Water Conflict
Running Head: WATER CONFLICT ON THE FRONT RANGE
Boom or Bust on the Front Range:
Conflict over Colorado’s Limited Water Resources
Rebecca Brofft
Colorado State University
1
Water Conflict
Abstract
Entrenched in long legal battles and animosity, the complex struggle for water rights in
Colorado reveals the opposing needs and values of many stakeholder groups. From agriculture
to recreation, many of Colorado’s industries are mutually dependent, but these parties have
rarely cooperated to resolve water issues in the past. Traditional approaches to conflict
management are no longer appropriate or acceptable for water rights issues. A transformative
approach is needed. In this paper, I argue that participatory modeling of water conflicts would
improve these stakeholder relationships, build mutual respect and understanding, and promote
creative problem solving for the future.
2
Water Conflict
3
Water is a vital resource in Colorado’s arid environment, and the conflict over limited
water resources is central to the history and politics of the Western landscape. Writer Rick Bass
notes that, “water is the second-most important element critical to minute-by-minute survival,
much less to the endurance of civilizations and the expansion of culture” (Bass, 2007, p. IX).
Many of Colorado’s economic activities depend on water supplies: agriculture, resource
extraction, hydroelectric energy production, residential development, tourism and recreation.
Increasing development pressures, the unpredictability of drought, climate change concerns, and
demographic shifts intensify this historically entrenched battle for water rights. Constrained by
natural forces and resource availability, water conflict is a complex social problem that
necessitates creative and non-traditional management approaches.
In order to transform the polarized struggles of Colorado’s Front Range water conflict
into productive partnerships, the situation requires improved communication between all the
current stakeholders. The diverse perspectives of each stakeholder are necessary in analyzing the
historical basis, current context, and opportunities for progress in Colorado’s modern water
conflicts. Participatory modeling, a collaborative learning process, would be an effective
approach to the transformation of the current conflict. By assembling stakeholders to work
toward a shared understanding of water rights issues, the participants can create a vision for the
future that promotes collaborative problem solving and overcomes the traditional barriers to
conflict resolution.
History of Conflict
The story of disputes over Colorado’s limited water resources began with the decisions
and rules established over 150 years ago. The Colorado Doctrine of the 1860s defines water as a
public resource to be used for the benefit of public agencies and private individuals (Hobbs,
2004). This framework defines a water right as the entitlement to a portion of this public
Water Conflict
4
resource. The doctrine additionally permits landowners to cross other private lands to extract,
divert, or transport water for their own benefit.
As Colorado’s land became increasingly populated and developed in the late 19th century,
the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation (1876) further clarified those rights, restrictions, and
stipulations by establishing a priority system for water use. Commonly known as “first in time,
first in right,” this granted senior water rights to earlier water users, and junior rights for
subsequent water needs (Hobbs, 2004, p. 6). The second principle of the doctrine requires that all
diverted water must be put to beneficial use; in other words, the owners of water rights are
expected to either “use it, or lose it” (Hobbs, 2004, p.8). The precedent of beneficial use
established over 100 years ago has been a constant source of water conflict in the state.
Conflict between agricultural and residential needs for limited water supplies quickly
became apparent. The Colorado Constitution provides domestic preference to water supplies,
allowing residential water users access to water resources prior to agricultural and manufacturing
needs in times of shortage (Hobbs, 2004). Residents gain access to these water rights either
through priority or the power of condemnation by the government. Water transported from the
Western Slope to the eastern Front Range through the Colorado Big Thompson Project has
become an additional point of contention. The water from this project is considered foreign
water, and thus is not subject to the priority system (Hobbs, 2004). Rights for this water can be
purchased and sold for agricultural or municipal use only, which puts these two uses in direct
competition.
Over time, the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation has changed to accommodate shifting
water demands and social values. In 1973 Colorado developed the Instream Flow Program,
granting the Colorado Water Conservation Board the ability to acquire water rights to “preserve
the natural environment to a reasonable degree”(Hobbs, 2004, p. 7). Under this program,
Water Conflict
5
instream flows are considered a beneficial use of the resource, placing value on environmental
protection. Subsequently, Colorado water law added provisions to protect water for recreational
use. In 2001, beneficial use was redefined to include recreational diversions to provide quality
boating, kayaking and fishing experiences (Hobbs, 2004).
