Search

Water quality impairment from fertilizer runoff remains a major source of urban-agricultural conflicts when it leads to serious health risks. In this paper, we analyze the role of watershed organizations in Iowa, USA, that include both agricultural and urban stakeholders to address water quality challenges. We conducted three focus group discussions with 14 coordinators representing these watershed organizations to analyze what policy tools these organizations are using to address urban-agricultural conflicts and what outcomes have resulted from their efforts. We used qualitative coding to apply an existing set of policy tools already established in the literature. Coordinators' responses showed that who participates in these organizations has a major impact on the level of problem solving. There were limited instances of joint urban-agricultural engagement strategies, but these were promising in changing individual's perspectives and indicate that strategic targeting of watershed participants may be crucial to overcoming conflicts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collaborative governance has been promoted for decades as a means to tackle complex water management problems worldwide. Yet, watershed based efforts often lack interdependent consequences that can motivate participation, given upstream–downstream asymmetries. Additionally, watershed collaborations often have limited legal authority to take action, which can be due to political conflicts. While local governments often participate in collaborations, few studies have examined their motivations or how local governments could use existing legal authority to enact projects or change policies. This paper focuses on four cases in Iowa, USA, where local governments self‐organized to form watershed management authorities and undertake collaborative planning and management. We conduct a qualitative study to examine why local governments participate in collaborative governance and how they use their existing legal authorities. We found that local governments participated primarily to leverage external funding opportunities, while the advantage of multijurisdictional collaboration to reduce flooding and water quality was important but secondary. Using legal authorities to form agreements occurred in two cases to address flooding, but in all four cases collaboratives largely avoided water quality because of political tensions. We discuss the implications for how local governments might address the challenges of generating commitments and issues of legitimacy to act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]