindividualandcollectiveinterestsandbetween short-term gainsandlonger-termsustainability[16,17].

Figure1summariseshowrecentreviewsongroundwater

governance [12,13,18,19,15] display strikingly similar lines of argumentation and conclusions, something that

Figure1

1. RESOURCE-ORIENTED 2. INTERVENTION-ORIENTED

4. DATA-ORIENTED 3. RECIPES

Allocating governance responsibiities Licensing and sanctioning Institutionalizing groundwater property rights

Advancing modelling and remote sensing to monitor groundwater levels Better numbers bring better management Natural hydrogeological

similarities dictate institutional regulations

Engineering or natural sciences-based approach

Optimizing input for food production and economic value

Separate and separable from livelihood contexts

Groundwater

Governance

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

(3)

canperhapsbeattributedto thefact thatmost ground-watergovernancescholarshipappearstocomefromjusta fewinternationalresearchcentres(suchasIWMI,FAO, IGRAC, OECD). Writings are resource-oriented and intervention-orientedandassumethatgoverning ground-water is primarily a public concern. Most studies are geared towards the formulation of generic guidelines (glossingoversocio-ecologicaldifferences),clearlyanchor prescriptions (or recipes)in theassumption that similar hydrogeologicalconditionswarrantsimilarinstitutionalor governance arrangements, and place faith in theuse of evermoreadvancedmodellingandremotesensing tech-niquestobetterknowandmanagegroundwater.Overall, a ‘tragedy of the commons’ reasoning prevails, with attentionfocusingonwhatgovernmentscandotoeither curbthegreedofindividualextractorsthroughlicensing and sanctioning, often in combination with efforts to institutionalize property rights, or to increase supply through advanced technological means such as inter-basintransfers,ordesalinization [13].

Intherestof thispaper,we makeapleafor pluralizing groundwatergovernancescholarship.Wearguethatthere ismeritin complementingthecurrentfocuson govern-ment efforts to better regulate and control extraction, with efforts to document and learn from community initiativestocarefor,shareorrechargetheaquifersthey dependonforlivelihoodsandincomes.

Transformations

to

groundwater

sustainability

Our project, Transformations to Groundwater Sustain-ability (T2GS), brings together a network of scholars, activists and practitioners with backgrounds in critical socialscience,engineeringandhydrogeology,who work indifferentcountriesonwater-relatedthemes.Through theproject,weaspire tocontributeto the anti-coloniza-tion and pluralization of groundwater scholarship

[20,21,22].The purpose of anti-colonization isto trace

howcurrentgroundwatercrisesarecausedbyorintrinsic to particular models of agricultural intensification (and development)–thosepremisedonsystematically under-valuingwater(andtheenvironmentmorebroadly)aswell aslabor(muchofitfromwomen).

Anti-colonizationimportantlyincludesdeveloping sensi-bilitytohowprevailingscientificwaysofknowing (mea-suring,thinkingabout,imagining)andmanaging ground-wateroriginatein,orhelplegitimatesuchunsustainable models of farming and development. Pluralization is a necessaryparallelmove toanti-colonial critique.It con-sistsoflookingbeyondacceptedscience-basedexpertise andsolutions to (re-)appreciate and learnfromthe wis-doms, technologies and institutions that communities havedevised—often basedongenerationsof livingin a territory — or are experimenting with to protect, recharge,accessandsharegroundwater.

Pluralization also entails developing new circuits and ways for knowledges to travel. We are interested in finding ways of joint learning that do not depend on grand theorizations and the adoption of single idioms, andresistthepressuresforequivalence,commensuration and coherencethat often comewith a desire for global comparisonanduniversality.Weproposetoinstead cher-ish pluriversality: allowing many knowers, knowledges andversionsofgroundwatertoco-exist,learningfromand livingwith,ratherthanovercoming,differences[23–25]. Doing this means developing awareness of the many translations needed to contrast and compare what hap-pens in one place to what happens elsewhere. In our collaborationsintheproject,weactivelyexperimentwith different ways of doing this. We for instance organize monthly online workshops, make podcasts, encourage socialscientiststo learnabouthydrogeologyand hydro-geologiststolearnaboutcriticalsocialscienceand femi-nism, and we jointly search for the shared origin of dominant groundwater imaginaries, tracing how these resonateinthestudycases.Wehavealsostartedtomake useofdrawingstocapturethecomplexitiesofcommunity groundwaterpracticesin thedifferentplaces where we study. We use these drawings as a horizontal tool for interpretation and critical reflection. An example is a drawing based on the study carried out by the Indian teaminRandullabad(Figure2).Themakingof, compar-ing,and jointconversations aboutthese drawings allow discussions to emerge about different ways of under-standinggroundwaterinjustices,inequalities and gover-nancechallenges.Experimentingwithdifferentwaysof representing, comparing and translating experiences, ideas and findingsis proving to also bea joyfulway to start practicing careand solidarity in how welearn and develop knowledge: attempting to make sure that all voices,experiencesandstoriesmatter.