By the turn of the 20th century, the most desirable water rights had been claimed,
especially on the Front Range (G. Wallace, Personal Communication, October 13, 2008).
Currently, there are no new Colorado water rights available for distribution. This pressures the
existing water supplies, increases the value of water as a precious resource, and maintains a high
demand for water rights.
Context of Conflict
Water is a scarce resource, and its distribution is determined by precipitation and climate.
Water is most accessible in the late spring and early summer, based on runoff from snowpack in
the Rocky Mountains. However, climatic patterns shift throughout the year and over time, so
rain and snow fall unevenly on the state. Almost 90 percent of Colorado’s precipitation, for
instance, falls on the Western Slope, with the remaining 10 percent falling on the Front Range
and the Eastern Plains (Jordan, 2003).
Use of water also varies spatially within Colorado. While the Western Slope may receive
the most precipitation, 65 percent of Colorado’s residents are found on the Front Range—on the
opposite side of the Rocky Mountains. In addition, agricultural needs account for 90 percent of
diverted water use in Colorado, but most agricultural land is located in the eastern half of the
state, where water is in short supply (Jordan, 2003).
Precipitation in the Rocky Mountains is the primary water source for Colorado. No rivers
flow into Colorado, making it the only state that entirely supplies its own water. Colorado is
obligated, through interstate agreements or compacts, to satisfy water needs outside the state,
Water Conflict
6
which places additional pressures on an already limited water supply. Colorado currently holds
compacts with Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and Kansas.
Natural forces limit water supply, and the location of human activities determines water
needs, but legal water rights constrain the availability of water for use. Water rights entitle the
owner to the same amount and quality of water each year. Because the priority system
guarantees water to senior rights before others, in times of shortage or drought not all water
rights are satisfied during the year. In the words of the Colorado Climate Center’s head
climatologist Nolan Doesken: “Climate determines where the water is and when the precipitation
falls, but water rights determine who gets the water and where” (N. Doesken, personal
communication, September 10, 2008).
Water Rights Conflict Map
Natural resource conflicts are often complex, multi-faceted, and overwhelming for the
parties involved. Water conflicts in Colorado are entrenched in history, policy, litigation, and
polarization. In order to properly understand and analyze a conflict of this scope, a graphic
model can effectively communicate the complexities of the problem and the relationships of the
parties involved. A conflict map is a graphic model that visually represents the interactions of
the relevant stakeholders in a conflict (Fisher, et al., 2000).
Conflict mapping can provide a broad view of the relationships that influence the
dynamics and challenges of Colorado water appropriation and use. While the map simplifies the
situation to represent only the interactions between the main conflict parties, it is still important
to consider the underlying needs, values and rights that characterize water disputes in Colorado.
The various groups and parties involved in Colorado water conflict are introduced below,
with careful consideration to the needs and motivations of each party. The particular tensions
that typify water conflict are also described. The conflict map in Figure 1 visually displays the
Water Conflict
Figure 1. Water Conflict on the Front Range.
7
Water Conflict
8
relationships between each of these stakeholders, as well as the location of tensions between
parties.
Stakeholders
Agriculture
Agricultural interests in Colorado water conflicts primarily consist of farmers on irrigated
land. The agricultural industry contributes over $4 billion to Colorado’s economy, and is both
historically and currently a primary land use in the state. Agriculture uses nearly 90 percent of
the 12.4 million acre-feet of water diverted annually in Colorado, but much of that water is
returned to the watershed for downstream uses (Jordan, 2003).
According to a recent article in the Fort Collins Coloradoan, water is the most valuable
crop, or resource, that farmers possess (Woods, 2008). However, water is so valuable that
farmers are beginning to sell their shares, rather than keeping them for their own use or entering
into sharing agreements. After the completion of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project in the
1930s, 85 percent of the water shares were owned by agricultural interests. Currently, farmers
only own 36 percent of these shares (Woods, 2008).
