Regional Water Quality Management and Commons: A Case

Study of Yahagi River∗

Takayuki Ota†
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University

Abstract
Today, water problem is one of the common problems around the world. We have to
deal with the challenges about who should manage and how to manage water. There are
many studies and discussion about water management, especially governments’
management and local residents’ management such as commons. This paper takes up a
case of water quality management systems by residents in Yahagi River, Japan. In this
water basin, serious problems of water pollution appeared and the residents
campaigned against governments to protect water. Moreover, they organized
themselves for protecting water; applied effective water quality standard; and
monitored companies in this basin uniquely. This case is neither only about
governments’ nor about residents’ management. It is about partnership between two.
This paper focuses on their management and organizational process. Through
fieldworks, it describes their rules about these activities and comes up with some
suggestions and potential implications for water management and commons for future.

Key words: water quality management, commons

JEL codes Q53, Q25, D74

∗
I would like to thank to YWPA staffs and members of YWPA for valuable information
about YWPA. I am grateful to Prof.Kenji Oya for sharing his important studies and
viewpoints about Yahagi River.
†Address: Yoshida Hon-machi Sakyo-ku, Kyoto-city, Kyoto 606-8501,Japan

Phone: +81-75-753-5050
E-mail: t-ota@e30a0348.mbox.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp

1
 1. Introduction
Water is a necessary environment for human existence and a requisite resource for
running everyday life and businesses, like manufacturing. Today management of water
is one of the common problems around the world. We have to deal with the challenges
who should manage and how to manage water (Saleth and Dinar, 2004; Giupponi et
al.2006). There are many studies and discussion about water management. We focus
particularly on two types of studies and discussion from a viewpoint of management
actors.
Firstly, the government manages water. In economics, this has discussed with
relations to the problem of externalities or public goods. Pigou (1920) argued that the
government should manage environmental problems as external diseconomies through
environmental taxes. Musgrave (1959) and Buchanan (1970) regarded the
environmental management by regulations as public goods, and they discussed how to
supply through politics. After these arguments, Young and Haveman (1985) points that
governments need to manage water through regulations or public investments because
it is difficult to allocate and manage water in markets due to water’s unique features.
Mehta (2003) insists that accessing to water is a human right and agrees that a
government has a role of institutionalizing human right to water and it’s
management.
Secondly, users, especially local residents, manage water in local communities.
Histories of water management in local communities can be found all over the world.
Kneese and Bower (1968) focused on water user associations in Western Europe or the
United States and verified managements of these associations efficiently. Although they
did not theorize these associations from a viewpoint of economics, commons studies do.
In these studies, resources are regarded as common-pool resources (CPRs) with
non-excludability and competitiveness1. Besides, commons researchers have focused on
many cases of commons management around the world, and explained people in
communities can manage CPRs without governemts’ help and prevent the tragedy of
the commons theoretically and positively2.
As above, there are two types of discussions for water management and each
discussion focused either on only the government or on users, especially local residents.
Although in the communities both the government and users have managed water in

1 Ostrom(1990) discussed that assimilative capacity of water is with competitiveness、

too.
2 See Baland and Platteau(2003) for survey of commons studies recently. Starret(2003)

discusses the potential for the management for environmental resources by collective
property rights.

2
practice and each has a role for water management, we do not have enough studies on
how they share roles with each other. Therefore, we need to discuss the water
governance. Recently governance has been a main issue in public goods provision and
commons studies in public finance3. In addition, we need to discuss water management
with sustainability today (Giupponi et al.2006).
Japan is an interesting case of water governance problem, public goods provision and
commons management. In Yahagi River, serious water pollution happened and had
harmful effects on local residents, especially farmers and fishermen. They have made
an association aimed at water quality management and pressurized national and local
governments and polluter firms for maintaining effective water quality governance.
This paper studies and discusses this case from the perspectives of public finance and
commons. From this case study, we come up with some implications for water
management.
This paper proceeds as follows. In section 2, the institutions and histories of water
and river management in Japan is reviewed. In section 3, the case study of Yahagi River
is presented. In this section, we focus on water pollution in Yahagi River and the
association of victims for water quality preservation. In section 4, we pick up some
activities of the association for water quality preservation and verify their effects. In
addition, this section discusses significances and reasons of those activities. In last
section, some implications for governance problems of water management and commons
management are discussed.