Guiding our efforts is a conscious attempt to shift the currentemphasisingroundwatergovernancescholarship from command and control — aiming to regulate the pumping behaviour of individuals — to an approach whichrecognizesand supportsthecareof communities for aquifers [27,28] through identifying and assessing formsofsolidarityandcollectiveaction[27,29].In addi-tionto mobilizingfeminist andanti-colonial thinkers to

helpdothis[23,26,29,30,31,32,33,34],weare

inter-estedinabroader‘returntopractice’[35,36]andtakethe idea of hydrosociality [37,38] seriously. An important premise that guides our efforts is that lessons about possibilities to use, care for and share groundwater in ecologicallywiseandsociallyjustwaysneedtobe empir-icallyanchoredintheactualpracticesofthoseengaging withgroundwateronaday-to-daybasis:diggers,artisans, farmersanddowsers, tojustnameafew.

The remarkable existence of community-based initia-tives and engagements with groundwater in India,

(4)

Algeria, Morocco, Tanzania, Chile, Peru, USA, Zimbabwe,Syriaformsasourceofinspirationandstarting pointofourexercise.Theseinitiativesconsistofpeople who, sometimes with outside support, organize to cap-ture, share, re-charge or protect groundwater in places wherethreatsofdepletionandpollutionareparticularly acute.1 Their collective action is catalyzed by direct experiencesofharmcausedbydecliningwater availabili-tiesordeterioratingqualities,asenseofterritorial belong-ing, or a connection to place [36,39]. Such efforts to defendgroundwaterreserves andlongstandingpractices of stewardship counter narrativesof the‘tragedy of the commons’,demonstratingthatdegradationanddepletion of the resource is not inevitable, as farmers may be motivated to cooperate to avoid these risks. Especially wherestate-initiatedprogrammesofagricultural intensi-ficationactivelypromotetheexploitationof aquifersfor profit—suchasinMorocco,partsofIndia,andPeru— the continued existence of such grassroots initiatives showsthatprocessesofmodernizationarenevercomplete or uniform. The question of whether these initiatives indeedrepresentexamplesofmoreenvironmentally sus-tainable and socially equitable forms of groundwater governance, or whether they instead consist of more temporalandperhapsfragilesocio-politicalcompromises [2]iscentraltoourconversationandanalysis[40].Inthis

senseourapproachisagnostic;ourinvestigationsarenot based on anassumption that community initiatives are ‘better’(moresustainableorjust)than government-initi-ated ones.In one of the cases we study, in Ravangaon (India),femalefarmersareforinstancequicktopointout howtheunsustainabilityofcurrentgroundwaterpractices is importantly caused by macro-policy orientations that are difficult to change at their level. Our hope is that serious critical attention to and engagement with what communitiesdo—learningfromthewisdoms, technolo-giesandinstitutionsthattheyhavedevisedorare experi-menting with to protect, recharge, access and share groundwater or resist its depletion — will widen and pluralize ideas about how to generate transformations togroundwatersustainabilitybeyondcurrentlyaccepted science-based solutions. It mayalso provide inspiration for newgroundwater imaginaries, cosmologiesor moral ecological rationalities [41]of engaging with neighbors, future generations, water itself and more-than-humans dependentonwater.

We used an ethnographic approach as the empirical starting pointfor thedocumentationandanalysisof the identified community initiatives. To allow positioning ourselves in academic as well as policy debates, we pragmaticallydividedthiseffortintothreebroad,loosely defined,and intertwinedcategories:knowledges, technolo-giesandinstitutions(seeFigure3).Weremainsensitiveto theconnectionsbetween thesecategories:Itis through technologiessuchaswellsandpumps,forinstance,that

Figure2

TheParticipatoryGroundwaterManagementInitiativeinRandullabad,India.(Co-producedbyUmaAslekar,DhavalJoshi,RuchaDeshmukhand CristianOlmosHerrera).

1_The_{Supplementary}_material_to_this_article_contains_ten_short

narra-tivesabouttheongoingaction-researchprojectshappeningineachof theprojectsites.

(5)

people learn and obtain knowledge about fluctuating water levels and qualities.2As we show in more detail below,technologiesalsoco-determinehowwateris dis-tributed(therulesof use).Inwritingaboutandsharing ourfindings,in thepluralizingandfeministspiritofthe project, we try treating differentknowledges and tech-nologies in horizontal ways, avoiding the a priori judg-ment of some as intrinsically better or advanced and others as backward or primitive. In particular, the often-used distinction between scientific knowledges andlocalorindigenousknowledgesisonewetreatwith caution.Afterall,allknowledgescomefromsomewhere andarebasedonspecific experiences[38,42].Theterm bricolage(or tinkering)isanimportant conceptual-meth-odologicaldevicetohelpdothis.Itexpressesthatactual practices of using and governing water often consist of technologies, knowledges and institutions that are patched together and always in-the-making, instead of fixedand rationallyor scientificallydesigned [43–45].A

bricolagelensallowsto seetheflexibleadaptations and hybridizations that make groundwater governance arrangements work in particular contexts. These are never innocent, but laden with meaning and imbued withpowerrelations.Indeed,powerandmeaningweave through our three themes, helping to understand how changehappens,andhowitisshapedtobenefitsomeand notothers[44].

In what follows, we use inspiring material from the literature to further explain and illustrate our approach ineachofthethreecategories:knowledges,technologies andinstitutions.

Knowledges,

technologies

and

institutions

Knowledges

In this first category, we are interested in how local communitiesappreciate,knowanddealwithfluctuating qualitiesand quantities in their everyday dealings with groundwater.Suchknowledgemaybetheresultof gen-erationsof accumulatedexperience and observation by

Figure3

TheGroundwaterGovernanceframeworkoftheTransformationstoGroundwaterSustainabilityproject(T2GS).

