KEYWORDS: Governancetransboundary and domestic basinsriverslakesaquifersscalefederal and unitary systemscivil societyshared benefits

The Yellow River is by its nature not sustainable since it carried the world’s heaviest silt load for a long time. Yet, this silt load (loess plateau) has fallen considerably in recent years, but at the cost of other forms of sustainability, such as streamflow. The reasons for this dramatic decline in runoff are complex. In addition to reducing silt load, terraces and vegetation have led to the marked reduction in runoff. The fall in natural runoff can also be attributed to groundwater and mining extractions, as well as reservoir filling. Population per se is not a major driver of water demand compared to irrigated agriculture and other sectors, notably mining and industry. While China is not a federal system, it is organized in a complex hierarchical system where provinces play an important role and are capable of serving their own interests in negotiating usages and allocations of the river. The chapter analyzes peculiar physical conditions and water management institutions in the Yellow River Basin.

Inter-basin water transfers (IBWT) offer an approach to addressing water scarcity by confronting the mismatch between water supply and demand in the context of a sustainable development policy. However, IBWTs are often criticized – particularly when the water transfer involves crossing political boundaries. In those circumstances, the policy debate often tends to lose sight of important aspects that guarantee a rational water policy. This chapter addresses issues related to water transfers between river basins, not only in the hydrological term but also, quite frequently, over political boundaries (transboundary water transfer). We present a number of case studies chosen to provide a representative geographical view of IBWTs around the world and insights on the different aspects that involve IBWTs. Intelligent IBWT should be implemented in the context of more general sustainable development strategies and Integrated Water Resources Management.

We have created the following checklists of key points about what we now know, as well as the hopes and fears about Smart Water Management (SWM), based on our reading of the materials in this speci...

Following the precedent set in the first IWRA special issue, on wicked problems facing water quality management (Nickum et al., 2018), we posted the following Question(s) of the Year 2019 on the IW...

To better understand how Smart Water Management (SWM) is being implemented around the world, and the challenges and solutions that are being addressed, the South Korean national water agency, K-Wat...

This is the second special issue prepared on behalf of the International Water Resources Association (IWRA) under the aegis of its Science, Technology and Publications Committee. The first, we hope...

Many water development activities for both the urban and rural sectors have involved large government subsidies. Agricultural pollution is usually of the non-point source type, as is runoff of automotive wastes from streets and highways and, frequently, urban domestic waste such as discarded motor oil. Although transaction costs are critical in determining the water system that best suits a given metropolitan area, other factors are also important, such as production costs and economies of scale. As new sources of water become increasingly expensive and difficult to finance, the transaction costs involved in demand management strategies will not appear to be so high. Many cities convey water over long distances and make extensive use of high-cost pumping. Management alternatives depend on a country's hydrologie stage of development and the age of its metropolitan water systems as well as the stage of its economic development.

This is the first special issue prepared on behalf of the International Water Resources Association (IWRA) under the aegis of its Science, Technology and Publications Committee. These IWRA special issues are intended to complement existing IWRA initiatives. Currently there are three of these: (1) improving understanding of what water quality is sufficient for different uses; (2) promoting smarter water technologies and management practices; and (3) helping bridge the often yawning gaps between science and policy. Here we begin with the first of these, water quality, but with a view to setting the stage for dealing with the others in future issues. IWRA recognizes the need to take action within the three areas listed above and has put them at the core of the organization’s activities. First, in collaboration with the former French Commission for Water and the Aquatic Environment (ONEMA, now part of the French Agency for Biodiversity) and the World Water Council, IWRA is producing the report Developing a Global Compendium on Water Quality Guidelines: Which Quality for Which Use? To support this effort IWRA has formed a water quality thematic group consisting of experts in this field among its members. IWRA was the thematic champion for water quality at the 7thWorldWater Forum in Daegu, Korea, in 2015 and the topic lead for water quality under the biodiversity theme at the 8th World Water Forum in March 2018. Second, in Collaboration with K-Water, the Korean water authority, IWRA is producing a report describing 11 case studies of smart water management around the world. And finally, in collaboration with ONEMA, IWRA produced a report on the science–policy interface in 2016 based on an extensive survey of organizations operating in this interface. IWRA continued to work in this area by making Bridging Science and Policy the overarching theme of its XVIWorldWater Congress, held in Cancun,Mexico, in May 2017. One of the major outputs of the Congress was the Cancun Declaration (Water International 42(7), 925–927), a call for action to bridge science and water policy-making for sustainable development. This special issue on water quality governance is a continuation of IWRA’s work and forms part of its contribution to the 8th World Water Forum, in Brasilia, Brazil, March 18–23, 2018. In the first paper of this volume, Heather Bond provides a more detailed record of IWRA’s work in this area and summarizes the results and findings from the report Developing a Global Compendium on Water Quality Guidelines: Which Quality for Which Use?

