California groundwater management, science-policy interfaces, and the legacies of artificial legal distinctions
California groundwater management, science-policy interfaces, and the legacies of artificial legal distinctions
复制标题
加州地下水管理、科学政策界面以及人为法律区分的遗产
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
M. Kiparsky
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Owen;Alida Cantor;N. G. Nylen;T. Harter;M. Kiparsky
加州水法传统上将地下水和地表水作为单独的资源处理。2014年的《可持续地下水管理法》（SGMA）打破了这一传统，要求地下水管理者避免对地表水的有益利用产生重大和不合理的不利影响。本文认为，这种部分整合的科学，法律和资源管理政策的轨迹。借鉴法律的分析和参与研讨会与主题领域的专家，我们描述了调和不同的法律的系统，从一个人为的法律的区别相同的资源的不同方面的挑战。我们的分析提供了两个主要贡献。首先，它表明，细分相互关联的资源的法律可能会产生遗留影响，这种影响在立法者开始消除人为鸿沟之后仍会持续很长时间。本文以SGMA为例，阐述了协调法律与科学的复杂性，表明协调是一个不以更新法规或任何其他单一干预结束的过程。其次，我们介绍了一个框架，以评估的努力，以协调法律与科学的理解，无论是改革的努力涉及地下水或其他一些资源的要素。应用这一框架有助于揭示仍然需要解决的遗留影响。更广泛地说，它揭示了论述科学与政策互动的文献需要更多地关注法律和政策改革的多面性。这些文献中有许多是以宽泛和不加区别的术语描述决策的，往往只是简单地提到“科学与政策的互动”。但正如SGMA案例研究所表明的那样，政策制定的复杂性和多层次性意味着一项成功的改革努力可能需要解决许多科学-政策接口问题。
California water law has traditionally treated groundwater and surface water as separate resources. The 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) broke with this tradition by requiring groundwater managers to avoid significant and unreasonable adverse impacts to beneficial uses of surface water. This paper considers the trajectory of this partial integration of science, law, and resource management policy. Drawing on legal analysis and participatory workshops with subject area experts, we describe the challenges of reconciling the separate legal systems that grew out of an artificial legal distinction between different aspects of the same resource. Our analysis offers two main contributions. First, it demonstrates that laws that subdivide an interconnected resource can have legacy effects that linger long after lawmakers begin dismantling the artificial divides. Using SGMA as a case study, the article illustrates the complexities of reconciling law with science, showing that reconciliation is a process that does not end with updating statutes, or with any other single intervention. Second, we introduce a framework for evaluating the elements of an effort to reconcile law with scientific understanding, whether that reform effort involves groundwater or some other resource. Applying that framework helps reveal where lingering legacy effects still need to be addressed. More generally, it reveals the need for literature addressing science-policy interactions to devote more attention to the multifaceted nature of law and policy reform. Much of that literature describes policy-making in broad and undifferentiated terms, often referring simply to ‘the science-policy interface.’ But as the SGMA case study illustrates, the complex and multi-layered nature of policy-making means that a successful reform effort may need to address many science-policy interfaces.