|
The expansion of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) philosophies has given rise to some improvements in decision-making with greater attention being given to the relationship between upstream choices and downstream consequences. However, the limits of IWRM also need to be recognised, especially the demands on water planners seeking to balance multiple objectives across multiple sites. This paper scrutinises the need for superordinate integrated decisions when property rights are already well-defined and tradeable. By using simplified examples derived from the Australian milieu, we also consider cases where the property rights are lesswell defined and trade is not an easy option. The examples demonstrate that efficient decisions can arise without a superordinate water utility making integrated plans but the scale of decisions does matter, as does the measurement of the attributes of water in question. The paper also shows the necessity for understanding and linking institutional scope, hydrological influences and ecological responses whenever IWRM is purportedly seeking to simultaneously bring about ecological gains. Vesting integrated decisions in water utilities on the basis of their revenue-raising capacity is also briefly scrutinised. |
|