Water Resources Research

PUBLICATIONS
Water Resources Research

RESEARCH ARTICLE Rescuing degrading aquifers in the Central Coastal Plain of
10.1002/2013WR015242
North Carolina (USA): Just process, effective groundwater
Key Points: management policy, and sustainable aquifers
Incorporate social psychological and
socio-legal concepts into policy Alex K. Manda1 and Wendy A. Klein2
process
Groundwater management process 1
Department of Geological Sciences, and Institute for Coastal Science and Policy, East Carolina University, Greenville,
as an example for coastal North Carolina, USA, 2Coastal Resources Management Program, East Carolina University, Greenville,
communities
Acceptable policy results in
North Carolina, USA
groundwater recovery and
sustainability
Abstract Strategic management of degrading coastal aquifers in eastern North Carolina (USA) became
Correspondence to:
imperative after a severe imbalance occurred between withdrawal and recharge rates. To ameliorate this
A. K. Manda, growing problem, an aggressive water policy was developed through public input by creating the Central
mandaa@ecu.edu Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) to maintain beneficial use of groundwater resources. Insights
from social psychology, and socio-legal studies are used to evaluate how procedural justice and public par-
Citation: ticipation played major roles to resolving groundwater resource management problems. A mixed methods
Manda, A. K., and W. A. Klein (2014),
Rescuing degrading aquifers in the
approach uses archival data and interviews with various rule-making participants to assess the process of
Central Coastal Plain of North Carolina stakeholder involvement that led to creation of the policy. In addition, data analysis techniques are utilized
(USA): Just process, effective to evaluate the effects of the policy on aquifer health (through water levels) over a 10 year period. Results
groundwater management policy, and
sustainable aquifers, Water Resour. Res.,
suggest that not only did a stakeholder group participate in a process that was deemed fair, understand-
50, 5662–5677, doi:10.1002/ able, and relatively easy to administer for users and regulators, but public participation resulted in an effec-
2013WR015242. tive plan that ensures the long-term sustainable use of groundwater. Declining groundwater withdrawals
and recovering water levels suggest that the rule is achieving its intended goal of protecting the aquifers
Received 3 JAN 2014 from depletion and degradation. This paper touches on global themes that are essential to water demand
Accepted 20 JUN 2014
and consumption, water management techniques, and water resources protection.
Accepted article online 26 JUN 2014
Published online 10 JUL 2014
1. Introduction
Globally, population growth, low rates of groundwater recharge and high groundwater extractions have
coalesced to severely degrade groundwater resources [e.g., Heath and Spruill, 2003; Anisfeld, 2010, Gleeson
et al., 2011; Jones, 2011; Nelson, 2012]. When faced with such challenges, water managers have in their
arsenals, a myriad of strategies that they can use to safeguard vital water resources [Schiffler, 1998; Foster
et al., 2003]. In many cases, the decision makers utilize stakeholder input to address water management
issues [Moore, 1986; Poirier Elliott, 1999; Straus 1999; Borsuk et al., 2001; Maguire, 2003; Maguire, 2006; Morse,
2010; Margerum, 2011; Carr et al., 2012). Although numerous researchers have investigated public involve-
ment in natural resources management and allocation [e.g., Poirier Elliott, 1999; Borsuk et al., 2001; Maguire
and Lind, 2003; Maguire, 2006; Margerum, 2011], few studies have focused on the lasting impacts of such
involvement on groundwater management strategies and more importantly, on how perceptions of fairness
and justice by stakeholders evolved during the policy development processes. To address this information
gap, a case study was conducted in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina (USA) where stakeholder participa-
tion led to the development of a policy to deal with declining water levels (as much as 2.4 m per year), large
cones of depression (i.e., regions where groundwater levels are significantly depressed around a well due to
groundwater pumping), saltwater intrusion, and low well yields in Cretaceous age aquifers [Giese et al.,
1997; Heath and Spruill, 2003; Lautier, 2006].
1.1. Socio-Political Setting

Armed with little more than observational data, in 2002, the State of North Carolina enacted the Central
Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) rule to protect degrading Cretaceous aquifers. This regulation
was innovative in that social psychological (substantive, procedural and emotional) and socio-legal (justice)
concepts of procedural justice (described in section 1.3) were incorporated into a rule making process
MANDA AND KLEIN C 2014. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
V 5662
19447973, 2014, 7, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013WR015242 by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA, Wiley Online Library on [26/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Water Resources Research 10.1002/2013WR015242
Figure 1. Location of the Cental Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area in eastern North Carolina. Inset: Location of North Carolina in the United States.
involving public participation where a stakeholder group was tasked with crafting rules related to managing
threatened groundwater resources in the state.
The 15 counties that make up the CCPCUA in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina (Figure 1) are predomi-
nantly located in rural areas. Between 1970 and 1990, the total population in these counties increased by
20% from 695,598 to 834,718 inhabitants (http://www.census.gov). This led to an increase in water demand
and as a consequence, groundwater withdrawals that threatened the sustainability of groundwater resour-
ces in the region grew [Heath and Spruill, 2003]. As groundwater withdrawals exceeded recharge rates,
groundwater levels in the Cretaceous aquifers declined at unsustainable rates causing a need for aggressive
strategies to manage the threatened aquifers.
The 2002 regulation was not the first time the state intervened to protect the aquifers of eastern North Car-
olina. The Water Use Act of 1967 (http://www.ncwater.org) empowered the state environmental regulatory
agency (i.e., the Department of Environment and Natural Resources) (hereafter the state agency) to create
Capacity Use Areas to monitor and regulate water withdrawals from aquifers and surface water bodies. The
2002 amendment to the Water Use Act of 1967 delineated a new capacity use area, expanded the issuance
of withdrawal permits and registrations, and mandated water use reductions over a 16 year period.
1.2. Hydrogeological Setting

The CCPCUA counties overlie a sequence of eastward dipping and thickening sedimentary units that range in age
from the Quaternary to the Cretaceous. Historically, most of these units have provided water of high quality and
quantity to the inhabitants of eastern North Carolina. However, heavy reliance on the Eocene (i.e., the Castle Hayne
aquifer) and Cretaceous aquifer systems (primarily the Black Creek and Upper Cape Fear aquifers), poor foresight,
and mismanagement have threatened these resources [Heath and Spruill, 2003]. Figure 2 shows the percentage of
groundwater withdrawn from each aquifer in the CCPCUA. The major water demands are for public water supply
and mine dewatering, with lesser volumes for agricultural, industrial and recreational uses (Figure 2).
1.3. Procedural Justice

In this paper, we highlight the application of a procedural justice framework (i.e., involving fairness, involve-
ment and consensus) in developing the CCPCUA through the participation of stakeholders representing a
diverse group of end users. The procedural justice framework we propose is a mechanism based on per-
ceived fairness of a process [Thibaut and Walker, 1975; Leventhal, 1976, 1980; Straus, 1999; Margerum, 2011;
V 5663
Figure 2. Percentage of total groundwater withdrawal by (a) aquifer in the CCPCUA for 2011, (b) sector in North Carolina, and (c) sector in the CCPCUA.
Lind et al., 1997; Rohl, 1997]. Integral to this mechanism is the involvement in and the acceptance of the pro-
cess (through consensus) by those impacted by the outcomes of the process. Thus, a positive perception of
fairness is frequently viewed as important as the actual outcome [Borsuk et al., 2001; Brockner and Wiesenfeld,
2005; Muller and Kals 2007]. Because outcome and procedure judgments are based on participant treatment,
social contracts are usually acceptable when there is full participation in the decision-making process [Lind,
1995; Rohl and Machura, 1997; Deutsch, 2000]. Unless those involved in the decision-making process feel
heard, with their needs, concerns and questions addressed, compliance and enforcement of any regulation
that results from the process may prove difficult. Participants judge satisfaction with an outcome through
their substantive (i.e., things people are negotiating or making decisions about), procedural (i.e., how people
talk about things) and emotional (i.e., how people feel about things) interests and equate voice, inclusion and
respect to fair treatment, fair process and acceptable results [Furlong, 2005; Muller and Kals, 2007].
1.4. Research Goals and Objectives

