Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLord, William B.
dc.contributor.authorMcGuire, Thomas R.
dc.contributor.authorWallace, Mary G.
dc.date.accessioned2013-12-07T00:06:33Z
dc.date.available2013-12-07T00:06:33Z
dc.date.issued1989-06-21
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/306469
dc.descriptionFinal Report, Efficient and Equitable Solution of Indian Reserved Rights, USGS Grant #14-08-0001-G1320, June 21, 1989.en_US
dc.description.abstractThe water rights claims of many Indian reservations in the West are now under adjudication. Frequently, the parties to these adjudications acknowledge that their interests may be better served through negotiated settlements, but they lack comprehensive means for determining mutually acceptable solutions to the conflicts. The research conducted under the title of "Efficient and Equitable Solution of Indian Reserved Rights" (Project #14-08-0001-G1320) sought to 1) develop a conceptual basis for determining Indian water rights; 2) develop an analytical procedure to provide the information needed to resolve water rights conflicts; and 3) apply this analytical procedure to a test case involving the Gila River Basin in Arizona. The methodological core of the research is a set of linked models, encompassing historical, hydrologic, economic, psychological, and institutional elements of the conflict. Hydrologic, institutional, and economic analyses of conjunctive management of surface and groundwater supplies were facilitated by the use of MODSIM, a network optimization model. Data from the model enabled the investigators to construct an impact matrix, defining the effect of each possible settlement option on the goals of the parties. The preferences of the parties were elicited through social judgement analysis. Twelve settlement options were defined on the basis of knowledge of other negotiated settlements, and a final option, representing possible outcomes should the negotiation process fail, was included in the analysis. The next step was to model the possible choices available the contending parties, utilizing an n-person cooperative game framework. This analysis indicated that a set of three settlement options dominated the adjudication option for all players. Each of these included the provision of imported water in lieu of water currently being used in the basin. It is anticipated that the results of this research will be developed as a book-length manuscript by the principal investigators and the research team.
dc.description.sponsorshipThe research on which this report is based was financed in part by the Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, and the Arizona Water Resources Research Center.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherWater Resources Research Center, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ)en_US
dc.sourceWater Resources Research Center. The University of Arizona.en_US
dc.subjectIndians of North American -- Water rights -- Mathematical models.en_US
dc.subjectIndian reservations -- United States.en_US
dc.titleEfficient and Equitable Solution of Indian Reserved Rights: Final Reporten_US
dc.description.collectioninformationThis item is part of the Water Resources Research Center collection. It was digitized from a physical copy provided by the Water Resources Research Center at The University of Arizona. For more information about items in this collection, please contact the Center, (520) 621-9591 or see http://wrrc.arizona.edu.en_US
refterms.dateFOA2018-06-14T23:10:46Z
html.description.abstractThe water rights claims of many Indian reservations in the West are now under adjudication. Frequently, the parties to these adjudications acknowledge that their interests may be better served through negotiated settlements, but they lack comprehensive means for determining mutually acceptable solutions to the conflicts. The research conducted under the title of "Efficient and Equitable Solution of Indian Reserved Rights" (Project #14-08-0001-G1320) sought to 1) develop a conceptual basis for determining Indian water rights; 2) develop an analytical procedure to provide the information needed to resolve water rights conflicts; and 3) apply this analytical procedure to a test case involving the Gila River Basin in Arizona. The methodological core of the research is a set of linked models, encompassing historical, hydrologic, economic, psychological, and institutional elements of the conflict. Hydrologic, institutional, and economic analyses of conjunctive management of surface and groundwater supplies were facilitated by the use of MODSIM, a network optimization model. Data from the model enabled the investigators to construct an impact matrix, defining the effect of each possible settlement option on the goals of the parties. The preferences of the parties were elicited through social judgement analysis. Twelve settlement options were defined on the basis of knowledge of other negotiated settlements, and a final option, representing possible outcomes should the negotiation process fail, was included in the analysis. The next step was to model the possible choices available the contending parties, utilizing an n-person cooperative game framework. This analysis indicated that a set of three settlement options dominated the adjudication option for all players. Each of these included the provision of imported water in lieu of water currently being used in the basin. It is anticipated that the results of this research will be developed as a book-length manuscript by the principal investigators and the research team.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
wrrc_249_w.pdf
Size:
208.0Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record