Negotiation and the resolution of water allocation disputes

Abstract

Negotiation as a process for resolving water allocation disputes has advantages and disadvantages with respect to other dispute resolution methods. The principal advantages are derived from direct participation of interested parties. The chief disadvantages are that it cannot produce agreement in all conflicts and that such agreements as are reached may not adequately consider the public interest. In this thesis, criteria for determining whether a particular conflict is likely to be resolved through negotiation are enumerated. No satisfactory method was found to evaluate the public interest content of negotiated settlements, although several paradigms are examined. Instead, the public interest was assumed to receive adequate protection in negotiations when all the parties with a stake in the outcome participate or are represented. Because participation requires power to be effective, the sources of negotiating power are examined, along with the relation of negotiating structures to the distribution of such power.