The goals of this study are to assess a rule making process and to evaluate the effects of the rule on water
resources management and water resource sustainability in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina ten years after
inception of the policy. This is accomplished by (a) exploring how state agencies incorporated social psy-
chological (substantive, procedural, and emotional) and socio-legal (justice) concepts of procedural justice
into the rule making process [Lind and Tyler, 1988; Blader and Tyler, 2005; Colquitt et al., 2005], (b) assessing
how the rule impacted groundwater management strategies, and (c) analyzing physical responses of
groundwater to implementation of new groundwater management strategies. These three goals rarely
receive an integrated inspection because the rule making process and impacts of the management policy
on the resource typically occur at different rates and over different time periods [Carr et al., 2012]. To the
authors’ knowledge, the application of social psychological and socio-legal concepts, as applied to manage-
ment and sustainability of groundwater is not documented in the literature. A well-established monitoring
system resulting from the new policy gives the study the benefit of long groundwater records and high
sampling frequency. Therefore, this study is the first to describe the process of development of groundwater
management policy under a procedural justice framework of fairness, involvement, and consensus.
The integrated approach presented herein utilizes techniques from the natural and social sciences to meld
a variety of viewpoints that explore sustainability science [Mooney et al., 2013; Shaman et al., 2013]. Results
from this study ultimately have implications for resource managers and technical advisors who are inter-
ested in incorporating stakeholders of diverse backgrounds and knowledge into a participatory process
that involves the management of any resource [Leach and Sabatier, 2003]. Investigating the process, regula-
tion and subsequent aquifer response can therefore serve as a model for groundwater management in
many parts of the world experiencing similar challenges.
2. Methods
A mixed methods, inductive approach is used to analyze personal interviews, archival data, and ground-
water levels from groundwater wells in the CCPCUA. The approach combines qualitative and quantitative
V 5664
methods to analyze diverse data and eliminate bias that may be inherent in a single data analysis technique
[Denzin and Lincoln, 2013], but increases confidence in the validity of the conclusions derived from the
study. The general themes that are elucidated from empirical discourse analysis (i.e., an approach for explor-
ing written or vocal language) and time series analysis include (a) fairness as perceived by groups as
opposed to individuals, (b) fairness defined by self-interests, (c) perspective changes through education, (d)
creation and implementation of groundwater management policy, and (e) sustainability of groundwater
resources in response to development of collective goals.
2.1. Interview Process

Personal interviews with participants from many of the representative sectors including state agencies,
water utility companies and associations, mining firms, aquaculture and agricultural industries, environmen-
tal organizations, and private technical resource advisors were conducted in 2010 (n 5 12). In addition,
interviews (n 5 4) with individuals from other entities (e.g., water providers) who were not represented at
stakeholder meetings were used to determine how their perception of the rule making process, resultant
effects on water quantity, and impacts of the process on their business strategies varied from those of the
participants. The interviews, which lasted from approximately one hour to six hours, were documented with
handwritten notations. Open-ended, semistructured questions explored professional affiliations, timing and
level of involvement, history of the process, alternative solutions, important issues, and individuals’ impres-
sions of the need for regulation. An examination of the interviewee’s perceptions of justice, consensus
impediments, uncertainties, equity and potential consequences for regulation enactment or nonenactment
was conducted. Other issues focused on how the CCPCUA fit into an integrated water resources manage-
ment concept, including who should make policy. The interviewees were chosen using a convenience sam-
pling approach because the interviews occurred ten years after the CCPCUA committee meetings.
2.2. Archival Data

Archival data were obtained from public records, documentation of public hearings, and comments and
correspondence submitted to the state agency. A copy of the original draft rule and a summary of water
use regulations in other eastern seaboard states were obtained to compare with the final CCPCUA regula-
tion. Two former participants and a facilitator shared their meeting minutes and notes. The meeting
minutes outlined the issues and important negotiation points. The minutes provided information about
those in attendance, the agenda, questions, concerns, discussions and deliberations, handouts and data
presentations, reports from outside agencies, actions undertaken, rule reviews, and language changes. The
minutes also elucidated how resource advisors communicated the technical and hydrogeological issues to
the stakeholders. Through discourse analysis of meeting minutes, perceptions of the water resource prob-
lem, rule-making process, consequences of regulations and workable solutions were surmised. Only one
author reviewed the minutes to maintain consistency.
The meeting notes highlight the critical issues for the committee as a whole and for individuals representing
diverse groups. The notes express emotional sentiments, which are useful for understanding the meeting pro-
tocol, the level of respect given to the stakeholders and the development of trust within the group. Included
with the meeting notes were letters to the committee from end-users not included in the rule making process.
Empirical discourse analysis of participants’ notes elucidated broad themes through the inspection of specific
words and language usage [Phillips and Jïrgensen, 2002; Hodges et al., 2008]. The interactions between partici-
pants as well as the use of metaphors, specific words and grammar in both notes and correspondence gives
insight into the emotional responses and ‘‘versions of reality’’ of the participants [Phillips and Jïrgensen, 2002].
Keywords and phrases inferred visceral reactions to individuals’ perceptions of the process and fairness.
Copies of the stakeholder resource notebook, and the group charter were obtained from a participant. The
charter outlines the goals, expectations, representation and responsibilities of all participants, purpose of
the committee, ground rules of the meetings, the decision-making processes and the anticipated final prod-
uct. These archival data provide context for the interviews and issues of water resources management by
yielding insight into how the perceptions of the stakeholders evolved with time.
2.3. Groundwater Levels

Two sets of groundwater level data were acquired from the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) (http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/Ground_Water_Databases/wellaccess.php): time
V 5665
series data and potentiometric surface maps (i.e., contour maps of groundwater levels). The time series data
were acquired from 12 wells drilled into the Black Creek (n 5 4) and Upper Cape Fear (n 5 8) aquifers in the
CCPCUA. These wells were selected because they are located in several counties (n 5 5) in the study area,
have sufficiently long records (at least 10 years), and the sampling frequency was generally high (the sam-
pling interval was at least on a monthly basis). The Mann-Whitney nonparametric statistical test was then
used to test the null hypothesis of equality of median groundwater levels from 2012 and the year with the
lowest annual water levels at the 0.05 significance level. Additionally, the median annual water level in 2012
was compared to the elevation of the top of the respective aquifer to determine whether water levels were
merely declining in the aquifer, or if the aquifer was also being dewatered. The second set of data, which
consisted of potentiometric surface maps for the Cretaceous aquifers, was used to assess the extent of the
cones of depression in 2005 and 2011 in the CCPCUA. The potentiometric surface maps reflect yearly aver-
ages of water levels recorded in wells drilled in each aquifer.
2.4. Groundwater Withdrawals