Front Range Residents
Colorado’s population has boomed to almost 4.8 million residents in recent years, and is
one of the fastest growing states in the nation. The majority of this population resides in urban,
suburban, and exurban areas on the Front Range (Jordan, 2003). The human manipulation and
development of water in Colorado has allowed for a thriving population on the Front Range, and
these residents heavily depend on water from the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (G. Wallace,
personal communication, October 13, 2008). In order to sustain daily activities and home
landscaping, the average Front Range resident requires 160 gallons of water per day (Jordan,
2003).
Water Conflict
9
As a result of fears that the Front Range will one day reach a limit to the amount of
available water, water conservation practices have become increasingly important to Front Range
residents, particularly in the face of recent drought (“More people,” 2008). Cities, water
districts, and non-profit organizations educate residents about the importance of conserving
domestic water supplies.
Western Slope Residents
While the majority of Colorado’s population growth is occurring on the Front Range, the
majority of Colorado’s water falls on the Western half of the state. As a result of the prior
appropriation of water rights and the development of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project,
Western slope residents often compete for the resources in their own backyard. Water
conservation is particularly important to these residents, because they are the first to directly
observe water shortages and changes in supply.
Managers of the Colorado River District on the Western Slope are wary of excessive
development on the Front Range. Manager Eric Kuhn expressed his concerns about the impacts
of climate change and drought on Colorado’s water supply, proposing, “We really don’t know
how much water we can develop at a reasonable risk” (“More people,” 2008, ¶ 11).
Municipal Government
While Colorado’s local municipal governments do not directly regulate water resources,
their decisions significantly impact water use. Local governments develop land use plans for
cities, counties and special districts. These plans guide decision-making, determine zoning of
land, and regulate development projects. Planning commissions work closely with scientists,
private developers, and public interests to approve or reject proposals that affect development.
These governing bodies are challenged to balance residential and economic development with
the protection of natural resources and open spaces in communities.
Water Conflict 10
Private Developers
Population development on the Front Range has produced a lucrative opportunity for
private land developers. Because many of the developing exurban areas of the Front Range have
permissive land use plans, private companies have the opportunity to develop land quickly and
extensively for residential use (G. Wallace, personal communication, October 13, 2008).
In order to develop land or build a new subdivision, developers must be able to provide
water for their future residents. Typically, this means purchasing shares of water from other
residential or agricultural users. The pressure that private developers place on the water market
further increases the value of the resource and drives up prices.
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
The Northern Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) manages the Colorado-Big
Thompson Project water supply for the northern Front Range. The NCWCD manages reservoirs
for water storage and the distribution of water shares for domestic and agricultural use (Grigg,
2005). The members of the NCWCD board are not publicly elected, but the board still
determines taxation of Front Range residents and allocation of resources for use. This limits the
influence that residents and taxpayers can exert over the decisions made by the NCWCD (G.
Wallace, personal communication, October 13, 2008).
Resource Extraction
Colorado contains a wealth of natural resources, which provide both economic
opportunities and environmental challenges for the state. Resource extraction and mining
provide jobs, revenue, and energy sources for Colorado. At the same time, resource
development is often invasive and environmentally intensive, damaging wildlife habitat and
spoiling scenic views.
Water Conflict 11
Techniques for resource development require large water supplies. After use, this water
is often too contaminated to safely return to streams and aquifers. This raises concerns about
water quality, human health, and environmental degradation.
Hydroelectric Energy
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation commissions water development projects across the
United States. The generation of hydroelectric energy is among the goals of the Bureau.
Because water is a continuously renewed resource, and since hydroelectric energy produces no
emissions, it is promoted as a clean and efficient source of alternative energy. However,
reservoirs, dams and other structures required for the generation of hydroelectric energy modify
and impact rivers and land, threatening the natural state of these ecosystems (Jordan, 2003).
Residential development on the Front Range requires energy resources that match the
growing demands for electricity. With 14 hydroelectric power plants already producing over
700,000 kilowatts of electricity per year, water is an important energy source for the Front
Range. Colorado’s abundance of rivers offers extensive opportunities for hydroelectric
development, but this use may directly conflict with other water needs and values (Jordan, 2003).