2. Institutions and Histories of water and river management in Japan

In this section, we review the institutions and histories of water and river
management in Japan. In Japan, the central government plays a prominent role in both
water and river management.
The central government has constructed centralized administrative systems of water
and river managements from Meiji period. It was the River Law enacted in 1896 behind
such management systems. This law had an object of flood control and concentrate
authorities and financial resources on the government to achieve this object (Watanabe,
1960). At the time, the government had not so large authorities for water use

3 Kaul and Mendoza (2003) present “Triangle of Publicness” and point that we have to
think not only publicness in consumption but also publicness in decisionmaking and in
the distribution of benefits, when looking at many actors in a society where goods are in
public provision. From commons studies, Dolšak and Ostrom(2003) offer an issue that
we need to focus on relations between inside and outside communities, for example,
relations between inside rules in communities and laws enacted by governments.

3
coordination. However, the new River Law enacted in 1964 authorized the government
to coordinate water use, as a response to an increasing demand for water and dam
construction due to growth in Japanese economy after World War Ⅱ (Senga and
Kawamata,1977). Indeed, the Japanese government took a major role of almost all parts
of river management through this new River Law.
In 1997, this new River Law revised and included objects of river environment
conservation and local residents’ participation to river management. In spite of this
revision, residents’ participation to river management has not carried out effectively,
and there were discussions that this is one of the main problems in water and river
management in Japan (Okada, 2007; Masano, 2007).
Next, we focus on water quality. Water Pollution Control Law was enforced in 1971
because of serious water pollutions all over Japan since 1960s. In this law, local
governments have authorities over pollution controls and through direct regulatory
instruments4. and agreements on pollution control. In Japan, there were many local
residents' movements against environmental pollution issues especially on water
pollution. These movements led to setting tough standards in environmental policies
(McKean, 1981; Tsuru and Weidner, 1989). However, these movements have lost steam
gradually with the changing political and economic conditions. In addition, they have
not put into practice public participations to environmental policies. Therefore, it is
imperative that the government has to play major role in water quality management.

3. Water Pollution in Yahagi River and the Association against this Pollution
3.1 Water Pollution in Yahagi River
In Yahagi River basin, industrialization and urbanization had the peak around 1955
and water pollution had become severe in connection with these trends. The causes of
pollution were of some mixed dimensions. One of the main causes of pollution was
industrial activities. At the time, pit-gravel extractions were prosperous in the
upstream and mainly machine industry pulled the local economy along the midstream
and downstream 5 . In addition, local governments did not invest in sewerage
management adequately, so wastewater from households was another cause of pollution.
Besides, there were many large-scale development projects like golf links in the 1980s.
All of these triggered more pollution (Meiji Irrigation and Land Improvement District,

4 Another instrument used by local governments is agreements on pollution control.

These agreements have been evaluated as one of effective environmental policies and
paid attentions all around the world (for example Weidner, 1995).
5 There are cities, for example Toyota and Okazaki, famous for automobile, in

midstream of Yahagi River.

4
1968, Hara, 1975, YWPA, 1999). Water Pollution Control Law was enacted in 1970, and
administrative systems for pollution control was started to implement in local
governments, where they attached more importance to promote local economies with
industrialization6.
They were local residents, especially farmers and fishermen, who suffered from this
pollution. Damages reached about ¥640 million in 1970 and fishermen suffered about 1
billion in 1984 because of pollution (YWPA, 1999).Other residents in this basin were
affected too. Water pollution often posed risks to tap water. Moreover, sometimes
pollution triggered water scarcity in the basin7. This water pollution affected local
residents in the entire basin.

3.2 Organizing the Association of Yahagi River and features of this association
Farmers and fishermen who suffered from water pollution had organized themselves
into an association involving local governments and developed activities for water
pollution prevention. We explain these as follows.
Farmers and fishermen realized water pollution as major problem. They asked local
governments to implement antipollution policies in around 1962, but they could not
gain results. Therefore, they decided to organize themselves and make a large
association to cope with pollutions effectively. They called and persuaded other agrarian
and fishery organizations who suffered from water pollution to be involved. In addition,
they also required local municipalities, especially their waterworks department using
water in Yahagi River as tap water, to be also involved. As a result, in 1969 they
succeeded in organizing the Yahagi River Basin Water Quality Preservation Association
(YWPA). They included 6 agrarian organizations, 7 fishery organizations and 7 local
municipalities (Sugiyama, 1975, Yahagi River Coterie, 1979). After that, more fishery
organizations, local municipalities and Aichi Prefecture were involved with the YWPA.
This association grew which included 26 all local governments in this basin, 4 agrarian
organizations and 20 fishery organizations in 1987. At this time, the YWPA covered
entire area in this basin. Today, this association includes 18 all local governments in
this basin, 4 agrarian organizations and 18 fishery organizations in 2006 8 .These