Groundwater withdrawal data were also acquired from the NCDWR portal (http://www.ncwater.org/Water_
Withdrawals/ResultsTabJS.php?tab5data&wsrc5gw) to assess the success of the CCPCUA regulation in lim-
iting groundwater pumping in the CCPCUA. Time series plots of withdrawal data from each county were
first created before the average volume of groundwater withdrawn from each Cretaceous aquifer in 2011
was computed and compared to (a) an established cap of how much water can be withdrawn from each
aquifer, and (b) permitted withdrawals in the year 2018.
3. Mechanics of Process
Initial attempts to formulate groundwater management regulations by the state agency, without stake-
holder input, were met with opposition. Although based on scientific input, the regulation drafted by the
state was perceived by many attendees at early public meetings as biased, out of touch with the demands
of the users and without sufficient state authority to enforce the regulation (S. Smutko, personal communi-
cation, 2010). Because of these objections, the state agency opted to change course by seeking mediation
to ‘‘assist disputing parties to voluntarily reach their own mutually acceptable settlement of issues in dis-
pute’’ [Moore, 1986]. The mediation process delegated rule development to stakeholder representatives
thereby relegating the role of the agency to that of convener. As convener, the state initiated a mechanism
to develop strategies to manage groundwater in the Coastal Plain that comprised selection of participants
(facilitators, stakeholders, and resource advisors), setting protocol for meetings, and crafting regulation
while still maintaining the final decision-making authority.
3.1. Participants
3.1.1. Roles of Facilitators
The state agency chose independent agents to facilitate the CCPCUA rule making process because it is the
responsibility of the facilitator to create a cohesive group out of a disparate and diverse assembly to address
problems, while maintaining an equal commitment to all perspectives [Poirier Elliott, 1999; Kray et al., 2005].
The facilitators acted as an impartial third party with no authoritative decision-making power [Moore, 1986].
Although the facilitators managed the process, they did not have a stake in the outcome besides creating a
‘‘conflict map’’ which outlined the source of the conflict, roadblocks to a satisfactory solution, and the work-
ing process whereby the conflict could be resolved [Moore, 1986]. The roles of the facilitators were two-fold.
First, the facilitators conducted a situation assessment to determine and evaluate issues, crafted a protocol
for choosing stakeholders, ascertained the availability of pertinent data, and made recommendations for
how to proceed with the process. The second role consisted of facilitating the rule-making process by mod-
erating exchanges between the various stakeholders [Lind and Tyler, 1988]. The facilitator’s broad goals
were to give the conveners some distance from the rule making process and guide the process and partici-
pants to a mutually agreed upon consensus [Poirier Elliott, 1999].
The facilitators created the CCPCUA stakeholder committee from referrals, suggestions made by the state
agency, and written comments submitted during public meetings. Follow-up interviews with prospective
committee members focused on probable contentious issues and factors that would hinder the construc-
tion of a group willing to work together to create a usable set of regulations. The facilitators wanted to keep
V 5666
the group only as large as they deemed

efficient and representative, i.e., a group
of minimum size and maximum represen-
tation (Smutko, personal communication,
2010).
3.1.2. Roles of Stakeholders
The stakeholder committee members
that were chosen to represent diverse
stakeholder interests needed agents from
municipal, residential, commercial, indus-
Figure 3. Schematic summarizing the timeline for reducing groundwater with-
trial, agricultural and environmental sec-
drawals after the CCPCUA was enacted (modified from http://www.ncwater. tors in the Central Coastal Plain. For
org/Permits_and_Registration/Capacity_Use/Central_Coastal_Plain/CCPCUA_ clarity and simplicity, the interested par-
rule_summary_FAQ.php).
ties that were members of the stake-
holder committee are hereinafter
referred to as ‘‘stakeholder representatives,’’ whereas the interested parties that were not members of the
committee are referred to as ‘‘stakeholders’’ or ‘‘broader stakeholder group.’’
The role of the stakeholder representatives was to add their input to the rule-making process and keep their
respective constituents informed about the purpose, scope, process and final product of the stakeholder
meetings.
3.1.3. Roles of Resource Advisors
In addition to the convener, stakeholder committee and facilitators, five resource advisors took part in the
rule-making process. The advisors included technical consultants and scientists from private firms, a science
based federal agency, academia, and the state agency. These resource advisors presented the background
of the problem, including the hydrogeologic setting, estimates for safe well yields and consequences of
unabated groundwater withdrawals to aquifers. The role of the technical advisors was to assist the stake-
holder representatives in understanding the technically complex information, which was often outside of
the representatives’ experiences. Although the resource advisors played a critical role in the informational
and educational aspect of the CCPCUA process, they had no decision-making power to craft the rule.
3.2. Protocol and CCPCUA Final Rule