2

(6)

thosewhoselivesdependonusinggroundwater[46],and oftenformspartofwidercosmologies—waysofbeingin and making sense of the world [47]. Creative ways of knowinggroundwaterforinstanceincludetheinnovative ‘watertowers’thatyoungfarmersinAlgeriauseto estab-lish whetheror nottheycanirrigate[48],as wellas the participatorygroundwaterassessmentandrecharge meth-odsdevelopedbyACWADAMinMaharashtra[49].The pozasusedbymangofarmersonthedesertcoastofPeru likewiseprovideanexampleoftheirintimateknowledge aboutassessinganddealingwithwaterscarcityand fluc-tuating availabilities; knowledge that is embedded in waysoffarmingandliving[46,50].InGhana,embodied waysofknowingservedasausefultoolforunderstanding groundwater governance for irrigation during the dry season[51].3Place-specificpracticesofassessing ground-water quantitiesand qualitiesmaydifferfromaccepted temporal or spatialboundaries usedin scientific assess-ments[62],orevenchallengethosepracticesor technol-ogieswidelyheraldedassustainable,forinstancerelating to conservation agriculture [52].Knowledgesof farmers oftenformpartofvery specificwaysofdealingwiththe ecologicalandclimatologicalcharacteristicsoftheirfields and plots; they demonstrate how they are adapted and attuned to micro-specificities. This contrasts with the pressures of ‘modern’ agriculture to specialize and homogenize [53].

In documentingand assessinggroundwaterknowledges weareinterestedinfindingouthowprevailingtechnical and scientific understandings of groundwater can be complemented, or perhaps challenged, by other ways ofknowinggroundwatersandaquifers.Tracingthe reso-nances,gapsandfrictionsbetweendifferentknowledges constitutesanimportantstartingpointfordoingthis.We mobilize insightsfromScience andTechnologyStudies (STS)[54–58]tohelptreatingtheknowledgesembedded in theexperiencesandroutines ofgroundwaterusersas equally legitimate as the understandings of engineers, agronomists and hydrogeologists. An important lesson from STS is that which and whose knowledge travels, gainsauthorityorprevailsinmakingdecisionsisnotjusta questionofaccuracy,butalsooneofpolitics,historyand culture [59,37,60,61].4 In Chile, for instance, the state water resources agency used a supposedly scientific

hydrological assessment done in response to concerns of overexploitationofanaquifertounderpinwater allo-cation decisions in accordance with its own interests, further endorsing existing unequal patterns of resource use[62].InPeru,miningcompaniesdismissedindicators usedbylocalresidentstoappreciatewaterquality, label-lingtheseasvernacularoranecdotal.Miningcompanies instead put forward their own quantitative technical assessments [63]. Groundwater’s invisibility, and the overall difficulty of accurately assessing the dynamics of flows and stocks, creates a lot of room for such dis-agreements.Indeeddiscussionsabout(waystomeasure) availabilitiesandqualitiesoftenthemselvesbecomepart of contestedclaimsandpowerstruggles [37].

Critically examining and, where needed, challenging forms ofsegregationand hierarchyinknowing ground-water — such as those between natural sciences and social sciences; between knowledge originating in the majorityworldandthatcomingfromtheminorityworld; between experts and practitioners — is a necessary component ofthe pluralization we strive for, asis the cultivation of critical awareness about how claims of scientific objectivity or neutrality may themselves be expressions of power [64]. Here it is important to appreciate that practical assessments of availabilities, both byscientistsand byusers,oftencombine — rear-rangeandhybridize—differentknowledgesandwaysof knowing. Itis,forinstance,interesting how hydrogeol-ogistsmaycallinthehelpofdowserswhenprospecting forwater [65].

Technologies

Technologies for measuring, accessing, distributing or recharging groundwater form the material expression andarticulationof,butalsoco-shape,society-water inter-actions.Technologies-in-useoftenrepresentapalimpsest of accumulated experience [66], with technologies — pumps and wells —often also providingpeople with a means to assess (fluctuations in) groundwater levels.5 Building on a long tradition of scholarship about how technologiesaresocial,culturalandpolitical[67],andin linewiththelargerargumentofthepaperonthe plurali-zationofgroundwaterscholarship,weexaminehow par-ticular(combinationsof)technologicalartefactsand infra-structures make some forms of knowing, access, care, organization and distribution possible, and others more difficult.Particulartechnologiesmaygoaccompanied,or be associated with, particular institutions and cosmolo-gies.Forinstance,inMoroccoshallowwellswere associ-atedwitha(slow)worldofparsimonyandwaterscarcity, whereas deep tube-wells are associated with a (quick) world of abundance [68,69]. More generally, in

3_Also_see_the_narratives_of_Dominguez_et_al._(Peru),_Saidani_(Algeria),

Petersonetal.(USA),Aslekaretal.(India),Bossenbroeketal.(Morocco), Dajani (Syria), de Bont et al. (Tanzania) and Chitata (Zimbabwe) includedintheSupplementarymaterialforexamplesof‘local’ ground-waterknowledges.

4_See _Peterson _et _al. _{(Supplementary} _material) _who _explore _links

between groundwater pollution,unsustainable agricultural practices, andpublichealthinCalifornia.Farmworkersbuiltnetworkswith acti-vists,administrativeandscientificgroupstoadvocateforcleandrinking water.AlsoseeOlmosHerrera(Supplementarymaterial)foracasestudy oftheAtacamaDesert,wherelarge-scaleminingnotonlyalterswater flows, butalso challengesthecosmovisio´n oflocal communitieswith devastatingecologicaleffects.

