Farmer Participation and Institutional Capture in Common-Pool Resource Governance Reforms. The Case of Groundwater Management in California

Figures & data

Table 1. Agricultural operation characteristics.

	Organic operation	Farmer characteristics			Mean farm size (acres)	Crop Type			Water Access
		Female farmers	Farmer age >50 years	Farming experience >30 years		Annual	Perennial	Mixed/multiple	Groundwater only	Riparian surface water	Water district water	Both groundwater & surface water
SGMA participant (n = 15)	3 (20%)	2 (12%)	12 (80%)	8 (53%)	4,586	2 (12%)	10 (75%)	3 (20%)	5 (33%)	2 (12%)	8 (53%)	7 (47%)
Non-participant (n = 12)	5 (42%)	1 (8%)	10 (83%)	9 (75%)	2,206	2 (16%)	5 (42%)	5 (42%)	4 (33%)	2 (16%)	6 (50%)	7 (58%)
Total sample (n = 27)	8 (30%)	3 (11%)	22 (81%)	17 (63%)	3,344	4 (15%)	15 (56%)	8 (30%)	9 (33%)	4 (15%)	14 (52%)	14 (52%)

Agricultural operation characteristics of farmers participating in SGMA (“SGMA participants”), not participating in SGMA (“Non-participants”) and all farmers interviewed (“Total sample”). In each cell, count of farmers reported; parentheses show percentage of farmers in that category out of total (participants/ non-participants/ total sample) in row.

Table 2. Environmental change perceptions and experiences.

	SGMA basin status		Experienced previous CA droughts (Yes/No)	Awareness of overdraft-associated impacts						Surface and groundwater reductions
	In high priority basins	In medium priority basins		Reduced surface water allocations	Lost aquifer storage	Reduction in groundwater quality	Seawater instrusion	Land subsidence	Lowering groundwater levels	Mean reduction in precipitation during drought relative to historic average^a	Mean reduction in groundwater level (WSE) during drought^b (ft)
SGMA participants (n = 15)	12 (80%)	3 (20%)	13 (87%)	3 (20%)	0	4 (27%)	1 (7%)	3 (20%)	9 (60%)	23%	30.7
Non-participants (n = 12)	12 (100%)	0	10 83%)	6 (50%)	1 (8%)	2 (17%)	1 (8%)	1 (8%)	7 (58%)	29%	43.1
Total sample (n = 27)	24 (89%)	3 (11%)	23 (85%)	9 (33%)	1 (4%)	14 (52%)	2 (7%)	4 (15%)	16 (60%)	26%	36.6

This table summarizes the data collected on environmental changes related to water access and groundwater sustainability, across all interviewees, and between SGMA participants and Non-participants.

^aReduction in precipitation calculated by finding average local precipitation during drought years (2011–2016) for each farmer (from nearest CIMIS station) and comparing to 20 or 30 year historic average precipitation levels at their local station.

^bReduction in groundwater level calculated by finding closest monitoring well to each farmers’ location and evaluating Water Surface Elevation (WSE) (measured in feet) before drought (2010–2011) and end of drought (late 2016), and calculating difference in groundwater level. Greater numbers indicate a greater depression in groundwater levels (Monitoring well level data available from SGMA Data Viewer).

Figure 1. Distribution of interviewees across groundwater basins in California. Map shows the distribution of interviewed farmers and their farm locations within the limits of priority groundwater basins across California. Groundwater basins boundaries are shown in gray polygons; farmers participating in SGMA ("SGMA participants") are represented as dots and farmers not participating in SGMA ("Non-participants") are represented as triangles.