The purpose of the committee, as stated in the Committee Group Charter, was to ‘‘. . .determine the rules
governing permitting and water allocation, and the principles on which the rules will be based.’’ As such, the
first meetings to draft the CCPCUA rule addressed the purpose and scope of the committee, the guidelines
for a consensus process to create the decision rule, the background of the problem, and discussions of the
issues and the committee charter. Subsequent meetings focused on actual rule making. The conveners set
a demanding timetable for the stakeholder representatives group, which met weekly over a 2 month
period. Yet the group was able to come to consensus on regulatory and measurement parameters, the
establishment of a base year and base rates, allocation goals, monitoring, and reporting procedures. Specifi-
cally, the rule required registration and reporting for surface and groundwater users withdrawing between
38 and 379 m3 (10,000 and 100,000 gallons) of water per day within the 15-county area. Groundwater with-
drawals from the Cretaceous aquifers of more than 379 m3 (100,000 gallons) of water per day require per-
mitting. In this context, ‘‘registration and reporting’’ means informing the state agency about withdrawal
volumes, whereas ‘‘permitting’’ means acquiring permission from the state agency before withdrawal can
occur.
This contingent agreement is based on the results of a future scenario [Dictionary of Conflict Resolution,
2002] and involves making graduated reductions in groundwater withdrawals over a 16 year period
(Figure 3). The reductions, of up to 75%, set a daily withdrawal rate that is based on approved base rates
(ABR). The reductions are based on the severity of the aquifer conditions at various locations within the
CCPCUA. However, the rule has a built in flexibility that allows the water users to negotiate with the state
agency on mutually agreeable ABR.
Regions experiencing saltwater encroachment, dewatering and declining water levels are subject to differ-
ent levels of withdrawal reductions. These reductions were set to occur in three phases over the 16 year
V 5667
period, with reevaluation by the state agency at the end of each phase. Each withdrawal reduction is as little
as 10% in areas of declining, but nonthreatened water levels, and up to a maximum of 25% in areas of salt-
water intrusion. The reductions specific to each municipality were determined by the agency based on
reports of daily water withdrawals, water levels and salinity. Each permit holder was required to develop
water conservation plans and strategies for reducing groundwater withdrawals.
4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Evolution of Process
4.1.1. Stakeholder Engagement
Initial attempts by the state to develop the CCPCUA suffered from errors and mis-directions, before creative
solutions were proposed to create rules and guidelines for groundwater management in eastern North Car-
olina. Early errors committed by the state included not involving stakeholder representatives in the initial
rule making process. Previous research has shown that exclusion of stakeholder representatives from
decision-making processes typically perpetuates an unwillingness to comply with rules proposed by regula-
tory agencies [e.g., Brockner and Wiesenfeld, 2005].
Once the state grasped the magnitude of the groundwater resource problem, the state held informational
meetings to inform the public about possible remedies. However, some observers viewed these events as
forums for one-way information exchange [Creighton, 2005; Smutko, personal communication, 2010]. After
the informational meetings, the state realized that a different direction was needed and that not until those
with the power to enact and enforce regulations (i.e., the state agencies) gave voice to those impacted by
the regulations (i.e., the stakeholder groups) that creative solutions could be amenable to all involved
groups. This step involved changing the approach by creating the stakeholder rule making process with the
state agency acting as convener. The responsibility of the convener was that of major driver or catalytic
agent; one that sped a change process, yet retained its original function [Morse, 2010]. The role of the third
party stakeholder was to present the viewpoints of their constituents and bring a sense of fairness, partici-
pation and validity to the proceedings [Emerson et al., 2003].
In contrast to the initial approach undertaken by the state, the facilitators involved representatives from
diverse stakeholder groups (i.e., the stakeholder committee) at the beginning of the process so that they
could collaborate in crafting the CCPCUA rule. The stakeholder representatives came to the first meetings
with diverse agendas and fears of having untenable regulations thrust upon them. Stakeholders’ concerns
focused on the substantive (outcome and impact on their wants and needs), the procedural (fairness, inclu-
sivity, and transparency) and emotional (voice, being heard, satisfaction) needs [Furlong, 2005]. Conse-
quently, the facilitators had to allay the concerns of the stakeholder representatives by facilitating a
mechanism that allowed for the redrafting of the initial regulations developed by the state. The addition of
resource advisors to the process also helped to convince the stakeholder representatives that the state
agency was willing to step back and play the role of a catalytic agent in the process. Only after the state
agency enlisted the resource advisors did the stakeholder committee begin to trust the state in the role of
convener and work collectively to achieve a common goal (Smutko, personal communication, 2010).
4.1.2. Perception of Process
As discerned through discourse analysis of the archival data, a shift occurred in the perceptions of the stake-
holder representatives, how they responded to each other, and in the way the rule making process evolved
over time. The data reveal that at the onset of the process, the stakeholder representatives felt that the indi-
vidual groups that they represented would be unfairly treated by any proposed regulation. Language used
to communicate displeasure included words and phrases like ‘‘Byzantine,’’ ‘‘too expedient,’’ ‘‘punishes all,’’
‘‘less equipped,’’ ‘‘suffer,’’ ‘‘hard to explain,’’ ‘‘innocent victims’’ etc. (H. Boyette, personal correspondence,
2000; M. Loomis, personal correspondence, 2000). Furthermore, some groups thought that they contributed
to the wellbeing rather than degradation of the aquifers (e.g., farmers contributed to aquifer recharge by
maintaining pervious surfaces), whereas other groups felt the rule gave unequal treatment to other water
users (e.g., mining operators were allowed to dewater aquifers whereas other entities were not) (H. Boyette,
personal correspondence, 2000).
Owing to the deliberations during the committee meetings that allowed for different viewpoints from each
stakeholder representative to be addressed, these perceptions of displeasure quickly began to change. This
V 5668
transition was due, in part, to presentations made by the resource advisors in nontechnical language. Previ-
ous researchers have found that advisor input is usually beneficial to help less technically inclined stake-
holder representatives understand the limitations of data, as well as inform them as to the usefulness of
various proposed strategies [Maguire, 2003]. Furnished with the scientific justification for the regulation, the
stakeholder representatives grasped the magnitude of the problem and became more open to other peo-
ple’s ideas, had greater trust in their colleagues, and their understanding of the need for regulation
increased. Personal notes with phrases such as ‘‘good pitch,’’ ‘‘good reaction,’’ and ‘‘tone of participants not
hostile,’’ (R. Bierly, personal meeting notes, 2000) reveal the atmosphere of growing acceptance in the later
meetings.
Educating the stakeholder representatives began a paradigm shift to accepting the need for a workable,
and creative regulatory solution. Tasked with the authority to represent their constituents, each stakeholder
representative originally voiced specific needs and demands, and came to the process representing posi-
tions that benefited their short term, self-interests. As the stakeholder representatives became educated
about the issues, the focus shifted from the individual objective to the collective goal. At the beginning of
the process, the way that the stakeholder representatives perceived fairness of the process was more from
an individual viewpoint, rather than as a member of a group [Leung et al., 2007]. Initially, each stakeholder
representative was less concerned about the impacts of regulations on other stakeholders than themselves.
In the short term, the self-interests of the individual stakeholders encouraged a desire to belong and stimu-
lated discussions of perceived issues of fairness [Gillespie and Greenberg, 2005]. Because conflicts among the
stakeholders were based on differing perspectives, values, and interests, identifying and communicating
conflicts ultimately promoted collaboration (working together toward a common goal) and cooperation
(willful participation) within the stakeholder committee [Emerson et al., 2003]. Used in tandem, collaboration
and cooperation became a valuable tool to guarantee accountability while minimizing distrust and discord
to create an inclusive outcome.
As the meetings progressed, the committee not only decided that regulation was needed, but they also
acquired a collective perspective that shifted their focus from the individual to the group. By coming
together to craft a regulation that met the needs of the stakeholder representatives and those of their
cohorts while maintaining aquifer health, the representatives felt a measure of power and control through
their representation in the proceedings [Lind and Tyler, 1988; Emerson et al., 2003; Carr et al. 2012]. This
power of representation, in turn, helped assure the acceptance of the crafted rules. Comments such as ‘‘we
learned, discussed, compromised and developed some proposed rules to deal with a serious challenge to
our region’s well-being as well as health of the citizens’’ (R. Bierly, personal communication, 2000) indicate
that the stakeholder representatives were frequently able to see beyond their individual needs to work
cooperatively toward the betterment of the larger system [Ostrom et al., 1999]. As the perceptions of the
stakeholder representatives evolved, the representatives came to agree on a common view of the benefits
of regulation because they had grown to be more trustful of the process.
4.1.3. Policy Development

Owing to different demands for groundwater resources (Figure 2), a contingent settlement that validated
each stakeholder representative’s concerns and viewpoints was accepted as a final solution. Originally, the
state agency proposed individual evaluations of each groundwater withdrawal permit, with the agency
assigning remedial requirements on a case-by-case basis. This left the stakeholder representatives uneasy
about their loss of control and lack of a mechanism for predicting future changes that would impact their
businesses (Smutko, personal communication, 2010). Thus, the stakeholder representatives elected to take
a different approach to solving the water management problem by crafting a schedule of tiered reductions
which provided end users with a timeline for projecting reductions of groundwater withdrawals (Figure 3).
Surprisingly, the stakeholder representatives eventually agreed on a wider ranging contingent remedy than
that originally proposed by the state agency. The representatives concluded that the concept of permitting
addressed many of their concerns, including the prevention of dewatering or salt-water intrusion. The
establishment of ‘‘critical areas’’ which delineated the regions of greatest stress allowed for the most strin-
gent regulations within those areas, whereas defined timetables with specific reduction objectives gave
users clear goals and targets for planning purposes as well as an incentive to enact conservative measures.
The results suggest that had the regulation not included contingencies with clearly outlined objective
measures and incentives that gave the stakeholder representatives a measure of predictability, the
V 5669
regulation would not have been supported. The permitting and registration process, contingent on with-
drawal volumes, allowed the state agency to actively monitor and assess the aquifers.
4.1.4. Perceptions of Fairness