5_In_the_Zimbabwe_narrative_in_the_{Supplementary}_material,_Chitata

etal.showhowpeoplecanassessgroundwaterlevelsbythesoundsand vibrationsoftheirpumps.

(7)

irrigation the shift to groundwater use often happens through a shift from collective surface canal irrigation systems to individually owned and used tubewells. In canal irrigationsystems, waterflows caneasilybeseen, changedand contested.Withashiftto individual tube-wells, pumps and underground pipes, flows become invisible,makingithardertodiscusshowwateris distrib-uted,caredforandshared[63].6Thisprocessof technol-ogy-driven individualization of water use and manage-mentneatly matchespopular ideologiesof privatization andlaissez-faire economics[64,17,71]which informidea (s) of farming as profit-maximizing entrepreneurialism. Becauseoneperson’suseoftubewellsreduces availabil-ity of groundwater for others, the technology also re-organizesthe distributionof water [70].The fact that only those with means can afford to invest in drilling deeper tubewells may mean that they become ‘water lords’.Forthelesswell-to-do,watersourcesmaybecome contaminated and wells may run dry.7Technology and ideologytogethermaketheattributionofresponsibilities for suchunequal distributionsofwater[72] andfor the depletion of groundwater difficult, as these are both invisible(andnaturalized)and ascribedto theworkings ofanonymousmarketsandmultiple(non-specified)users orpolluters.Ironicallyreinforcingthisisthephenomenon thatmanydevices(e.g.industrialtube-wells,pumps,drip irrigationsystemsandengines)usedingroundwaterare associatedwithprogress,themselveshavingbecomethe symbolsof moremodernwaysoffarmingand living. Inthisway,tracinghowtheaccessto,anddistribution of, groundwater is mediatedby technologies and criti-callyre-visitingthenormativeassociationsthatsurround (ed) their development, promotion and use allows exposing and questioning the power asymmetries and processes of marginalization they reproduce or bring into being [73]. How this happens is often full of surprisesandcontingencies,astechnologiesareseldom as‘fixed’astheymayseem.Individualsand communi-ties often display creativity in (re)crafting and (re) designing technologies and infrastructural configura-tionsthroughbricolage.Intheprocess,theyre-distribute and re-define water as well as power in subtle ways

[74,75,43,76,77,72,78].8

Inadditiontotechnologiesforaccessinganddistributing groundwater, technologies for the managed recharge of aquifers are particularly interesting as these seem to

provide promising examples of collective forms of care that promote the circularity of water.9 They are often basedonrevivingage-oldcommunitypractices.Whether theseindeed represent formsof waterstewardship and solidaritycannot beassumed,but needscareful investi-gation[79].

Institutions

Ourthirdavenueofinquiryisaboutunderstandinghow the rules and norms that shape practices of accessing, sharing and caring for groundwater emerge or change, oftenininteractionwithsocio-environmentalhistories,10 technologiesandpolitical-ecological contexts. Pluraliza-tionentailslearningfromthesemultiple,imbricated,and constantly in-the-making institutions. Although many agreethat groundwatershould betreated as acommon pool resource (with multiple individuals being able to accessanduseitand,intheprocess,reducingthe quan-tityorqualityavailabletoothers),thisismadedifficultas the boundaries of the resource are often not precisely known. The fact that most groundwater is accessed throughindividuallyownedtubewells(withwaterrights often being based on land rights) makes groundwater governance de factoa combinationof private ownership withinalargeropenaccessregime.Theresulting institu-tional puzzle becomes even more complex because of how groundwaterandsurface waterare interconnected, with thetwo often beingregulated bydifferentnorms, technologiesandlaws[16].Suchconnectionsmayentail issueswithlocalcommunitiesthatarenotusing ground-waterthemselvesbutareharmedbyitsoverexploitation byothers.Hence,thespringsorriverstheymakeuse of may dry up, or there may be damage to wetlands or pastures.

Thiscomplexitymakestheexistenceofsuccessful insti-tutionsforcaringfor,andsharingof,groundwater some-thing that is remarkable. Institutional theorizing about the commons has indeed often mobilized groundwater examples[80].Theseshowtheenduranceandflexibility ofgroundwaterinstitutions.Examplesforinstanceshow how groundwater institutions build on institutions to manage surfacewater, as in the emblematic Huertade ValenciairrigationsysteminSpain.Here,irrigators inte-gratedgroundwaterandtreatedwastewaterwithsurface waterflowsover thepastthirtyyears [81].Webuildon

6_See_Chitata_et _al. _{(Supplementary}_material). _In _Zimbabwe,_more

‘efficient’irrigationinfrastructure,designedbyengineers,interrupted the relation of irrigators with groundwater with potential negative effectsonhowthecommunitywillprotectgroundwater.

7

TheSupplementarymaterialsprovidesomenarrativesthatillustrate this:Petersonetal.,Bossenbroeketal.,Dajani,Olmos-Herrera.

8_See_de_Bont_et_al._{(Supplementary}_material)_who_highlight_how_in

Tanzania,know-howfromartisanalminingkickstartedtheemerging groundwatereconomy.

