What We Can Learn About How the French Manage Groundwater

Both California and France have recently shifted to more local control of groundwater. There are key differences between the two laws, but both offer opportunities for better understanding of collective groundwater management.

France and California have different environmental, agricultural, economic, institutional and cultural contexts. However, both are moving to more local management of groundwater.

In California, the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) required the creation of local groundwater sustainable agencies (GSA) and groundwater sustainability plans (GSP) to end groundwater overdraft and other undesirable conditions by 2040.

France has a similar water policy reform process. The 2006 French water law (published by the Journal Officiel de la Republique Francaise, JORF, 2006) shifted from centralized management of individual withdrawals to decentralized management of collective withdrawals.

In both cases, local management of groundwater is intended to address the problems of unregulated, unmanaged (California) or centralized (France) management of groundwater.  

Learning from difficulties, France’s 2006 water law requires a balance between withdrawals and available resources at the local level to ensure that supply of water uses and environmental objectives are achieved in four years out of five.

In areas with structural quantitative deficit (Zone de Repartition des Eaux), a maximum extractable volume (maxEV) must be defined by the local water committee composed of involved stakeholders (Commission Locale de l’Eau, CLE) or by the state authorities. In areas where groundwater use for irrigation is significant, farmers must form a water users’ association (Organisme Unique de Gestion Collective, OUGC) that will limit withdrawals below their share of the maxEV. This sometimes required reductions of 10 to 50 percent of existing withdrawals.

The OUGC will apply for a single administrative authorization less than the maximum extractable volume for up to 15 years. The single authorization replaces all previous individual ones in the area, and the OUGC will be legally responsible for allocating this volume to its members, while enforcement responsibility remains with the state.

In exchange, the state transferred to the OUGC responsibility and freedom to define the:

• governance structure of the OUGC
• financial contribution of members (up to 70 percent of operational costs covered by public subsidies)
• management of claims/conflicts among members
• general allocation rules
• specific allocation rules during drought
• rules to decide how to integrate newcomers

Farmers in an OUGC also will benefit from lower groundwater withdrawal fees, and can access funding and collect fees for the operation and maintenance of the OUGC.

Nevertheless, the implementation process faces farmers’ opposition. Some farmers perceive it as collectivizing agriculture, feeling that they lose individual control over individual water entitlements that they understood as “private property.”

Others see it as an easy way for the state to delegate its responsibility over the problem or worry about their legal responsibility as part of an OUGC.

The evaluation of “extractable” volumes is seen as riddled with uncertainties, and final pumping volumes are sometimes negotiated more on economic and political than environmental grounds (within the local water committee). To facilitate implementation, the government provides some financial support for developing small dams and reservoirs.

Implementation is now making progress thanks to the support of local agricultural councils (Chambre d’Agriculture) taking the lead in running the OUGCs. Indeed, the OUGC is not a new institution and its responsibilities can be taken over by existing organizations as long as they are recognized by the farmers and the state administration.

The local agricultural council centralizes the annual authorization and implements reductions when the sum of requested volumes exceeds the maxEV. The first OUGCs have been created, and often the local agricultural council volunteer to form the OUGC and the state representative (“prefet”) validates and formally designates them as the OUGC.

Both France and California are shifting toward more local collective management of groundwater as a way to organize and avoid local conflicts over water allocation. The future will show if it works.

In France, the direct participation of farmers in the local negotiation process, the existing administrative control of groundwater withdrawals and existing withdrawal fees make the development of local groundwater management institutions easier than in California, where no such equivalent exists.

However, existing difficulties in France to overcome cultural inertia, avoid local interferences and ensure financial and environmental sustainability suggest that in both cases local implementation will likely need assistance from the basin authority and state government, as well as commitment from the local stakeholders, to be successful.

Read full article at: News Deeply