The inclusion of three independent groups (facilitators, stakeholders and convener) in the CCPCUA process
meant that from the onset, there were different perceptions of fairness because each group entered the
rule-making process with a different concept of what constituted a fair process. Although the idea of fair-
ness in the public arena is the mutual acceptance of shared values and principles for the improvement and
distribution of common goods [Syme and Nancarrow, 1997; Rawls, 1999], meeting notes reveal that the
stakeholder representatives mostly viewed fairness from a financial perspective. The representatives usually
countered solutions, suggested by others, with responses based on economic impacts to their ventures. For
example, farmers do not have the finances for monitoring water withdrawals. From the perspective of the
facilitator, the final outcome (i.e., the three-tiered regulation) was not as important as the process and thus,
the emotional, procedural and substantive aspects of procedural justice only applied to the process, and
not the resource. This was evident in the manner in which the facilitators adhered to the mandate from the
‘‘Responsibilities of Facilitators’’ of the CCPCUA Group Charter by not attempting to sway the group one
way or another, other than toward elements of the process. Whereas the facilitators were interested in pro-
tecting the process, the conveners focused on protecting the aquifers, which aligns with the mission of the
state agency. Eventually, because each group contributed unique, yet mutually beneficial skills and needs
to the process, a common language emerged that allowed the conveners, stakeholder representatives and
facilitators to reach a mutually accepted idea of fairness and trust to create regulation that was generally
supported and easily enforced [Margerum, 2011].
Although other studies have documented less successful stakeholder processes [e.g., Maguire and Lind,
2003], such shortcomings have in part, been a consequence of participant groups (e.g., state agencies)
assuming numerous capacities in the process. In the case of the development of the CCPCUA, each player
had a different and distinct role and as a result, the stakeholder representatives perceived the different
groups or individuals who acted as conveners, facilitators, and resource advisors, as having specific
responsibilities.
The role that the facilitators played in directing the process also contributed to how fair the stakeholder rep-
resentatives perceived the process. For example, the facilitators recommended that the stakeholder com-
mittee begin developing regulation based on two different draft regulations: one regulation drafted by the
state agency, and another regulation drafted by a resource advisor. The facilitators focused the group
thought process by having them respond to what they liked, disliked, and lacked in each plan. This
approach gave respect and voice to all the members of the stakeholder committee. As a result, many stake-
holder representatives perceived the process as fair because they were given the opportunity to discuss
issues as well as ask and answer questions that pertained to the issues affecting their constituents.
Typically, procedures are deemed just when those affected by the outcome find the outcome acceptable
[Lind, 1995; Rohl and Machura, 1997; Deutsch, 2000; Borsuk et al., 2001; Brockner and Wiesenfeld, 2005; Muller
and Kals, 2007]. However, in the case of the development of the CCPCUA, involvement in the process
appeared to play as important a role in the perception of fairness as the final outcome. We note that the cri-
teria of fairness may be more important in some policy discussions than others, depending on the impor-
tance of the substantive and emotional needs.
Stakeholder participants perceived the final regulation as fair (even though not all of their original demands
may have been met) and as a result, the involved stakeholders concluded the negotiations amicably. In con-
trast, those groups that were not involved with the actual process were unhappy with the outcome and
therefore viewed it as unfair. Interestingly, some of the parties that expressed dissatisfaction with the out-
come were stakeholder groups that had representatives on the stakeholder committee (e.g., water groups).
These groups continued meeting with the conveners and voicing their concerns long after the stakeholder
process had concluded. This illustrates that although stakeholders may engage in a process they consider
fair, ultimately the outcome may not necessarily meet their substantive needs.
The stakeholder representatives and regulatory bodies deemed the regulations fair and successful because
the regulations provided for input and predictability to the stakeholder groups and accomplished the ulti-
mate goal of putting into place a set of rules that managed threatened aquifers, halted accelerating
V 5670
depletion of groundwater, and set into action conservation measures. The regulations were not only accept-
able to the stakeholder representatives (because the representatives suggested and agreed to the regula-
tions), but enforceable by the state agency (because the goals were clear and within reasonable
timeframes).
4.2. Impact of Process and Rules

4.2.1. Lasting Legacy of Process
Well-intentioned attempts to manage water resources without allowance for stakeholder representatives’
input are usually contentious and unsuccessful [Ostrom et al., 1999; Borsuk et al., 2001; Maguire and Lind,
2003; Maguire, 2006]. However, there is a difference between participatory processes and just processes.
Participation does not guarantee successful processes or outcomes because only representation and voice/
participation are guaranteed in such a process. A procedurally just process includes stakeholder group par-
ticipation within a framework incorporating the overarching themes of respect, fair treatment and impartial-
ity as they pertain to the ‘‘rules and processes of resource allocation’’ [Leventhal, 1976, 1980].
It is difficult to develop protective regulations for a commons resource that stakeholder groups find both
just and effective [Ostrom et al., 1999]. Therefore, it is instructive to understand the successful implementa-
tion of procedural justice to invest end-users and policymakers in resource strategies. The ability to have
respectful input and unbiased facilitation translates to reasonably accepted outcomes important to resolu-
tion of resource protection and allocation conflicts [Lind, 1995; Rohl and Machura, 1997; Deutsch, 2000; Bor-
suk et al., 2001; Brockner and Wiesenfeld, 2005; Muller and Kals, 2007]. As presented in this study, and
supported by the literature [e.g., Lind and Tyler, 1988; Lind, 1995], given a reasonable outcome, participants
frequently view the process as important as the outcome. Good policy is one in which stakeholder groups
are supportive and willing to comply; otherwise, the policy is ineffective and unsustainable [Borsuk et al.,
2001; Maguire and Lind, 2003; Maguire, 2006]. The CCPCUA successfully achieved the goals of the Commit-
tee Group Charter, to create ‘‘. . .a mutually acceptable water use permitting rule under the Water Use Act
that ensures fairness and predictability to water users and protects the long-range productivity of surface
and ground water.’’
4.2.2. Groundwater Management Policy

An economic implication of the CCPCUA is that the rule has encouraged alternate sources of water and con-
junctive water use to reduce the reliance of Coastal Plain communities on Cretaceous aquifers. Thus, munic-
ipalities in the Central Coastal Plain have invested > $130 million in new surface water treatment plants,
new groundwater well fields, and other technologies to temporarily store water from surface and subsur-
face sources in deep aquifers (i.e., aquifer storage and recovery). Furthermore, water distributors are devel-
oping interconnections and inter-basin transfers to serve as backup systems to prevent threats to cultural
and social stability to the region. As a commodity once in great abundance in North Carolina’s Coastal Plain,
groundwater is now a resource undergoing thoughtful planning. The creation of the CCPCUA forced a com-
prehensive look at broader management options for groundwater resources, the legacy of which is the
long-term investment in sustaining water resources.
Because of a successful process, perceptions about groundwater policy and water use have changed within
the CCPCUA. Public water suppliers must now comply with conservation measures outlined in the rule.
Required water conservation plans include conservation based rate structures, water loss reduction pro-
grams, irrigation conservation proposals, retrofit programs, public education, and water reuse projects. In
addition, the rule allows for the sale or transfer of water or sale or transfer of permitted withdrawal rates.
Equipped with a more complete knowledge of the underlying conditions, the state and local water systems
have better tools with which to plan and manage water. All of these have contributed to sustainable use of
aquifers within the CCPCUA.
4.2.3. Sustainability of Groundwater Resources