Every year edge.org poses a ‘big question’ to the world’s intellectual community. Taking inspiration from them, at a much more modest scale, we asked a number of IWRA members who are international scholars and practitioners concerned with water quality to give us their reflections on the question, ‘What is a wicked problem facing integrated water quality management over the next two decades?’ In the end we received six responses spanning a gamut of concerns, from problems of allocation, management and monitoring, to ensuring sustainable development in global agriculture and in rapidly urbanizing China, to the troubling presence of pharmaceutical wastes. It is increasingly obvious that water supply and water quality are not separate domains, and cannot be managed in isolation if there is to be any hope of addressing these wicked problems. Like the present special issue, this solicitation of members’ responses to this question is part of the IWRA program on water quality. For further information, see https:// www.iwra.org/waterquality/.

This issue contains two thematic sections. One is a supplement to ‘Transboundary River Cooperation: Actors, Strategies and Impact’, a 2017 special issue of Water International (43/2). The guest editor of that issue, Selina Ho, has provided an introduction to this section, including an explanation of how these papers expand and enhance the scope of the original special issue. Here we will focus on the other section, which is assembled from accepted open submissions to the journal. A decade ago, about the time Water International began publishing in cooperation with Taylor & Francis, a large inventory of accepted papers had accumulated. To enhance the synergies between the papers, they were grouped by theme and published in sections. This was quite successful, but over time, we caught up and returned to the conventional approach of publishing open submissions without regard to thematic consanguinity. In preparing this issue, however, we found that four accepted articles, each submitted independently, look at different aspects of a single, highly policy-relevant theme.

This paper explores the dynamic interface of state-water users relationships in large scale surface irrigation in India and China, to inquire (with Wittfogel looking over our shoulder) to what extent the issues encountered in large scale irrigation management and governance are independent of regime characteristics. Though operating in very different overall political regimes, China and India exhibit strong similarities in the way a central state has attempted to relate with local water users (and enrol them into state led development), in the types of policy instruments deployed to shape that relationship, and in the problems encountered. Both China and India have a long history of state involvement in irrigation management. Both saw massive expansion after the late 1940s, with India adapting and adopting the models developed in the colonial period and China opting for a modified Stalinist model. There has been a historical tendency to extend state water control further down in response to ‘underutilisation’ of the created infrastructure, revenue shortfalls and perceived inefficiencies and yield gaps. In recent decades the policy approaches have, at least rhetorically, emphasised water users self-management and governance, including financial selfmanagement/cost recovery. In both countries the instrument for this since the late 1970s/early 1980s has been the establishment of WUAs (Water Users Associations). Results have been mixed, to say the least, on all counts. Larger institutional and policy characteristics adhering to the problematic of the state-user interface subvert stated reform objectives.

This paper explores the dynamic interface of state-water users' relationships in large-scale surface irrigation in India and China, to inquire to what extent the issues encountered in large-scale irrigation management and governance are independent of regime characteristics. Though operating in very different overall political regimes, China and India exhibit strong similarities in the way a central state has attempted to relate with local water users, in the types of policy instruments deployed to shape that relationship, and in the problems encountered. Both China and India have a long history of state involvement in irrigation management. Both saw massive expansion after the late 1940s. The state then tried to extend its control in response to 'underutilisation' of the created infrastructure, revenue shortfalls and perceived inefficiencies and yield gaps. In recent decades the policy approaches have, at least rhetorically, emphasised water users' self-management and governance, including financial self-management/cost recovery. In both countries the instrument for this has been Water User Associations. Results have been mixed, to say the least, on all counts. Larger institutional and policy characteristics adhering to the problematic of the state-user interface subvert stated reform objectives.