Environmental Conservation
The establishment of the Instream Flow Program in 1973 was the first official recognition
the importance of preserving the environmental quality of Colorado’s river systems (Hobbs,
2004). There are many groups that advocate for the conservation of the valuable ecosystem
services, scenery and aesthetics, and critical wildlife habitat that rivers provide. Among these
interested parties are local, federal and state public land managers, non-governmental or nonprofit environmental organizations, and concerned citizens. These conservation interests
advocate for public policy and regulations that protect water resources, which maintain the
environmental services of Colorado’s natural spaces.
Water Conflict 12
Scientists
The range of scientists involved in water conflict on the Front Range includes
climatologists, biologists, ecologists and hydrologists. Research scientists collect and analyze
data about water in the natural environment. Climatologists, for example, track amounts and
patterns of precipitation to predict the amount of water that will be available for use annually.
Field scientists directly observe the effects of water on organisms, ecosystems, and the earth.
For instance, a fisheries biologist might view the impact of low stream flows on the health of
native trout populations.
Scientists provide input in public decision-making. Scientific consultants help draft
Environmental Impact Statements for proposed development projects. Land use planning boards
often refer to the advice of scientific “experts,” and scientists educate communities about the
importance of water in sustaining the life of entire ecosystems. Because scientists can be very
influential in Colorado’s water conflicts, they are important stakeholders.
Recreation and Tourism
Recreation and tourism is a multi-billion dollar industry in Colorado, and is the second
largest contributor to Colorado’s economy (Jordan, 2003). From kayaking, rafting, wildlife
viewing and fishing to skiing, snowboarding and snowshoeing, recreation in Colorado depends
on water. In order to provide quality experiences for Colorado’s residents and visitors, water
must be recognized for its recreational value. Kayaking and rafting require pristine and
unobstructed rivers. Clean, accessible lakes and reservoirs are crucial for boating and fishing.
Ski resorts often consume extra water to produce snow in the early winter (Nijhuis, 1999). These
needs are often at odds with other uses of Colorado’s rivers, lakes, and water resources.
Water Conflict 13
Regulatory Groups
In Colorado, various departments and agencies govern and regulate water use, rights,
disputes and issues. These governing bodies include: the Colorado Division of Water Resources,
water courts, the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the Colorado Groundwater Commission,
and the Water Quality Control Division, among others. These agencies and groups set water
policy, settle litigation, enforce laws and standards, and guide the decisions of local water
districts and municipal governments (Hobbs, 2004). Regulatory groups are not primary
stakeholders in Colorado water conflict; however, they influence decisions and policy, so they
are still an important party in this analysis.
Relationships and Tensions
The relationships between various parties involved in water conflict on Colorado’s Front
Range are shown in Figure 1. Many of the parties depend on the services, influence the
decisions, or have regulatory power over other parties. For example, private developers
influence the land planning decisions of municipal governments, and municipal governments
have the power to approve or reject private development proposals. The Northern Colorado
Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) depends on the funding of taxpayers, and Front Range
residents depend on the water services provided by the NCWCD. The map depicts other
interrelationships as well.
Alliances
Alliances between parties exist to varying extents in Colorado’s water conflict. However,
only major alliances are represented in the conflict map. The strong alliance between private
developers and the NCWCD results from a common goal: providing water resources for
domestic use to a growing Front Range population. The NCWCD funds water development
Water Conflict 14
projects that supply water for the growing Front Range population, and developers purchase the
rights for residents to use this water.
Another mutually beneficial partnership is the alliance between conservation interests and
scientists. Environmental conservation advocates rely on scientific research and data to establish
the value of resource protection. Scientists provide factual information and lend credibility to
land and resource managers. In turn, conservation organizations and agencies often provide
employment and funding to field scientists and researchers.
A final notable relationship involved in water conflict is the alliance between the resource
extraction industry and hydroelectric energy production. These two groups share a primarily
utilitarian value of natural resources; water is a resource that should be manipulated and used for
the direct benefit of humans. Hydroelectric development and resource extraction both aim to
maximize the opportunity for energy and fuel production offered by Colorado’s wealth of
resources.
Domestic Preference
The oldest and most fundamental tension in Colorado water conflict occurs between
agricultural and domestic interests (Conflicts 1, 2). Diversion rights are granted for either
agricultural or domestic use, based on priority. However, in times of limited supply, domestic
rights are preferred above agricultural rights, permitting Colorado’s residents to use a greater
share of water than Colorado’s farmers.