9

SeeSaidani;Dominguezetal., Kulkarniet al.,andAslekaret al., (Supplementarymaterial).NewlyestablishedsmallholdersinAlgeria’s Sahara andagribusinesses in Peru increasingly use secular recharge infrastructure adapted fromnearby communities.However, this has ledtowaterinequitieswiththeverycommunitieswhoinventedthese technologies.InMaharashtra,India,alocalcommunitydesignsrulesand developsinfrastructuretorechargeandsharegroundwater.

10

SeeKulkarnietal.(Supplementarymaterial).Womenfarmersina villageinMaharashtraexplainhowwiderstate-promotedtrajectoriesof agriculturalintensification,associatedwithnewtechnologiesandcrops, havemadefarmingandgroundwaterincreasinglyunsustainable.These womenhavefew,ifany,meanstoresistorchangethis.

(8)

theorizations of groundwaterinstitutions as emblematic examples of how common property resources can or should be managed, as these help shift the emphasis from individual to collective interests and from short-term gains to longer-term sustainability. Yet, we also complementandsometimeschallengeexisting theoriza-tions with those that pay more attention to power and politics[44,47]andhighlight‘thecommons’assomething relational, that is, alive and socially constructed [82]. Normsandrules-in-useemergeintheinterplaybetween whatareoftenconsidereddistinct‘formal’and‘informal’, ‘customary’ and ‘state-sanctioned’ arrangements, and theyareanimatedbypowerrelations[83].Theyareoften embeddedinwidersocialrelations[84],11cosmologiesor moral-ecological rationalities that have historically evolvedandareonlypartlytheresultofconsciousdesign processes.

Conclusions

Transformationstogroundwatersustainabilityin agricul-tureareunlikelytohappenwhengovernmentscontinue promoting forms of agricultural intensification that sys-tematicallyundervaluepeopleandecosystems.A system-atic, feminist and anti-colonial critique of such exploit-ative and destructive ways of farming is therefore a necessary starting point in attempts to do groundwater governance differently. Such a critique highlights the ways in which the historical, social, and infrastructural practicesinvariousplacesaremouldedbyracial,capitalist andcoloniallegacies.Itcomeswithaquestioningofthe science that supports suchwater-intensive and exploit-ative farmingmodels. Critique isnot enough,however. Imagining and doing groundwater differently also requirespluralizingtheconceptualvocabulariestomake senseof,imagineandengagewith groundwater. Initiativesofpeoplewhocometogethertojointlyaccess, share and care for groundwater — often going against pressures tooverextract —forman importantsourceof inspiration here. Documenting and understanding such initiativesforcesattention awayfromthedesignof gov-ernment efforts to regulate and control the pumping behaviour of individuals, towards the appreciation of andsupportforcollectivecaring,rechargingandsharing efforts around aquifers. Bringing into focus the many flexible adaptations and collaborations which people involvedin sucheffortsengagein andexperiment with to liveanddealwithfluctuatingavailabilitiesand quali-ties of groundwater in dynamic marketcontexts, draws attention to hitherto underexplored ways of knowing, accessingandsharingit.Italsohelpscreatingsensitivity

tothemundaneworkthatgoesintorestoring,sustaining, orimprovingaquifers,andprovidesastrongreminderof how part of the motivation for engaging in such work stems from historical attachments to territories and people.

Documenting and assessing the knowledges, technolo-giesandinstitutions thatcharacterizecommunity initia-tivesaroundgroundwaterformsthebasisforcreatingnew groundwater conversations and learnings. Important questionsherearehowandwhethertheyprovide inspira-tionsforbroadertransformationstogroundwater sustain-ability,andhowtheactionsofcommunitiesinoneplace canbemadeusefulelsewhere.Comparisonsacross het-erogeneous communities sometimes require difficult translationsandsimplifications.Toavoidgettingtrapped inonesinglelanguage,wesuggestnurturingandthinking withdifferences,learningfromeachother’sidiomssothat nooneremainsthesameastheywereatthebeginning. Also, in tracing patterns across initiatives and distilling lessonsfor transformations to sustainability,it is impor-tanttoremainattentivetothefactthatwaterisadeeply contested resource, the governance of which is always thick with politics [37]. This also means that actual governance arrangements for groundwater, even when community-basedandcharacterizedbycareforthe aqui-ferandforeachother,willoftenbenegotiated, necessi-tatingsuboptimalcompromisesthatmaynotbeto every-one’s fullsatisfaction.

Conflict

of

interest

statement

Nothingdeclared.

Appendix

A. Supplementary

data

Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.

1016/j.cosust.2021.03.004.

References

and

reading

Papersofparticularinterest,publishedwithintheperiodofreview, havebeenhighlightedas:

ofspecialinterest ofoutstandinginterest

1. vanderGunJ:Theglobalgroundwaterrevolution.Oxford ResearchEncyclopediaofEnvironmentalScience.Oxford UniversityPress;2019.

2. KuperMetal.:Liberationoranarchy?TheJanusnatureof groundwateruseonNorthAfrica’snewirrigationfrontiers. IntegratedGroundwaterManagement:Concepts,Approachesand Challenges.2016:583-615.

3. MoenchM,KulkarniH,BrukeJ:Trendsinlocalgroundwater managementinstitutions.GroundwaterGovernance-AGlobal FrameworkforAction2006,vol846.

4. GlobalGroundwaterSustainabilityStatement.Available:https:// www.groundwaterstatement.org/.[Accessed23July2020]. 5. Groundwater:MakingtheInvisibleVisible’thethemeofWorld

WaterDay2022|IGRAC.Available:https://www.un-igrac.org/ news/groundwater-making-invisible-visible-theme-world-water-day-2022.[Accessed23July2020].