6 Abe (1968) explains that local government’s effort to stimulating local economies
through inviting factories and firms outside at the time.
7 According to Oya and Aoyama (1994), Yahagi River is one of highly exploited rivers in

Japan and water pollution led to water scarcity in this basin. One land improvement
district with large water rights shifted water sources of irrigation from one point to
another point in a branch of Yahagi River, and this shift led water scarcity in newly
point area.
8 Recently in this basin consolidation of municipalities and merger of fishery

5
member organizations of the YWPA pay costs of membership, and the YWPA has a
budget. Figure 1 shows the process of expanding the YWPA and its budget.

Yen number
30000000 60

25000000 50

20000000 40

15000000 30

10000000 20

5000000 10

0 0
1969 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1995 2001 2006
year

budget amount number of menber groups

Figure 1: Number of YWPA and shift of the YWPA’s budgets

Data from Meiji Irrigation System Editorial Committee (1979) and Meiji Irrigation and
Land Improvement District (1997) and materials of the YWPA

The YWPA has an original bureau. Staffs costs of this bureau are paid from YWPA’s
budgets. In addition, general meetings are held for consensus building once a year and
they decide plans of activities and expenses for a year.
The YWPA is a voluntary association based on consensus of member organizations and
does not have laws behind it. According to the codes of this association, the objectives
are conducting researches, taking measures and making movements for water quality
preservation. Besides, they campaign and make representations to national and local
governments to set water quality standards and get in touch with them for water
quality. These codes and their activities aim at maintaining good-quality water
resources for agriculture and fishery (Naito, 1988).
As observed above, it was a movement by farmers and fishermen that set up the YWPA
and this was organized to carry out movements and activities for water quality.

organizations has happened, so number of organizations in YWPA decreases from 1987.

But YWPA keeps watershed size today.

6
Moreover, local governments have involved with YWPA as water users. Therefore,
YWPA is a kind of water user association (WUA).

4. Activities for water quality preservation of YWPA

4.1 Approaches to governments
Next, we focus on the YWPA activities. YWPA has mainly engaged in (1) approaches to
governments, (2) monitoring, and (3) “the Yahagi River Method”. We explain as follow.
First, the YWPA has approached to the central governments, Aichi Prefecture, and
local municipalities in this basin and campaigned for developing severe water quality
standards in this basin. Moreover, it required the central government to formulate a
punitive clause against violation of the standard.
The YWPA petitioned the central government actively, especially between 1969 and
19719.For example, representatives of the YWPA petitioned 6 times in 1970, and 14
times in 1971. They required setting water quality standards in Yahagi River basin.
However, they approached to the central government only at that time and focused on
local governments after that10.
The YWPA strongly approached to the assembly and administrations of Aichi
Prefecture; demonstrated; and protested. Besides, they have often taken up water
pollution in Yahagi River on the prefectural assembly and required measurements for
water pollution prevention through prefectural legislators supported by member
organizations of YWPA11.
The YWPA protested against local governments on one hand, and it asked them to
participate in the YWPA on the other. It is interesting that farmers and fishermen
understood these governments provided tap water in the area since they were also
water user, expecting authorities of these governments. Local governments, farmer and
fishermen shared mutual interests. In fact, waterworks departments of local
governments responded to their call because of pollution’s impact on tap water. In
addition, local governments started antipollution policies seriously around 1969 in this
basin (Meiji Irrigation System Editorial Committee, 1979). At the beginning,

9 They mainly approached to Economic Planning Agency, Ministry of Agriculture and

Forestry, and Ministry of International Trade and Industry at that time.
10 We guess one of the reason why they changed a target from the central government

to local governments was Water pollution Control Law forced in 1971, which authorized
local government to pollution control in the area. As another reason, we think that
officials of the central government responded their movements distantly at that time
(Naito, 1999).
11 We confer Yahagi River Coterie (1979) and documents of Aichi Prefectural Assembly

in 1960s and 1970s.