Assessments of groundwater levels in the Black Creek and Upper Cape Fear aquifers reveal the state of
water levels in the Cretaceous aquifers before and after implementation of the CCPCUA phased reductions.
Examples of groundwater wells that have sufficiently long time records from the Cretaceous aquifers show
that groundwater levels have recovered by between 1 and 17 m (median annual water levels) in the
CCPCUA after implementation of the area rules (Table 1). The differences between the median annual water
levels in the year with the lowest water levels and the median annual water levels in 2012 are shown to be
V 5671
Table 1. Median Annual Water Levels for Select Wells in Aquifersa

Elevation of Lowest Median Median Annual Year of
Top of Annual Water Water Level Water Level Lowest
Name County Well ID Aquifer Latitude Longitude Aquifer (m) Level (m) in 2012 (m) Difference (m) Water Level p Value
Chicod Pitt O 23L3 UCF 35.4636 277.275 2135.6 222.88 217.05 5.83 2008 7.07E-123
Comfort Jones U 26J10 UCF 34.9694 277.503 2219.2 217.74 215.82 1.91 2009 1.03E-122
Cove City Craven R 23X9 UCF 35.1723 277.311 2223.1 240.92 231.38 9.54 2007 1.69E-84
DH Conley Pitt N 23P2 UCF 35.5299 277.327 2113.4 220.64 214.22 6.42 2007 7.08E-123
High Sch (a)
Moss Hill Lenoir R 29T4 UCF 35.1962 277.753 292.0 20.75 3.98 4.74 2002 2.73E-76
North Pitt High Pitt L 24B4 UCF 35.7496 277.365 266.1 27.62 25.05 2.58 2004 0.000134
School (a)
Saulston Wayne O 30J3 UCF 35.4698 277.849 27.0 28.48 22.95 5.53 2005 1.91E-78
Savannah Lenoir P 26U5 UCF 35.3367 277.512 2110.6 236.39 219.71 16.68 2000 1.88E-68
School
Cove City Craven R 23X8 BC 35.1723 277.311 2132.3 241.48 231.79 9.69 2008 1.03E-122
Moss Hill (a) Lenoir R 29T7 BC 35.1962 277.753 220.7 20.79 4.31 5.09 2001 1.18E-36
Savannah Lenoir P 26U7 BC 35.3367 277.512 252.4 235.92 219.32 16.60 2000 7.03E-85
School
Well Field 258 Onslow W 25F8 BC 34.8104 277.487 2132.0 260.59 248.89 11.70 2006 4.22E-68
a
BC 5 Black Creek, UCF 5 Upper Cape Fear.
significant (p < 0.0001) at the 0.05 significance level. The results also indicate that the tops of the aquifers
for the wells are below the 2012 water levels indicating that these aquifers are not being dewatered
(Table 1). For brevity, we only show two examples of wells with long records (Figure 4) showing the magni-
tude of the decline and rebound in water levels over a 10 year period. These plots suggest that the change
in slope in the water level record after 2008 is likely the consequence of the impacts of the CCPCUA rules
on groundwater management policy.
Assessments of potentiometric surface maps reveal the state of water levels in the Cretaceous aquifers
before and after commencement of the CCPCUA phased reductions in 2002 (Figure 5). The results indicate
that the cones of depression in the Cretaceous aquifers have reduced in size over the 2005–2011 time
period (Figure 5) indicating that the CCPCUA phased reductions have contibutted to rising water levels in
the aquifers and aquifer sustainability (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Historic water levels (2000–2011) from wells drilled intoCretaceous aquifers showing groundwater levels before and after enactment of the CCPCUA. Water levels started
rebounding in 2008 after the first round of phased reductions went into effect.
V 5672
Figure 5. Extent of the cone of depression in a Cretaceous aquifer (i.e., the Black Creek aquifer) in 2005 and 2011. Only the -18 m (-60 feet)
contour for each year is shown for ease of comparison. Data aquired from http://www.ncwater.org/Education_and_Technical_Assistance/
Ground_Water/AquiferCharacteristics/matrix.php (last accessed 15 December 2012).
The rebounding water levels are indicative of sustainable aquifers and are a result of reductions in ground-
water withdrawals from the Central Coastal Plain after the establishment of the CCPCUA (Figure 6). The
reductions in groundwater withdrawals are especially evident in counties with newly developed alternate
sources of water (e.g., Lenoir County). Withdrawal data for each aquifer show that withdrawals have
declined by >50% of the ABR for most of the aquifers in the CCPCUA and that the water managers and
stakeholders are well on their way to meeting the targeted 2018 withdrawal rates (Table 2).
4.3. Limitations
Although the stakeholder representatives were chosen to involve ‘‘all legitimate stake-holding interests’’
[Morse, 2010], certain major users of water in the Central Coastal Plain (e.g., a large water district) were not
invited to directly participate as a member of the stakeholder committee. Thus, as noted in correspondences
from nonparticipating entities, some of the major players neither experienced a growing understanding of
the problem nor did the players feel that the solutions that were proposed to solve the water management
problem were financially equitable. Once the rule was finally implemented, large water districts had to make
large financial investments to address any shortfalls to anticipated future reductions in water supply.
A major shortcoming of the development of the CCPCUA rule was that the stakeholder representatives
found the process and outcome fair, whereas some of the broader stakeholder groups found the outcome
as unfair (e.g., from agricultural sectors). In contrast to the stakeholder representatives, those dissatisfied
with the outcome did not have the comprehensive background to completely grasp the magnitude of the
problem or the scientific information driving the need for the regulation. In the stakeholder committee
meetings, the technical advisors effectively communicated the issues, problems, and consequences of cer-
tain actions to the stakeholder representatives. Yet the stakeholder representatives did not have the time or
the skill set to brief their constituents about the evolution of the process.
Other researchers [e.g., Maguire and Lind, 2003] found bias on the part of the facilitators and lack of confi-
dence in the post process final rule in a similar process employed to regulate water quality in an eastern
V 5673
Figure 6. Example of time series showing reductions in groundwater withdrawals after enactment of the CCPCUA (MG 5 million gallons 5 3785 m3).
North Carolina watershed. Because public involvement and education in the decision-making process is
vitally important [Margerum, 2011], a process that does not include such a mechanism ultimately leads to
various groups feeling alienated and dissatisfied. These lessons suggest that, although it is unrealistic to
believe that laypersons are capable of accurately conveying complex technical information, a mechanism
that allows for periodic information exchange to stakeholder constituents during the rule making process
should be an important consideration during early planning phases [Creighton, 2005]. A less compressed
V 5674
timeframe that allows for

