Learning and non-learning in de-centralized water governance

In transboundary water governance, substantial attention is given to centralized venues in water governance with a focus on discourse and practice at national and international scales. But in many of these transboundary water governance systems, the sub-national or decentralized spaces are often key to building more resilient governance. This is because these spaces often provide greater opportunities for more diverse actors to share knowledge, learn from each other, and contribute to more holistic dialogue. In this paper, we explore learning and non-learning in de-centralized water governance the case of the Colorado River Basin. Water governance in this basin is marked by fragmentation and de-centralization. We target five venues in the basin where the day-to-day management of issues like salinity, species management, and reservoir management occur. These venues are collaborative in nature and engage diverse stakeholders including NGOs, state and federal representatives, Native American tribes, local communities, and university scientists. Collectively, these venues can contribute to building broader resilience to drought and overuse in the basin. In this paper, we draw from the diverse scholarship on learning and discourse in environmental governance to we study how key actors frame learning in this de-centralized policy system and build shared narratives, both within decentralized venues and across the broader governance system, around the challenges in the basins and the role of science in addressing and solving those challenges. Using in-depth analyses of interviews and documents, we ask: How do the actors within build shared knowledge within the venues and across the venues and how do they perceive and frame approaches to learning? We also explore instances where actors in this system perceive barriers to learning and what kind of relational characteristics underlie these barriers. We compare how actors in this system describe the different types of relational characteristics that may underlie instances of non-learning versus learning. In doing so, these case studies dig into this component of policy practice that is often framed as overly technical or “scientitized” in a context where diverse actors are working to govern water in the face of severe drought and climate change impacts.