7
waterworks departments involved with YWPA, but gradually pollution policy divisions
of local governments involved and finally local government as a total administration
participated YWPA.

4.2 Area-wide Monitoring

The YWPA has put a lot of effort into this activity. This monitoring is composed of
patrols and observations of entire basin by all members.
Firstly, we focus on patrols. Farmer and fishermen started patrols respectively around
1962(Yahagi River Coterie, 1979).They started full-scale patrols in entire basin after
organizing the YWPA. They submitted evidences on pollution when they petitioned the
central government and Aichi Prefecture and they collected evidences through patrols.
So patrols complemented to their movements. However, Water pollution Control Law
with punitive clauses came into force in 1971 and they went on patrols to make an
accusation against violators instead of complementation for petition12.
It was the staff in the bureau of the YWPA that has gone on patrols mainly. Figure 2
shows locations of businesses who developed haphazardly through patrols in 1975. They
went on patrols in great detail in Yahagi River and continued to oversee each business
actions. Through these patrols they had evidences on pollution and violation and they
made accusations at least 8 times between 1972 and 1983(YWPA, 1999).Such
accusations based on patrols changed business behaviors who polluted water in this
basin. Polluting businesses started to take measures to stop pollution gradually (Yahagi
River Fishery Cooperative Editorial Committee, 2003).

12In Water Pollution Control Law, there are punitive clauses and violations of water
quality standard provide as crimes. Miyamoto and Tateishi (1983) explain more details.

8
 Figure 2: Location of overdevelopment in Yahagi River basin in 1975.
From materials of the YWPA
○: sand mining place,●: hazardous development place,◎: place where left discarded
waste and so on,△: developed land such as housing,▲: place where left developed land
Ⓟ: developed land(golf links)

Staffs in the bureau report actual conditions such as information that comply with
water quality standards and development of business in the entire basin at general
meeting of the YWPA. Staffs report more detail about potential polluting case. Through
these reports, members can find out almost all developments and business activities in
this basin and know whether business preserve standards or not. Besides, after
reporting, members can observe potential polluting case in their own right, and require
taking strong measures for such potential business through a local government in the
area13.
From patrols by the bureau and report at general meeting, the YWPA can monitor

13Based on discussion with YWPA bureau in April, 2002 and with members in October,
2002.

9
entire Yahagi River basin. It is astonishing that YWPA has achieved this monitoring for
about 40 years.

4.3 “The Yahagi River Method”

In Aichi Prefecture, there are rules that businesses have to consult and undergo
reviews with the prefecture before they start to develop or carry on economic activities
in river basin. In Yahagi River, the YWPA is able to involve the process of this prior
consultation and review between the prefecture and businesses, and consult with
businesses from its own point of view. This procedure of involvement with YWPA in
prior consultations and review by the prefecture calls “the Yahagi River Method”. This
has been realized a de facto rule in this basin.
The Yahagi River Method has two types of consultations. One is consultation of
large-scale developments (more than one hectare). Another is of small-scale
development and economic activities draining away into Yahagi River. Figure 3 shows
consultation and review process of first type.

Figure 3: “The Yahagi River Method” of large-scale developments

From Mainichi Newspaper Company (1980) and hearing of YWPA bureau on April,
2002

“The Yahagi River Method” of large-scale developments proceeds as follows. When a

business decides to develop in this basin, it applies to the prefecture directly or via local