At the same time, agricultural production is Colorado’s primary economic industry, and
farmers provide food for the residential population. The food, water and energy needs that
accompany a growing Front Range population place extensive pressure on critical water
resources. These tensions have historically and recently caused disputes over water allocation
and consumption.
Water Conflict 15
Trans-Mountain Diversions
The Colorado-Big Thompson Project diverts water from the Western Slope for use on the
Front Range, producing competition for resources between these two regions of Colorado
(Conflict 3). Even in years of low precipitation, the Western Slope still has an obligation to
supply sufficient water for domestic and agricultural use on the Front Range. Half of this foreign
water is used for landscaping, rather than satisfying more basic domestic needs (Bates, Getches,
Macdonnell & Wilkinson, 1993). This trans-mountain water diversion is a source of tension
between stakeholders on both sides of the state.
Environmental Conservation
Environmental protection is the foundation of many persistent water rights conflicts.
Conservation interests often conflict with agricultural land uses, population growth, resource
extraction and energy production (Conflicts 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8). A high-quality natural environment
produces healthy living conditions for humans, among other services, so the degradation of the
environment directly impacts human health. More intensive land uses often damage or pollute
the natural environment.
Even with the designation of instream river flows as a beneficial water use, instream flow
rights are difficult to obtain and enforce. The tension between preserving natural ecosystems and
developing resources for human use has triggered litigation, water law violations, and hostility
between various parties (G. Wallace, personal communication, October 13, 2008).
Tourism pressures
Recreational activities in both the summer and winter seasons heavily support Colorado’s
economy and contribute to the quality of life Colorado residents enjoy. However, many
recreational activities require unspoiled water sources. The rafting industry depends on flowing
rivers with unobstructed rapids, and therefore opposes dams constructed for hydroelectric energy
Water Conflict 16
development. Fishing demands clean and protected wildlife habitat in rivers and lakes, which
may be drained or polluted by other uses. Conflict over water for recreation represents a struggle
between both economic and environmental values.
Conflict Map Summary
The relationships, alliances and tensions depicted in Figure 1 offer a simplified
representation of Colorado’s water conflicts. The disputes that result from conflicting needs and
values often result in litigation, animosity and competition for resources. Because water conflict
includes many stakeholders, resolving this conflict can be complicated. Diffusing tensions
between parties and transforming hostile relationships into constructive partnerships require
modern and creative approaches to conflict management.
Management Recommendations
Opportunities and Challenges
While the expression “whiskey is for drinking, and water is for fighting” reflects the
history of water rights issues in Colorado, this should not serve as a model for the future (Zaffos,
2008, ¶ 1). Water issues on the Front Range present both opportunities and challenges for
transformative conflict resolution. Because of its complexity, water conflict is difficult to
manage through traditional methods, such as negotiation. Rather, the investment of many
stakeholder groups in water rights issues lends this conflict to collaborative resolution
techniques. However, there are circumstances that impede collaborative approaches to conflict
management.
Barriers to the management of any environmental conflict may include a lack of time,
money, or additional resources. The pressure of deadlines, the unavailability of participants, and
insufficient funding may limit a collaborative process. Furthermore, if the participants have
difficulty rejecting the status quo, or if they fail to recognize the value of this type of
Water Conflict 17
participatory process, it will be difficult to sustain long-term management goals (Holman,
Devane, & Cady, 2007).
A long history of conflict has accompanied Colorado’s water law, and many of the
involved stakeholders hold traditionally entrenched positions regarding the issue. Many of the
tensions described in Figure 1 reflect hostility that has been present for decades. Legal battles
characterize Colorado water law, in both the past and the present, and this polarization will be
difficult to transform into constructive dialogue and cooperative thinking. Each stakeholder may
represent another organization, posing another obstacle for conflict management. Since many of
the affected parties belong to larger agencies, businesses, or other groups that hold official
positions on issues, it may be challenging for individuals to separate themselves from their
associations.
