Hands across the Water: How the 57-Year Dispute over the Edwards Aquifer Began, Persisted, and Was Resolved

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

This is an engaging account of the rehabilitation of the Edwards aquifer in Texas. The manuscript however lacks an introduction, a framework for analysis, and a literature review to help the reader 'place' the article. While usefully footnoted (if according to the legal tradition rather than the "Water" format), it is not an academic article, but rather a description of an episode in which the author was deeply involved, although the author does not disclose in what capacity. This makes it difficult to detect potential biases and alternative readings of the case by those who, unlike the author, may not see it as an unqualified success. This to me makes it a poor fit for an academic journal, but it is of course up to the Editor if this set-up is acceptable as a contribution to Water . 

Author Response

Thank you for your review comments. This paper was prepared as part of the special issue "Advances in Water Scarcity and Conservation". These articles focus on specific river basins and aquifers that have faced water scarcity, but where progress is being made to rebalance the water budget or enhance environmental flows. Therefore this manuscript was written as a policy paper focusing on real-world case studies, instead of a research paper. The other articles in this special issue follow a similar structure.

However, the manuscript has been substantially revised as follows:

• The paper has been reduced by about 2,000 words from the original submission in April;
• The abstract is now under 200 words;
• The footnotes have been revised and edited;
• Generic examples in the manuscript have been rewritten to make them more specific to the water conflict that is discussed in this paper;
• The paper has been edited by a professional editor;
• A table of terms used in the article has been added; and
• A new figure has been added and one of the original figures has been updated.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

I much appreciated this paper, even if I feel only partially qualified to revise it (I'm not an expert in water policy, even less in US water policy). However, I found the paper very clear and very interesting also for "pure" researchers.

I would like to rise two points that in my opinion could improve the manuscript:

1. I think that some more information on inter-annual variability of precipitation, temperatures, rivers and springs discharge would help the reader giving a more detailed idea on the physical processes behind the ecological and water management issues. As an example, couple of graphs representing time series of monthly precipitation, monthly spring discharge and monthly river discharge (included the "drought of record") may be added and shortly discussed in the introduction

2. I was interested in having few more information on the level of acceptance of the model provided by the TWDB. According to my experience, one of the bottlenecks in the water negotiations is the ackowledgement by all the involved stakeholders of the same models (whatever the scope: to simulate the past/current flow conditions, or to provide future scenarios). I'm curious to know the Author's experience on that

Finally, just a minor remark: on figure 2, please add the discharge values in m3/s  on the secondary axis

 

Author Response

Thank you for your review comments.  I have revised the paper to address your main recommendations.  I have added a new figure showing and comparing three key parameters: annual aquifer recharge, annual aquifer pumping, and annual spring discharge from the aquifer.  Major historical events overlay these parameters, including major droughts, including the drought of record.

I added a statement and reference about the GWSIMIV model that was developed in 1979 and had been in use for decades.  Because the water community was so familiar with this model, and the modelers were well respected, the use of the model and the modeling results were never questioned.

The one item that you recommended that I could not address was adding metric units to Figure 3.  Figure 3 is a key outcome of the stakeholder process.  I use the original figure in the paper, which is only available now as am image.

In addition, the manuscript has been substantially revised as follows:

• The paper has been reduced by about 2,000 words from the original submission in April;
• The abstract is now under 200 words;
• The footnotes have been revised and edited;
• Generic examples in the manuscript have been rewritten to make them more specific to the water conflict that is discussed in this paper;
• The paper has recently been edited by a professional editor;
• A table of terms used in the article has been added; and
• A new figure (2) has been added and one of the original figures (1) has been updated.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

I am highly impressed with the presentation and analysis of this case. The historical, political, and scientific stage-setting are excellent. The conclusions are clearly backed-up by the narrative presented. It may not be possible now, but the author does not seem to be familiar (and doesn't cite) the rather substantial environmental dispute resolution literature that shows how this kind of mediation has worked in similar situations many times before. His conclusions would be more impactful if the he cited at least some of the relevant literature on the theory and practice of environmental dispute (and regulatory dispute) resolution, particular regarding water management. The "switch" to mediation really needs further discussion. Mediation is a skill not a choice. Obviously the process leader was able to switch into a mediation mode in this case, but what discussion went on about his experience and skill as a mediator?  Realizing that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed," is a very common mediation finding. Other conclusions in this case are perfectly consistent with the cumulated experience presented in publications like the Consensus Building Handbook (Sage, 1999), Susskind et. al. I would have liked to know whether the negotiators reached a written (signed agreement) or how their result was communicated to the legislature, federal agency and the media. Did they talk about and agree upon a procedure for amending their agreement (before renewing it in a decade)?  It is quite common to create amendment procedures for water treaties or water agreements.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough review.  I have made several changes to my manuscript based upon your recommendations. My submission was written in a format and style that is consistent with the articles in this special issue.  