10
municipality. The prefecture receives its application and forward to YWPA this
application through municipalities there. The prefecture also tells a business to consult
with YWPA(①→②→③).When a business consults with YWPA, YWPA holds the council
involved with representatives from local residents, police, neighbor local municipalities,
and agrarian and fishery organizations( ④ ). A business participates this council
too(④).In the council, participants check up a business plan, which include water
discharge to Yahagi River and enforce environmental assessments to a business. If this
plan and results from environmental assessments are accepted, participants will review
next measures and techniques to prevent water pollution. If they see these measures
and techniques as proper, the council finishes. In the council if a business does not
present appropriate plan, results from environmental assessment, measures for
preventing water pollution, YWPA and participants will conduct assessment repeatedly
to a business and will continue to consult.
After the council finishes, a business consult with the YWPA additionally and receive
the approve(⑤). Next, it takes reviews from the prefecture with authorities(⑥). The
prefecture examines his plan and judges these processes totally, and determine whether
giving permission or not officially(⑦).
Next, we explain second type of the Yahagi River Method. In this basin, small-scale
developments (below one hectare) and economic activities with water drainage (from ten
ton to twenty ton per day) are also a target of this Method. This type is almost same
with an above type, but there are some differences. In this type, a business consults
with the YWPA mainly and the council as above does not hold. Therefore, local residents
and police do not involve with consultation, reviews, and only agrarian and fishery
organizations involve with these.
Businesses bear costs of measures for water pollution and environmental assessment
in Yahagi River Method14. The YWPA target not only developments by businesses but
also public developments by central and local governments.
There is no legal foundation of the Yahagi River Method and this is a limit of these
Methods15. In spite of this limit, the Method functions well in this basin. The reason is
that the Methods are very convenient for the YWPA members. For example, sometimes
business plans are problematic from viewpoint of local circumstances but pose no
problems from viewpoint of laws. In these cases, local municipalities as governments
have to admit. Nevertheless, they are able to require businesses to modify plans as

14 From Yahagi River Association on Environmental Technology (1994), total costs born
by businesses are within 2-7% of total project costs and this is not so high amounts.
15 Especially local municipalities realize this limit in hearings on October 2002.

11
members of YWPA through the Methods16. Figure 4 shows total number of consultations
and total area of business developments and activities reviewed in the Methods in the
past. We understand many business developments and activities are checked up in the
Methods.

30000 1000㎡ 400

numbers

350
25000

300

20000
250

15000 200

150
10000

100

5000
50

0 0
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

total area numbers of consultations

Figure 4: Total numbers and area of prior consultations through the Methods
Data from Yahagi River Basin Development Exchange Organization (1998)

4.4 Effects of YWPA activities for water quality preservation

What kind of effect have the YWPA activities brought about until now? Firstly, we
focus on water quality in Yahagi River. Figure 5 and 6 show changes of BOD and SS in
Yahagi River respectively. We understand that BOD has shifted within 0 point 5 to 2
point 5 milligram per liter and has not been worse. SS recorded worse in 1970s but
gradually has improved, now shifting within low level. These improvements make not
only restoration of water resource but also recovery of Yahagi River environment17.
It would appear that various factors cause these water quality shifts except for the
YWPA activities, for example, changes in industrial structures in this basin, measures
for pollution prevention by firms, and so on. But as we explained, the YWPA has
prevented water pollution through movements, monitoring, the Yahagi River Methods.

16 See Mainichi Newspaper Company (1980).

17 At the time when water quality was very bad, children could not play in and around
this river. However, as gradually water quality has restored, children have been able to
play (YWPA, 1999).

12
Especially the YWPA has checked up many business developments and economic
activities showed in figure 4. The YWPA has contributed improvement of water quality
in Yahagi River.
There is another effect of the YWPA activities. This association is compounded from
several organizations, so they can communicate each other and make networks for
water quality preservation and share information about water quality, proceeding
development and economic activities, and so on18.

3.5 mg/l

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20

upstream midstream downstream

Figure 5: BOD Shift for Years

Data from Annual Reports of Water Quality Survey by Environment Department of
Aichi Prefecture

18 According to hearings for members of YWPA on October 2002.

13
 mg/l
80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
65
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
upstream midstream downstream

Figure 6: SS Shift for Years

Data from Annual Reports of Water Quality Survey by Environment Department of
Aichi Prefecture

4.5 Significances of the YWPA activities and Reasons why it can make them
We explain organizational process, features, and main activities of YWPA. Finally, we
discuss significance of the YWPA activities and reasons why it can make these
activities.
There are mainly three significances of the YWPA activities. Firstly, YWPA achieves
water quality management based on local residents’ participation through the Yahagi
River Method. As we noted in section 2, the central government mainly manage water
and river and with residents participations and management. On the other hand,
mainly farmers and fishermen involve to prior consultations and reviews between local
governments and businesses, and manage water quality through the Yahagi River
Method. At least in Japan, this Yahagi River case is valuable to examine how to achieve
local residents’ participation and management by themselves from various angles.
Secondly, the Yahagi River Method also works as a regulation of land-use in this basin.
The YWPA consults businesses with the object of water pollution prevention from
economic activities in this basin. If the YWPA regards business plans and results from
environmental assessment as inadequate, it requires businesses to rethink plans and
measures preventing pollution, and to carry out environmental assessment again. If