In spite of these challenges, water conflict also offers opportunities for successful
management and resolution. As pressure on water rights escalates with drought and resource
scarcity, stakeholders are increasingly aware of the need for innovative solutions. While it may
be natural for parties to refuse to collaborate until the “eleventh hour,” water issues are urgent
enough that collaboration is now both acceptable and effective (Larmer, 2007, ¶ 4).
Cooperation has been successful in managing water conflicts in the past, setting an
example for current conflicts. The interstate water compacts between Colorado, Nevada,
Nebraska and other states are a testament to the work of early water diplomats to build
partnerships and relieve adversarial tensions between parties (Zaffos, 2005). Water issues
necessitate creative problem solving, and these past achievements encourage the use of
collaborative approaches in the management of current water conflict, as well.
Water Conflict 18
Participatory Modeling for Conflict Management
Successful conflict transformation requires the direct participation of all stakeholders
(Maser, 1996). When the parties directly impacted by an issue are involved in recommendations
and decision-making, rather than only government and regulatory agencies, they will be more
invested in the decisions and outcomes (Beierle & Craford, 2002). Participatory modeling is an
effective process for helping stakeholders communicate, learn, and work toward better conflict
management.
Participatory modeling is a process based on systems thinking, in which stakeholders
collaboratively develop both qualitative and quantitative models of a conflict situation. The
primary goal of participatory modeling is for all parties to develop a shared understanding of the
conflict; communication that transcends the diatribe, persuasion, and accusations that typify
traditional conflict is essential. This process validates the multiple stories that each individual
offers, and aids in creating a comprehensive metastory that recognizes these various backgrounds
and perspectives (Pierce & Littlejohn, 1997). Through joint learning, a group of individuals can
make connections, discover common ground and gain an appreciation for the diverse values and
perspectives of other key parties (Van den Belt, 2004).
In participatory modeling, the participants design their own model of a dynamic system,
using computer-modeling software. This interactive model integrates expert information with
the experiences of each stakeholder. It is used as a tool to support dialogue, decision-making and
planning for the future. The high degree of participation in the modeling allows stakeholders to
develop ownership of the model and become invested in the future management of the conflict.
The modeling process builds the capacity of the stakeholders to use the software to disseminate
their learning and insights to others once the model is complete (Van den Belt, 2004).
Water Conflict 19
This process is a particularly suitable approach to water conflict management in
Colorado. The United States Army Corps of Engineers has used Shared Vision Planning, a form
of participatory modeling, to better involve the public in water issues and decisions for more than
a decade (Werick, 2000). Water conflicts have several dimensions, and this complexity can only
be captured if the values and voices of all stakeholders are considered.
Participatory modeling would increase the shared understanding about the causes of
water issues for stakeholders, which would aid the development of innovative strategies for
addressing the problem. This holistic approach to collaboration would emphasize the dynamics
and resulting conflicts of the water rights system. A vision for the future is necessary, as water
resources will become increasingly precious over time. If participants can reach consensus on
the realities of the conflict, then they can move beyond current issues and decide how to more
constructively manage conflict in the future.
The Participatory Modeling Process
Participatory modeling would proactively involve water conflict stakeholders in dialogue
and problem solving. The following process is adapted for Colorado’s water conflicts from the
structure proposed by Van den Belt (2007).
A neutral facilitator is the most necessary component of a participatory modeling process.
This facilitator manages the process, serves as the mediator of discussion, and acts as the
recorder of all information. The facilitator may also aid in building the quantitative computer
model, or an expert modeler may assist the model’s development. Because the participants
create the model, and it belongs to every stakeholder involved, the modeler simply trains the
participants and guides the process. Modeling would include up to 30 participants, representative
of the many relevant stakeholder groups in the conflict.
Water Conflict 20
The participatory modeling process for Front Range water conflict would last a total of
five to seven working days. These days can be spread over any appropriate length of time,
ranging from a week of workshops to years of collaborative work. The process is divided into
three parts: preparation, workshops, and the follow-up and tutorial.
Preparation. In the preparation stage of participatory modeling, the facilitator will
assemble the group and conduct background research on the process. This will include the
selection and invitation of key stakeholders, the collection of baseline information about each
group and their perspectives of water conflict, and research on the history of the situation. When
sufficient information has been gathered, the modeler and facilitator will work together to
develop a preliminary model. The participants will either accept or reject this initial model later
in the process.