Table 2. Groundwater Withdrawals From Cretaceous Aquifersa
broader stakeholder groups to
Approved Base Average 2011 2018 Permitted
Cretaceous Aquifer Rate (MLD) Withdrawals (MLD) Withdrawals (MLD) meet with technical advisors
Peedee 15.14 0.87 4.16
could alleviate the education gap
Black Creek 99.93 51.10 33.69 between those within and those
Upper Cape Fear 101.45 38.99 36.34 outside the rule making process.
Lower Cape Fear 0.19 0.04 0.19
Total 216.71 91.00 In response to objections raised
74.38
a
MLD 5 million liters per day. about requiring farmers to report
water withdrawals to the state
agency, the final regulation made concessions for agricultural activities although agriculture is an important
user of water in the Coastal Plain (Figure 2). The final rule created a new category of users of water (i.e.,
intermittent users) that would not have to apply for a permit to withdraw water, but only report water with-
drawals. Intermittent users of water are defined as those that (a) withdraw water for less than 60 days per
year or, (b) withdraw less than 5.7 x 104 m3 (15 million gallons) of water per year. In addition, the draft rule
allowed agricultural users to report withdrawals to a State or Federal agricultural agency, rather than the
state resource agency to which all other major users of water were required to report withdrawals. Separat-
ing the reporting requirements for agricultural users from the permit process implied a favored status and
created the feeling of an unfair burden being placed on all other stakeholder groups.
In addition to the limitations of the process discussed above, the study also suffered from several shortcom-
ings. Owing to the time lapse between enactment of the CCPCUA rule and the interview process, the num-
ber of people who could participate in the interviews was limited. The interviewees’ memory of the process
may have been obscured by the passage of time. In addition, the interviewees’ current perceptions toward
the process may have been shaped and altered by the impact of the rule on their sector over the 10 year
time period.
4.4. Recommendations
A procedural justice framework is achievable as a decision rule, if it includes fairness, involvement, and con-
sensus. Regardless of hydrogeologic or geopolitical considerations, successful implementation of procedural
justice invests both stakeholders and policymakers in adaptive resource management strategies based on
well-defined problems and goals, respectful input from various entities, nonoverlapping responsibilities,
and unbiased facilitation (Figure 7). This approach to resolving resource conflicts translates to acceptable
regulations and subsequent outcomes for resource protection [Lind, 1995; Rohl and Machura, 1997; Deutsch,
2000; Borsuk et al., 2001; Brockner and Wiesenfeld, 2005; Muller and Kals, 2007].
Using the lessons learned from this study, we therefore suggest that decision makers consider incorporating
the following recommendations into their adaptive groundwater management plans:
Figure 7. Conceptual model of resource management strategy involving procedural justice as deduced from the successful CCPCUA process. Note the use of arrows to illustrate the
advisory role played by resource advisors.
V 5675
1. Involve different groups in the rule making process with nonoverlapping responsibilities.
2. Involve stakeholders and unbiased facilitators very early in the process to avoid establishing unfavorable
perceptions and/or results.
3. Involve resource advisors in the process to describe technical details of the problem/s.
4. Allow sufficient time for feedback not only between representatives on the rule making committee, but
between committee members and the broader stakeholder groups.
5. Work toward policy that gives end-users the ability to predict, chart and develop future business
strategies.
6. Institute monitoring system of resource to periodically gauge progress toward goals.
5. Summary and Conclusions