14
businesses are not able to gain approval of the YWPA, they cannot work out their
activities because these processes are prior consultation. Therefore, the Yahagi River
Methods regulate land-use in addition to manage water quality.
Thirdly, YWPA contributes in preventing water scarcity through water quality
preservation. We noted water pollution led to water scarcity in this basin on section 3.1.
People and firms exploit water in Yahagi River highly, so there is a strong link between
water pollution and water scarcity. YWPA activities for water quality preservation
contribute to save water volume indirectly.
We have explained the YWPA activities. Then, why YWPA can make these activities?
The main reason is that YWPA succeeded in organizing itself, covering entire area in
this basin and keeping this scale until today. More specifically, YWPA succeeded in
overcoming conflicts of interests between members and making incentives for
involvement to members.
Once again, we focus on organizational process of YWPA. In the beginning, farmers
and fishermen decided to organize an association, and they call and persuade local
municipalities to involve in their association. At this time, they are victims due to water
pollution, so they share mutual interests in the point of requiring clean water resource.
Next, waterworks departments of local municipalities were involved with YWPA. These
departments also needed clean water resource, so they share mutual interests with
farmers and fishermen. At this time central and local governments started to
implement pollution prevention system in their administrations, and municipalities
proceeded to set the department for pollution prevention in this basin. Therefore, YWPA
activities were convenient and acted as incentive for municipalities to manage water
resources.
But we need to pay attention to involvement of municipalities in upstream, because
these municipalities are also water polluters for water users in the mid- and
downstream. In this area, there have been problems of declining population and local
economic decline for quite a while. Around 1970s, these upstream municipalities sought
to focus on industries like pit-gravel extraction to ease their problems. Therefore,
upstream municipalities are water polluters.
Why were these upstream municipalities involved to the YWPA? The reason is the
incentives contained in the call for involvement by farmers and fishermen. They called
upstream municipalities with suggestion that municipalities and other actors in
prosperous midstream and downstream could deal with upstream problems. That is to
say, farmers and fishermen understood the potential to generate networks if upstream
municipalities were involve to the YWPA management, and connected water quality

15
preservation with upstream problems. This call was attractive to upstream
municipalities and acted as incentives to make them involved. In this way, farmers and
fishermen succeeded in involving the upstream municipalities in the YWPA19.
Why can the YWPA manage water quality? Because the YWPA succeeded in organizing
itself a watershed scale and keeping this scale. Why can the YWPA organize itself
watershed scale and keep it up? Because it has been able to succeed in coordinating
among the interests of members and to present incentives for involvement.

5. Discussion
The YWPA is the water user association that works out for water quality
management with local residents’ participation through entire basin monitoring and the
Yahagi River Method. Compared to Kneese and Bower (1968) and commons studies, we
are not able to pass over some unique features of the YWPA, and we can find hints to
deal with the water governance problem and challenges of commons studies.
Firstly, local municipalities involved in the YWPA. This is one of the reasons for the
YWPA forty-year activities. We review the role of local municipalities in the YWPA
activities for water quality management. They bear membership fees and support the
YWPA’s budget for watershed monitoring by staffs and so on. Moreover, they inform
staffs applications of business activities and have consultation between the YWPA and
businesses. In this process, sometimes local municipalities participate into this
consultation as a member of the YWPA. Finally, local municipalities decide whether
they admit a business application or not with authorities. As above, local municipalities
support the YWPA’s budget and leave water quality management to farmers and
fishermen, involving themselves with management on farmers and fishermen’s
standpoint. These activities are one of the factors for sustainable water quality
management in Yahagi River. Usually local municipalities are local instrument of the
central government, but they are not so always in Yahagi River basin. These suggest
how to share roles for water management between the government and stakeholders in
Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), one of hot issues about water
management. As we note in section 2, we have the problem of participation to water and
river management by governments although codes for participation are included in
newly enacted River Act in Japan, so Yahagi River case is very interesting and valuable
for us.
Secondly, we focus farmers and fishermen movements. The YWPA is a kind of a
voluntary association for water quality management such as organizations for commons