Workshops. The facilitator will conduct five workshops, each with a different purpose, to
ultimately produce a complete model of Front Range water rights issues. The first workshop will
provide an introduction for the parties involved. Stakeholders will meet each other, the
facilitator and modeler will introduce themselves, and the group will establish ground rules for
the process. These ground rules establish behavioral guidelines, expectations for the
participants, expectations for the modeler and facilitator, and strategies for dealing with conflict
that may arise. The facilitator will provide an overview of systems dynamic thinking and explain
the modeling process to the participants. The modeler will introduce STELLA, the computer
modeling software that participants will use to build the final model.
In the second workshop, stakeholders will establish a baseline understanding of the
conflict by defining water rights issues in Colorado. Participants will examine the history of the
water rights system, water conflict trends, and the past behaviors of parties involved in the
conflict. Once the participants have achieved consensus on the history of the problem, they will
Water Conflict 21
envision an ideal future for water rights issues. The facilitator will ask participants to imagine
the details of a future without conflicts over water on the Front Range, and each stakeholder
group will have the opportunity to share their vision.
In the third workshop, participants will build a qualitative model of the current water
rights issues and conflict. By creating a preliminary map of the context and dynamics of the
conflict, the participants will recognize the interrelationships and dynamics of the system. They
will see how different parties behave, interact and influence one another. This model could be
similar to the conflict map presented in Figure 1. In both qualitative and quantitative conflict
modeling, the majority of the participants’ learning will occur when working together to build
the models, rather than after the models are complete (Van den Belt, 2007).
By the fourth workshop, the participants should be familiar and relatively comfortable
working with one another. In this workshop, the participants will build the quantitative model of
water conflicts on the Front Range, using the STELLA software. Prior to meeting, the group
will develop a list of all the data necessary for designing the model, based on the qualitative
model created in the third workshop. The participants, facilitator and modeler will gather data
and invite experts to contribute information to the process. Participants will then transform the
data into variables in the model and incorporate all relevant information that was collected before
the workshop. The modeler will assist the participants in calibrating the model by setting
reasonable parameters for the variables in the model.
In the final workshop, participants will have the opportunity to fine-tune and manipulate
the computer model. The modeler and facilitator will help build the confidence of the
participants by establishing the validity and usefulness of the model. The group will create
multiple scenarios, and will then compare the relative differences and tradeoffs between each
hypothetical situation. Operating the model will empower the participants, and they will
Water Conflict 22
continue to learn and develop insights about the issue. Following the manipulation of the model
and analysis of various scenarios, the group will attempt to reach consensus on a list of
recommendations for water conflict management. These recommendations will be based on the
collaborative learning that has occurred throughout the five workshops.
Follow-up and tutorial. The third stage of the participatory modeling process is a followup to the workshops and a modeling tutorial for the participants. A written report will present the
participants’ final model and summarize the results of the process. The modeler and facilitator
will conduct a tutorial for the participants to empower stakeholders to communicate their results
to a wider audience. Participants will present the model to their respective organizations,
including their coworkers and superiors. The results will also be disseminated to any governing
or regulatory bodies that could benefit from the recommendations of the group.
By conducting individual interviews with each participant, the facilitator will evaluate the
effectiveness of the process in improving the shared understanding of water conflicts, building
relationships among the participants, and transcending the polarization and antagonism of
traditional water conflict. From these interviews, observations of the process, and other forms of
ongoing evaluation, the group will be able to measure the short-, medium-, and long-term
success of the participatory modeling process.
Anticipated Results and Outcomes
Participatory modeling has the potential to yield many positive outcomes and improve the
overall dynamics of water conflict. The team learning and interactions between participants will
help the stakeholder groups build relationships that overcome social barriers and historic
disputes. Constructive discourse about water conflict will help stakeholders recognize diverse
needs, values and motivations; this will prevent them from dehumanizing the decisions and
Water Conflict 23
actions of other parties, and it could diffuse tensions within the situation (Pearce & Littlejohn,
1997).