11

SeeBossenbroeketal.(Supplementarymaterial).Youngcommunity members recognized that groundwater in the vicinity of oases in Moroccowasdepleteddueto profit-orientedwatermelonproduction byoutsiders.Thecommunityaffirmedownershipofthissubterranean resource, excluded the outsiders, and themselves engaged in cash cropping.

(9)

6. CobbingJ,HillerB:Wakingasleepinggiant:realizingthe potentialofgroundwaterinSub-SaharanAfrica.WorldDev 2019,122:597-613.

7. BrownA,LangridgeR,RudestamK:Comingtothetable: collaborativegovernanceandgroundwaterdecision-making incoastalCalifornia.JEnvironPlannManag2016,59:2163-2178. 8. TaylorRGetal.:Groundwaterandclimatechange.NatClim

Change2013,3:322-329.

9. GleesonT,CuthbertM,FergusonG,PerroneD:Global groundwatersustainability,resources,andsystemsinthe anthropocene.AnnuRevEarthPlanetSci2020,48:431-463. 10. MargatJ,vanderGunJ:GroundwaterAroundtheWorld:A

GeographicSynopsis. London:CRCPress;2013.

11. TheesfeldI:Institutionalchallengesfornationalgroundwater governance:policiesandissues.GroundWater2010, 48:131-142.

12.

MollegovernanceF,ClosaslargelyA:Whyineffective?isstate-centeredAreview.groundwaterWIREsWater2020, 7:1-17.

Analysisofstate-ledgroundwaterpoliciesandtheirineffectivenessto control(over)abstraction,andtheidentificationandexplanationofsome successfulexamplesofstate-ledgroundwaterregulation.

13. ClosasA,VillholthKG:Groundwatergovernance:addressing coreconceptsandchallenges.WIREsWater2020,7:1-16. 14. ShahT:TamingtheAnarchy:GroundwaterGovernanceinSouth

Asia. WashingtonD.C:Routledge;2010.

15. MolleF,CloughP:GroundwaterGovernance:ASynthesis.2017. 16. SrinivasanV,KulkarniS:Examiningtheemergingroleof

groundwaterinwaterinequityinIndia.WaterInt2014, 39:172-186.

17. BoelensR,GetchesD,Guevara-GilA:OutoftheMainstream. London:Routledge;2010.

18. VillholthKG,Lo´pez-GunnE,ContiKI,GarridoA,VanDerGunJ: AdvancesinGroundwaterGovernance.2017.

19. MolleF,Lo´pez-GunnE,vanSteenbergenF:Thelocaland nationalpoliticsofgroundwateroverexploitation.WaterAltern 2018,11:445-457.

20. SundbergJ:Decolonizingposthumanistgeographies.Cult Geogr2014,21:33-47.

21.

Norstro¨msustainabilityAVetresearch.al.:PrinciplesNatSustainforknowledge2020,3:182-190.co-productionin Co-productionofknowledgebetweenacademicsandnon-academics enhancessustainabilityresearch.Thearticleofferspracticalguidanceon howtodoco-productioninmeaningfulways:itshouldbecontext-based, pluralistic,goal-orientedandinteractive.

22. BarkerJ:Confluence:waterasananalyticofindigenous feminisms.AmIndianCultResJ2019,43:1-40.

23. KothariA,SallehA,EscobarA,DemariaF,AcostaA:Pluriverse:A Post-DevelopmentDictionary. NewDelhi:TulikaBooks;2019. 24. delaCadenaM,BlaserM:AWorldofManyWorlds.Durham:Duke

UniversityPress;2018.

25. LawJ:What’swrongwithaone-worldworld? DistinktionJSoc Theory2015,16:126-139.

26.

MitmanwithDonnaG:ReflectionsHarawayandontheAnnaPlantationocene:Tsing.EdgeEffa2019,conversation12:1-22. AconversationwithDonnaHarawayandAnnaTsingontheconceptof Plantationocene as a reflection of ‘a system of multispecies forced labour’.

27. KulkarniH,ShahM,VijayShankarPS:Shapingthecontoursof groundwatergovernanceinIndia.JHydrolRegStud2015, 4:172-192.

28.

Trontoofneoliberalism.J:ThereisanIntalternative:JCareCaringhomines2017,1:27-43.curansandthelimits Thepaperarguesforanalternativetotheneoliberalistfocusonindividual meritasthebasisfororganizingsocietiesandeconomies,proposingto insteadforegrounddemocraticandoftencollecteformsofcare.

29. deLaBellacasaMP:Summaryforpolicymakers.Climate Change2013-ThePhysicalScienceBasis,vol.41, IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress;2017,1-30.

30.

SinghaffectiveN:Becomingsocio-natureacommoner:encounterstheandcommonsco-becomings.assitesfor EphemeraTheoryPolitOrgan2017,17:751-776.

Emotiveapproachestostudyingthecommons,highlightinghowthese canhelpacknowledgesubjectivitiesbeyondgreedandprofit. 31.

ThandeLaHumanBellacasaWorlds.MP:MattersMinneapolis:ofCare:UniversitySpeculativeofMinnesotaEthicsinPress;More 2017.

Argumentforthesignificanceofethics,practicesandprinciplesofcare forthinkinganddwellinginthehumanandbeyondhumanworlds. 32.