19 This incentive is selective incentive as discussed in Olson (1971).

16
management. However, YWPA has two different points. One is that farmers and
fishermen organize through movements. Another is they could involve with local
municipalities.
These points present some interesting suggestions for commons studies. Past
commons studies have only focused on the inside of communities and eliminated
governments and markets as outside. However, farmers and fishermen in Yahagi River
have been able to change local governments’ stances with emphasizing only economic
development and gain outputs of achieving participation to consultation between
governments and businesses and management reflecting their viewpoints. This fact
means that local governments have been the inside actor, standing on the same footing
with farmers and fishermen. In commons studies, Dolšak and Ostrom (2003) points
significance of looking at outside community and dealing with these trends and
relations between inside and outside of communities . From this Yahagi River case, two
hints for commons studies arise .One is that local residents in community do not only
use and manage resources but also approach and pressure governments directly
through movements. Another is that local residents form new relationships with
governments or other actors outside a community through movements. Therefore, we
need to associate these local residents’ activities toward outside communities with
management of resources within communities and to construct a comprehensive theory
for commons management.
We note another interesting point that farmers and fishermen could lead to
coordinate among the interests of the members and succeed in organization through
incentives. Commons researchers have discussed organizations and managements to be
able to use resources sustainably in communities, focusing on incentives. We
understand that incentives for actors outside communities are important to organize
with them. The problem is that how peoples coordinate their interests using various
incentives.
As discussed above, the case of Yahagi River is very interesting. However, this case is
limited from viewpoint of water management. YWPA only manage water quality and it
does not manage water quantity directly. We need more case studies for achieving the
management for sustainable water use through both quality and quantity management.

References
Abe,Masao(1968),” Current Situation of Measures for Attraction of Enterprises in Local
Municipalities”, Industrial Location,7(4),pp4-23 (in Japanese)
Baland, Jean-Maire and Platteau, Jean-Philippe (2003),”Economics of Common

17
 Property Management Regimes”,Mäler,Karl-Göran and Vincent, Jeffery R.eds,
Handbook of Environmental Economics Vol.1, North-Holland,pp.127-190.
Buchanan, James M. (1970), The public finances 3rd ed, Homewood, Ill.: R.D. Irwin
Dolšak, N and Ostrom, Elinor (2003),The Commons in the New Millennium, The MIT
Press
Giupponi, Carlo, Jakeman, Anthony J., Karassenberg, Derek and Hare, Matt P., (2006),
Sustainable Management of Water Resources, Cheltenham, England; Northampton,
M.A.: Edward Elgar
Hara, Akihiro (1975),”Water Pollution in Yahagi River”, Geographical review of Japan,
48(4), pp.136-142 (in Japanese)
Hare, Matt P., Barreteau,Olivier,Beck,M.Bruce,Letcher,Rebecca A.,Mostert,Erik,
Tabara,J. David,Ridder,Dagmar,Cogen,Valetie andPahl-Wostl,Claudia(2006),”Methods
for Stakeholder Participation in Water Management”, in Giupponi,Carlo et
al.eds,Sustainable Management of Water Resources, Cheltenham, England ;
Northampton, M.A. : Edward Elgar,pp.177-225
Kaul, Inge and Mendoza, Ronald U. (2003),”Advancing Aspects of Public Goods”, in
Kaul, Inge et al.eds. Providing Global Public Goods, New York, N.Y.: Oxford University
Press pp.78-111
Kneese, Allen T. and Bower, Blair T. (1968), Managing water quality: economics,
technology, institutions, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press
Mainichi Newspaper Company (1980), Meiji Yosui, Nagoya: Mainichi Newspaper
Company (in Japanese)
Masano, Atsuko (2007),”Local Residents’ Participation as a base for River
Administration”, The Municipal Problems, 98(6), pp.62-70 (in Japanese)
McKean, Margaret A. (1981), Environmental Protest and Citizen Politics in Japan,
Berkeley: University of California Press
Mehta, Lyla (2003),”Problems of Publicness and Access Rights: Perspectives from the
Water Domain”, in Kaul, Inge et al.eds. Providing Global Public Goods, New York,
N.Y. : Oxford University Press ,pp.556-575
Meiji Irrigation and Land Improvement District (1968), Over Water Pollution in Meiji
Irrigation Systems, Anjo: Meiji Irrigation and Land Improvement District (in
Japanese)
Meiji Irrigation System Editorial Committee (1979), History of 100 years of the Meiji
Irrigation System, Anjo: Meiji Irrigation and Land Improvement District (in Japanese)
Meiji Irrigation and Land Improvement District (1997), Basic Concept for Vitalization
of Meiji Irrigation and Land Improvement District, Anjo: Meiji Irrigation and Land