Please see the attached file for additional details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper gives an overviw of some  water managemnet problems in an area in the US. It does not have a research question, and most of the information is not relevant. It is not a scentific paper and radical umprovemnet is needed  before it can be accepted. At this moment more detailed feedback is useless.

Author Response

Thank you for your review comments.  This paper was prepared as part of the special issue "Advances in Water Scarcity and Conservation".  These articles focus on specific river basins and aquifers that have faced water scarcity, but where progress is being made to rebalance the water budget or enhance environmental flows.  Therefore this manuscript was written as a policy paper focusing on real-world case studies, instead of a research paper.  The other articles in this special issue generally follow a similar structure.

However, the manuscript has been substantially revised as follows:

• The paper has been reduced by about 2,000 words from the original submission in April;
• The abstract is now under 200 words;
• The footnotes have been revised and edited; and
• Generic examples in the manuscript have been rewritten to make them more specific to the water conflict that is discussed in this paper.

 

 

The manuscript has been substantially revised and reduced by about 2,000 words from the original submission in April.

 

The abstract has been reduced to 200 words.

 

The footnotes have been reviewed and edited.

 

I have addressed the issue where I did not fully explain how I moved through an impasse during the process.  I have also added an example of something that did not work during the stakeholder process.

 

The generic examples in the manuscript have been rewritten to make them more specific to the water conflict that is discussed in this paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

This appears to be a practitioner contribution about the resolution of a river dispute in the state of Texas. 

The author turns out to be an actor in this dispute, but still declares no conflict of interest. I think this should be clarified.

The article is clearly structured and well written. There is however no theory or methodology section.

The footnoting and referencing seems contrary to journal style and has a messy format. 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your review comments.  This paper was prepared as part of the special issue "Advances in Water Scarcity and Conservation".  These articles focus on specific river basins and aquifers that have faced water scarcity, but where progress is being made to rebalance the water budget or enhance environmental flows.  Therefore this manuscript was written as a policy paper focusing on real-world case studies, instead of a research paper.  The other articles in this special issue generally follow a similar structure.

However, the manuscript has been substantially revised as follows:

• The paper has been reduced by about 2,000 words from the original submission in April;
• The abstract is now under 200 words;
• My participation in the events described in this submission have been noted in the conflict of interest section;
• The submission was written in Bluebook style, which I was told was accepted by Water;
• The footnotes have been revised and edited; and
• Generic examples in the manuscript have been rewritten to make them more specific to the water conflict that is discussed in this paper.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is well written and presents a relevant case of conflicts

the paper does not read as an academic research paper/contribution but rather as a review or an extensive case study. There isn't an introduction outlining the scientific contribution of the paper, and the article also lacks a methods section and a discussion of substantive findings. I suggest that this should be re-submitted after substantial reframing of the Texas Edwards Aquifer as a case study within a clear research design and with a clear review and contribution of the academic literature, particularly on water rights, water conflicts, groundwater resources (e.g. Marchiori, Koundouri, etc). 

Author Response

Thank you for your review comments.  This paper was prepared as part of the special issue "Advances in Water Scarcity and Conservation".  These articles focus on specific river basins and aquifers that have faced water scarcity, but where progress is being made to rebalance the water budget or enhance environmental flows.  Therefore this manuscript was written as a policy paper focusing on real-world case studies, instead of a research paper.  The other articles in this special issue generally follow a similar structure.

However, the manuscript has been substantially revised as follows:

• The paper has been reduced by about 2,000 words from the original submission in April;
• The abstract is now under 200 words;
• The submission was written in Bluebook style, which I was told was accepted by Water;
• The footnotes have been revised and edited; and
• Generic examples in the manuscript have been rewritten to make them more specific to the water conflict that is discussed in this paper.