ElmhirstemergingR:engagements.FeministpoliticalEcologı´asecologiespolı´ticas-situatedfeministas:perspectives, perspectivassituadasyabordajesemergentes.EcolPolit 2018,54:1-10.

OutlinesthepracticesandprinciplesofanemergingFeministPolitical Ecologyscholarship.

33. SundbergJ:Feministpoliticalecology.International

EncyclopediaofGeography:People,theEarth,Environmentand Technology.2016:1-12.

34. PatelL:DecolonizingEducationalResearch:FromOwnershipto Answerability. NewYork:Routledge;2015.

35. BuegerC:Pathwaystopractice:praxiographyand internationalpolitics.EurPolitSciRev2014,6:383-406. 36. TuckE,YangKW:Decolonizationisnotametaphor.

DecolonizationIndigEducSoc2012,1:1-40.

37. ZwarteveenMetal.:Engagingwiththepoliticsofwater governance.WIREsWater2017,4:e1245.

38. LintonJ,BuddsJ:Thehydrosocialcycle:definingand mobilizingarelational-dialecticalapproachtowater. Geoforum2014,57:170-180.

39.

RudestamplaceandK:waterLovingmanagementwater,resentingintheWillametteregulation:watershed.senseof SocNatResour2014,27:20-35.

Thispaperexamineswater-relatedbehaviorsinWesternOregonfocusing onplace-based attachments and meaningsin an increasingly water scarceworld,highlightingthatwaterbehavioursaremotivatedbymore andmorecomplexemotionsthanjustprofits.

40. ShahT:TamingtheAnarchy:GroundwaterGovernanceinSouth Asia,no.3. WashingtonD.C:Routledge;2010.

41. CleaverF:Moralecologicalrationality,institutionsandthe managementofcommonpropertyresources.DevChange 2000,31:361-383.

42. HarawayD:Situatedknowledges:thesciencequestionin feminismandtheprivilegeofpartialperspective.FemStud 1988,14:575-599.

43. Kemerink-SeyoumJS,ChitataT,Domı´nguez Guzma´nC, Silva-NovoaSanchezLM,ZwarteveenMZ:Attentiontosociotechnical tinkeringwithirrigationinfrastructureasawaytorethink watergovernance.Water2019,11:1670.

44. CleaverF,KoningJDe:Furtheringcriticalinstitutionalism.IntJ Commons2015,9:1-18.

45. BenounicheM,ZwarteveenM,KuperM:Bricolageasinnovation: openingtheblackboxofdripirrigationsystems.IrrigDrain 2014,63:651-658.

46. BerkesF,ColdingJ,FolkeC:Rediscoveryoftraditional ecologicalknowledgeasadaptivemanagement.EcolAppl 2000,10:1251-1262.

47. VerzijlA,QuispeSG:Thesystemnobodysees:irrigated wetlandmanagementandalpacaherdinginthePeruvian Andes.MtResDev2013,33:280.

48. MohamedN,HartaniT,KuperM:The‘InnovationFactory’: user-ledincrementalinnovationofdripirrigationsystemsinthe Algeriandesert.In DripIrrigationforAgriculture:UntoldStoriesof Efficiency,InnovationandDevelopment.EditedbyJean-Philippe

(10)

V,KuperM,ZwarteveenM.NewYork:Taylor&Francis; 2017:266-285.

49. KulkarniH,VijayShankarPS,DeolankarSB,ShahM: Groundwaterdemandmanagementatlocalscaleinrural areasofIndia:astrategytoensurewaterwellsustainability basedonaquiferdiffusivityandcommunityparticipation. HydrogeolJ2004,12:184-196.

50.

Guzma´n‘pozas’:conversationsCD,VerzijlA,ZwarteveenaboutpracticesM:Waterandfootprintsknowledgesandof waterefficiency.Water(Switzerland)2017,9:1-15.

Concern abouthow‘scientific’ logics dominateininternational water governanceguidelinesthroughacomparisonwithlocalwaterwisdoms and knowledge(s). Shows that both logics consist of entanglements betweenknowledgeandculture.

51. KwoyigaL,StefanC:Groundwaterdevelopmentfordryseason irrigationinNorthEastGhana:theplaceoflocalknowledge. Water(Switzerland)2018,10.

52. WhitfieldS,DougillAJ,DyerJC,KalabaFK,LeventonJ, StringerLC:Criticalreflectiononknowledgeandnarrativesof conservationagriculture.Geoforum2015,60:133-142. 53. LeeuwisC:CommunicationforRuralInnovation:Rethinking

AgriculturalExtension.JohnWiley&Sons;2013.

54. LawJ:Actornetworktheoryandmaterialsemiotics.In The NewBlackwellCompaniontoSocialTheory.EditedbyTurnerB. Oxford,UK:Wiley-Blackwell;2009:141-158.

55. LatourB:WeHaveNeverBeenModern.HarvardUniversityPress; 2012.

56. MosseD:Introduction:TheAnthropologyofExpertiseand ProfessionalsinInternationalDevelopment.2011.

57. LawJ:Objectsandspaces.TheoryCultSoc2002,19:91-105 +273.

58. LawJ,MolA:Situatingtechnoscience:aninquiryinto spatialities.EnvironPlannDSocSpace2001,19:609-621. 59. BirkenholtzTL:Recentralizinggroundwatergovernmentality:

renderinggroundwateranditsusersvisibleandgovernable. WileyInterdiscipRevWater2015,2:21-30.