18
 Improvement District (in Japanese)
Miyamoto, Tadashi and Tateishi, Masahiko (1983), Contemporary Environmental
Pollution and Law Control, Tokyo: Kobundo Publishing Company (in Japanese)
Mostert,Erik (2006),”Participation for Sustainable Water Management”, in
Giupponi,Carlo et al.eds,Sustainable Management of Water Resources, Cheltenham,
England ; Northampton, M.A. : Edward Elgar,pp.153-176
Musgrave, Richard A. (1959), The Theory of Public Finance, New York: McGraw-Hill
Naito, Renzo (1988),”To Make Polluted Yahagi River Limpid Stream”, Naito Renzo eds.,
Water is Living, Nagoya: Fubaisya, pp.13-31 (in Japanese)
Naito, Renzo (1999),”30-years Battle through Movements for Water Quality
Preservation”, River, 634, pp.44-47 (in Japanese)
Okada, Motoharu (2007), “Backlashing on River Administration in Japan”, Sekai, 767,
Iwanamisyoten, pp.214-225 (in Japanese)
Olson, M. (1971), The Logic of Collective Action: Public goods and the Theory of Groups,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ostrom, Elinor (1990), Governing the Commons, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Oya, Kenji and Aoyama,Seiji (1994),”Water Use Conflicts Under Increasing Water
Scarcity: The Yahagi River Basin, Central Japan”, Nickum, J.E. and Easter, K.M.(ed),
Metropolitan Water Use Conflicts in Asia and the Pacific, Westview Press, pp169－
186
Pigou,Arthur C.(1920),The Economics of Welfare, Macmillan.
Saleth, R.Maria and Dinar, Ariel (2004), The Institutional Economics of Water,
Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar
Senga, Yutaro and Kawamata, Masakuni (1977),”Water Administration and Water-Use
Adjustment Today”, Water Science, 21(5), pp.29-44 (in Japanese)
Starrett, David A. (2003),” ”Property Rights, Public Goods and the Environment”,
Mäler,Karl-Göran and Vincent, Jeffery R. eds, Handbook of Environmental Economics
Vol.1, North-Holland,pp.97-125.
Sugiyama, Hiroo (1975),”Local Residents’ Movement for Preservation River Spreading
in Yahagi River Stream”, Citizens' Movement, 10, pp.5-9 (in Japanese)
Tsuru, Shigeto and Weidner, Helmut eds. (1989), Environmental Policy in Japan,
Berlin: Edition Sigma
Watanabe, Yozo (1950), Studies of Right for Agricultural Water Utilization, Tokyo:
Tokyo University Press. (in Japanese)
Weidner, Helmut (1995),”Reduction in SO2 and NO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources

19
 in Japan”, Janicke, Martin and Weidner, Helmut eds.Successful Environmental Policy,
Berlin: Edition Sigma, pp.146-172.
Yahagi River Association on Environmental Technology (1994), Monitoring system and
construction technologies considering the water environment: practice of the Yahagi
River method with large-scale construction project, Nagoya; Chunichi Publishing
Company (in Japanese)
Yahagi River Basin Development Exchange Organization (1998), Research and Study
for Environment Preservation and Exchange in Yahagi River Basin, Okazaki: Yahagi
River Basin Development Exchange Organization (in Japanese)
Yahagi River Basin Water Quality Preservation Association (YWPA) (1999), Books of
30-years News Report of Movement for Water Quality Preservation, Anjo: Yahagi
River Basin Water Quality Preservation Association (in Japanese)
Yahagi River Coterie (1979),”For 10 years Battling Water Pollution”, Monthly Yahagi
River, 28, pp.6-15 (in Japanese)
Yahagi River Fishery Cooperative Editorial Committee (2003), Declaration of Fishery
Cooperative for Environment Preservation: History of 100 years of the Yahagi River
Fishery Cooperative, Nagoya: Fubaisya (in Japanese)
Young, Robert and Haveman, Robert H. (1985),”Economics of Water Resources: A
Survey”, in Kneese, Allen E. et al.eds, Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy
Economics, Volume Ⅱ, NHP & C, North-Holland, pp.465-529

20