The creation of the computer models allows for creative problem solving, which could
result in more acceptable solutions to water rights problems in Colorado. Because the
conclusions the participants make will have been developed collaboratively over a length of
time, the recommendations for the future could be more thoughtful and innovative than those
yielded by traditional approaches. These recommendations would potentially support policy and
management decisions that can further transform water rights issues.
The final computer model will serve as a valuable communication tool beyond the
modeling process. Participants will deliver the model to their organizations, extending the
learning that occurred throughout the modeling. The model is flexible and can continue to be
modified in response to future circumstances and policy decisions. The adaptability of the model
will facilitate continued learning about Colorado’s water conflicts. Stakeholder groups and
individuals can continue to build and change the model to anticipate future scenarios and develop
management strategies, sustaining its effectiveness as an educational instrument.
Conclusion
Water conflict is a central issue in Colorado. The increasing demand for limited water
resources over time has intensified the competition for water rights, and this tension has resulted
in innumerable conflicts. However, traditional conflict management strategies have done little to
diffuse or reduce conflict; rather, water conflict continues to escalate. Progressive approaches
must transform negative, competitive interactions between stakeholders into constructive,
successful partnerships. The needs and motivations of every stakeholder are valuable, and these
diverse perspectives deserve recognition. A participatory modeling process would facilitate a
collective understanding of water conflict on the Front Range while promoting mutual respect
Water Conflict 24
among stakeholders. Through collaborative learning and computer-aided modeling of the water
rights system, stakeholders would gain a holistic understanding of the water conflict story. The
dialogue and recommendations that result from participatory modeling could encourage
transformative, innovative and viable water rights decisions for the future.
Water Conflict 25
References
Bass, R. (2007). Foreword. In G. Wockner & L. Pritchett (Ed.), Pulse of the River (pp. IX-XIII).
Boulder: Johnson Books.
Bates, S. F., Gethes, D. H., Macdonnell, L. J., & Wilkinson, C. F. (1993). Searching Out the
Headwaters: Change and Rediscovery in Western Water Policy. Washington: Island Press.
Beierle, T.C. & Craford, J. (2002). Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in
Environmental Decision Making. Washington: Resources for the Future.
Fisher, S., Ibrahim Abdi, D., Ludin, J., Smith, R., Williams, S., & Williams, S. (2000). Tools for
Conflict Analysis. In Working with Conflict: Skills & Strategies for Action (pp. 17-35).
New York: Zed Publishing.
Grigg, N. (2005). Citizen’s guide to where your water comes from. Denver: Colorado
Foundation for Water Education.
Hobbs, G. J. Jr. (2004). Citizen’s guide to Colorado Water Law. Denver: Colorado Foundation
for Water Education.
Holman, P., Devane, T. & Cady, S. (2007). The Change Handbook: The Definitive Resource on
Today’s Best Methods for Engaging Whole Systems. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.
Jordan, E. (2003). From Peak to Prairie: Colorado’s Water at Work. Sterling: Centennial Soil
Conservation District.
Larmer, P. (2007, May 14). When the going gets tough, the tough collaborate. High Country
News [Paonia]. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from http://www.hcn.org.
Nijhuis, M. (1999, January 18). Keystone snowmakers get thirsty. High Country News [Paonia].
Retrieved October 1, 2008, from http://www.hcn.org.
Maser, C. (1996). Resolving Environmental Conflict: Towards Sustainable Community
Development. Delray Beach: St. Lucie Press.
More people using shrinking resource (2008, September 20). KMGH [Denver]. Retrieved
October 1, 2008, from http://www.thedenverchannel.com.
Pearce, W. B. & Littlejohn, S. W. (1997). Moral Conflict: When Social Worlds Collide.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Van den Belt, M. (2004). Mediated Modeling: A Systems Approach to Environmental Consensus
Building. Washington: Island Press.
Water Conflict 26
Werick, W. (2000). History of Shared Vision Planning in the Army Corps of Engineers. In
Shared Vision Planning. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from
http://www.sharedvisionplanning.us
Woods, H. (2008, April 25). Water most valuable crop for Northern Colorado farmers. The
Coloradoan [Fort Collins]. Retrieved October 1, 2008, from
http://www.coloradoan.com.
Zaffos, J. (2005, March 21). The life of an unsung Western water diplomat. High Country News
[Paonia]. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from http://www.hcn.org.