60. KulkarniH,ShahM,VijayShankarPS:Shapingthecontoursof groundwatergovernanceinIndia.JHydrolRegStud2015, 4:172-192.

61. MosseD:Knowledgeasrelational:reflectionsonknowledgein internationaldevelopment.ForumDevStud2014,41:513-523. 62. BuddsJ:ContestedH2O:science,policyandpoliticsinwater

resourcesmanagementinChile.Geoforum2009,40:418-430. 63. SosaM,ZwarteveenM:Theinstitutionalregulationofthe

sustainabilityofwaterresourceswithinminingcontexts: accountabilityandplurality.CurrOpinEnvironSustain2014, 11:19-25.

64. KurkiV,TakalaA,VinnariE:Clashingcoalitions:adiscourse analysisofanartificialgroundwaterrechargeprojectin Finland.LocalEnviron2016,21:1317-1331.

65. DymW:DiviningScience:TreasureHuntingandEarthSciencein EarlyModernGermany. Leiden,TheNetherlands:Brill;2010. 66. Sanchis-IborC,MolleF,KuperM:Irrigationandwater

governance.WaterResourcesintheMediterraneanRegion. Elsevier;2020:77-106.

67. AubriotO:Delamate´rialite´ del’irrigation:Re´flexionssur l’approchederechercheutilise´e.JdesAnthropol2013,132– 133:123-144.

68. FofackR,BillaudJ-P,KuperM,PetitO:Analysedubasculement desmodesd’extractiondeseauxsouterrainesdansleSaı¨ss (Maroc).De´veloppementdurableTerrit2018,9.

69.

BossenbroekGroundwaterEnclosuresL,KuperM,inZwarteveenMorocco’sM:saı¨ssSourRegion.Grapes:2017.Multiple Illustrateshow‘modernization’ofagricultureentailsgroundwater enclo-suresthatcausethegradualdissociationofgroundwaterfromits socio-culturalandterritorial context.Illustratedby thecaseoftheSaı¨ss in Morocco.

70.

Damontewaterscarcity:G,BoelenscapitalistR:Hydrosocialterritorialterritories,transformationsagro-exportandwaterand governanceinPeru’scoastalvalleys.WaterInt2019,44:206-223. Illustrateshowtheagro-exportboomtransformslandscapesand con-structsnewhydrosocialterritories,withexampleoftheIcaValleyinPeru. 71. BoelensR,ZwarteveenM:PricesandpoliticsinAndeanwater

reforms.DevChange2005,36:735-758.

72. PrakashA:TheDarkZone:GroundwaterIrrigation,Politicsand SocialPowerinNorthGujarat.OrientBlackswan;2005. 73. JoyK,KulkarniS,RothD,ZwarteveenM:Re-politicisingwater

governance:exploringwaterre-allocationsintermsofjustice. LocalEnviron2014,19:954-973.

74. MeehanKM:Tool-power:waterinfrastructureaswellsprings ofstatepower.Geoforum2014,57:215-224.

75. BoelensR,HoogestegerJ,SwyngedouwE,VosJ,WesterP: Hydrosocialterritories:apoliticalecologyperspective.Water Int2016,41:1-14.

76.

NaouriinnovationM,KuperdialoguesM,HartaniintheT:contextThepoweroffarmer-ledoftranslation:innovationin theAlgerianSahara.AgricSyst2020,180:102793.

The adoption ofnew irrigationtechnologies happensthroughpower strugglesbetweenmultipleactors(globalisedandverylocal). 77.

detraditional:BontC,Komakechfarmer-ledHC,irrigationVeldwischdevelopmentGJ:NeitherinmodernKilimanjaronor Region,Tanzania.WorldDev2019,116:15-27.

Irrigationcategoriesof‘modern’and‘traditional’aredominatingirrigation policiesandareshapinginterventionsinTanzania,eventhoughactual peopleandpracticesdefythiscategorization.

78. DajaniM,MasonM:Counter-infrastructureasresistanceinthe hydrosocialterritoryoftheoccupiedGolanHeights.In Water, TechnologyandtheNation-state.EditedbyMengaF,

SwyngedouwE.London:Routledge;2018:147-162. 79. Richard-FerroudjiA,RaghunathTP,VenkatasubramanianG:

ManagedaquiferrechargeinIndia:consensualpolicybut controversialimplementation.WaterAltern2018,11:749-769. 80. OstromE,BurgerJ,FieldCB,NorgaardRB,PolicanskyD:

Revisitingthecommons:locallessons,globalchallenges. Science(80-)1999,284:278-282.

81. Ortega-ReigM,Palau-SalvadorG,CascantiSempereMJ, Benitez-BuelgaJ,BadiellaD,TrawickP:Theintegrateduseof surface,groundandrecycledwastewaterinadaptingto droughtinthetraditionalirrigationsystemofValencia.Agric WaterManag2014,133:55-64.

82. RudestamK,LangridgeR,BrownA:Thecommons’asa dynamicvariableinunderstandingstrategicalliancesofscale: agroundwatercasestudyinPajaroValley,California.Environ SciPolicy2015,52:33-40.

83. KuperM,AmichiH,MayauxPL:GroundwateruseinNorthAfrica asacautionarytaleforclimatechangeadaptation.WaterInt 2017,42:725-740.

84. SchneggM,LinkeT:Livinginstitutions:sharingand sanctioningwateramongpastoralistsinNamibia.WorldDev 2015,68:205-214.