Rapidly declining water levels, saltwater intrusion, and low well yields were reasons to construct a regulatory
tool to manage water in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Although few denied that there was a problem
in eastern North Carolina that demanded a solution, there was much disagreement for the best solution to
solve the problem. Initial proposals spearheaded by the state were viewed as unfunded mandates with lack
of public input, and burdensome regulations with poor enforcement powers. After several aborted attempts
to obtain community support, the environmental state agency realized the importance of following fair and
equitable procedures to resolve the impasse. Ultimately, this process created an effective groundwater man-
agement policy resulting in sustainable aquifers with stable and rebounding water levels and reduced
groundwater withdrawals. As growing populations put more demands on natural resources, the sustainabil-
ity and management of water resources will create greater conflict. The creation of the CCPCUA regulation
highlights a successful collaboration using a fair, just and inclusive process. In this case study, stakeholders
came to the table with distinctly different agendas but left with an acceptable compromise that achieved its
intended goal of protecting aquifers from degradation. As a result of the rule, multiple groundwater man-
agement strategies have been implemented leading to recovering water levels and declining groundwater
withdrawals from the Cretaceous aquifers. This suggests that under a successful procedural justice frame-
work, stakeholders from diverse and possibly competing sectors are still likely to develop effective policy
that is broadly acceptable even though the outcome may not be specifically tailored to each individual
stakeholder’s interests. Water managers and policy makers across the globe may therefore find that delegat-
ing groundwater policy development to stakeholders may be a useful strategy for addressing threats to
resources provided that procedural justice approaches are incorporated into the policy making process. Not
only is this strategy useful for solving resource conflicts, but because those affected by the solutions (regula-
tory or otherwise) have had their concerns expressed and addressed, compliance and enforcement is more
likely. In the end, the process leads to a more educated, informed and invested society.
Acknowledgments References
We are indebted to Nat Wilson
Anisfeld, C. A. (2010), Water Resources, pp. 77–112, Island Press, Washington, D. C.
(Groundwater Management Branch,
Blader, S. L., and T. R. Tyler (2005), How can theories of organizational justice affect explain the effects of fairness?, in Handbook of Organi-
NC Department of Environment and
zational Justice, edited by J. Greenberg and J. A. Colquitt, pp. 329–354, Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Mahwah, N. J.
Natural Resources) for granting access
Borsuk M., R. Clem, L. Maguire, and K. Reckhow (2001), Stakeholders values and scientific modeling in the Neuse River Watershed, Group
to data, documents, and participants
Decis. Negotiation, 10, 355–373.
in the CCPCUA process. We would also
Brockner, J., and B. Wiesenfeld (2005), How, when, and why does outcome favorability interact with procedural fairness?, in Handbook of
like to thank Steve Smutko for sharing
Organizational Justice, edited by J. Greenberg and J. A. Colquitt, pp. 527–552, Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., N. Y.
his facilitator notes and Richard Bierly
Carr, G., G. Bloschl, and D. P. Loucks (2012), Evaluating participation in water resource management: A review, Water Resour. Res., 48,
for his personal stakeholder
W11401, doi:10.1029/2011WR011662.
committee notes. We are thankful to
Colquitt, J. A., J. Greenberg, and C. P. Zapata-Phelan (2005), What is organizational justice? A historical overview, in Handbook of Organiza-
Nat Wilson for reviewing an earlier
tional Justice, edited by J. Greenberg and J. A. Colquitt, pp. 3–58, Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Mahwah, N. J.
version of this manuscript. Data used
Creighton, J. L. (2005), The Public Participation Handbook: Making Better Decisions Through Citizen Involvement, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
in this manuscript are available upon
Calif.
request from the corresponding
Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln (2013), The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues, Sage Publ., Thousand Oaks, Calif.
author. We would like to thank two
Deutsch, M. (2000), Justice and conflict, in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution, M. Deutsch and P. T. Coleman, pp. 41–65, Josset-Bass, San
anonymous reviewers and the
Francisco, Calif.
associate editor for suggestions that
Dictionary of Conflict Resolution (2002), Contingent agreement, contingent settlement, Wiley, Hoboken, N. J. [Available at http://www.cre-
improved the manuscript.
doreference.com/entry/wileyconfres/contingent_agreement_contingent_settlement, last accessed 23 Aug. 2013.]
V 5676
Emerson, K., T. Nabatchi, R. O’Leary, and J. Stephens (2003), Facilitators, coordinators, and outcomes, in The Promise and Performance of
Environmental Conflict Resolution, edited by R. O’Leary and L. Bingham, pp. 1–26, Resour. for the Future Press, Washington, D. C.
Foster, S., A. Tuinhof, K. Kemper, H. Garduno, and M. Nanni (2003), Groundwater Management Strategies: Facets of the Integrated Approach,
GW Mate Briefing Note Ser. 3, World Bank, Washington, D. C. [Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2003/01/
5161083/groundwater-management-strategies-facets-integrated-approach, last accessed 18 Dec. 2013.]
Furlong, G. (2005), The Conflict Resolution Toolbox: Models & Maps for Analyzing, Diagnosing and Resolving Conflict, pp. 19–79, John Wiley,
Mississauga, Ont., Canada.
Giese, G. L., J. L. Eimers, and R. W. Coble (1997), Simulation of ground-water flow in the coastal plain aquifer system of North Carolina. U. S.
Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 1404-M, 142 pp. [Available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp1404M.]
Gillespie, J. Z., and J. Greenberg (2005), Are the goals of organizational justice self-interested?, in Handbook of Organizational Justice, edited
by J. Greenberg and J. A. Colquitt, pp. 179–214, Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., N. Y.
Gleeson, T., J. VanderSteen, M. A. Sophocleous, M. Taniguchi, W. M. Alley, D. M. Allen, and Y. Zhou (2011), Groundwater sustainability strat-
egies, Nat. Geosci., 3, 378–379.
Heath, R. C., and R. K. Spruill (2003), Cretaceous aquifers in North Carolina: Analysis of safe yield based on historical data, Hydrogeol. J., 11,
249–258.
Hodges, B. D., A. Kuper, and S. Reeves (2008), Discourse analysis, BMJ, 337, 570.
Jones, J. A. A. (2011), Groundwater in peril, in Sustaining Groundwater Resources: A Critical Element in the Global Water Crisis, edited by J. A.
A. Jones, pp. 1–20, Springer, N. Y.
Kray, L. J., L. Thompson, and E. A. Lind (2005), It’s a bet! A problem-solving approach promotes the construction of contingent agreements,
Personality Soc. Psychol. B, 31, 1039–1051.
Lautier, J. C. (2006), Hydrogeologic Framework and Groundwater Conditions in the North Carolina Southern Coastal Plain, Div. of Water
Resour., N. C. Dep. of Environ. and Nat. Resour., Raleigh, N. C. [Available at http://www.ncwater.org/reports_and_publications/GWMS_
Reports/SCP_Framework/1SCPFramebody.pdf, last accessed 22 Sep. 2013.]
Leach, W. D., and P. A. Sabatier (2003), Facilitators, coordinators, and outcomes, in The Promise and Performance of Environmental Conflict
Resolution, edited by R. O’Leary and L. Bingham, pp. 148–171, Resour. for the Future Press, Washington, D. C.
Leung, K., K. Tong, and E. A. Lind (2007), Realpolitik versus fair process: Moderating effects of group identification on acceptance of political
decisions, J. Personality Soc. Psychol., 92, 476–489.
Leventhal, G. S. (1976), Fairness in social relationships, in Contemporary Topics in Social Psychology, edited by J. W. Thibaut, J. T. Spence,
and R. C. Carson, pp. 211–239, Gen. Learning Press, Morristown, N. J.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980), What should be done with equity theory?, in Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, edited by K. J.
Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, and R. H. Willis, pp. 27–55, Plenum, N. Y.
Lind, A. E., R. Kanfer, and P. C. Earley (2005), Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness
judgments, in Procedural Justice, vol. II, T. Tyler, pp. 193–200, Ashgate, Burlington, Vermont.
Lind, E. A. (1995), Social Conflict and Social Justice: Some Lessons From the Social Psychology of Justice, Leiden Univ. Press, Leiden,
Netherlands.
Lind, E. A., and T. R. Tyler (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum, N. Y.
Maguire, L. A. (2003), Interplay of science and stakeholder values in Neuse River total Maximum daily load process, J. Water Resour. Plann.
Manage., 261–270.
Maguire, L. A. (2006), Integrating science in participatory decisions for water quality: Case studies from North Carolina, USA, Proceedings of
the Participatory Approaches in Science and Technology Conference, The Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Maguire, L. A., and E. A. Lind (2003), Public participation in environmental decisions: Stakeholders, authorities and procedural justice, Int.
J. Global Environ., 3, 133–148.
Margerum, R. D. (2011), Beyond Consensus: Producing Results From Collaborative Environmental Planning and Management, MIT Press, Cam-
bridge, U. K.
Mooney, H. A., A. Duraiappah, and A. Larigauderie (2013), Evolution of natural and social science interactions in global change research
programs, PNAS, 110(1), 3665–3672.
Moore, C. W. (1986), The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict, Jossey-Bass Publ., San Francisco, Calif.
Morse, R. S. (2010), Integrative public leadership: Catalyzing collaboration to create public values, Leadership Q., 21, 231–245.
Muller, M. M., and E. Kals (2007), Interactions between procedural fairness and outcome favorability in conflict situations, in Distributive and
Procedural Justice, edited by K. Y. Tornblom and R. Vermunt, pp. 125–140, Ashgate, Aldershot, U. K.
Nelson, R. L. (2012), Assessing local planning to control groundwater depletion: California as a microcosm of global issues, Water Resour.
Res., 48, W01502, doi:10.1029/2011WR010927.
Ostrom, E., J. Burger, C. B. Field, R. B. Norgaard, and D. Policansky (1999), Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges, Science,
284, 278–282.
Phillips, L., and M. W. Jïrgensen (2002), Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method, pp. 1–95, Sage Publ.
Poirier Elliott, M. L. (1999), The role of facilitators, mediators, and other consensus building practitioners, in The Consensus Building Hand-
book, edited by L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, and J. Thomas-Larmer, pp. 199–241, Sage Publ., Thousand Oaks, Calif.
Rawls, J. (1999), A Theory of Justice, Belknap Press, Cambridge, U. K.
Rohl, K. F. (1997), Procedural justice: Introduction and overview, in Procedural Justice, edited by K. F. Rohl and S. Machura, pp. 1–37, Ash-
gate, Brookfield, U. K.
Rohl, K. F., and S. Machura (1997), Preface: Procedural justice, in Procedural Justice, edited by K. F. Rohl and S. Machura, pp. ix–xiv, Ashgate,
Brookfield, U. K.
Schiffler, M. (1998), The Economics of Groundwater Management in Arid countries: Theory, International Experience and a Case Study of Jor-
dan, Deutsches Inst. fuer Entwicklungspolitik, London.
Shaman, J., S. Solomon, R. R. Colwell, and C. B. Field (2013), Fostering advances in interdisciplinary climate science, PNAS, 110 (1), 3653–
3656.
Straus, D. A. (1999), The consensus building handbook, in Designing a Consensus Building Process Using a Graphic Road Map, edited by L.
Susskind, S. McKearnan, and J. Thomas-Larmer, pp. 137–168, Sage Publ., Thousand Oaks, Calif.
Syme, G. J., and B. E. Nancarrow (1997), The determinants of perceptions of fairness in the allocation of water to multiple uses, Water
Resour. Res., 33(9), 2143–2152.
Thibaut, J., and L. Walker (1975), Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Hillsdale, Mich.
V 5677

Water Resources Research - 2014 - Manda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Water Resources Research - 2014 - Manda

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Water Resources Research - 2014 - Manda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PUBLICATIONS

1.1. Socio-Political Setting

1.2. Hydrogeological Setting

1.3. Procedural Justice

1.4. Research Goals and Objectives

2.1. Interview Process

2.2. Archival Data

2.3. Groundwater Levels

2.4. Groundwater Withdrawals

the group only as large as they deemed

3.2. Protocol and CCPCUA Final Rule

4. Results and Discussion

4.1.3. Policy Development

4.1.4. Perceptions of Fairness

4.2. Impact of Process and Rules

4.2.2. Groundwater Management Policy

4.2.3. Sustainability of Groundwater Resources

Table 1. Median Annual Water Levels for Select Wells in Aquifersa

timeframe that allows for

5. Summary and Conclusions

You might also like