Watershed or bank-to-bank? Scales of governance and the geographic definition of Great Lakes Areas of Concern

Abstract

Much recent scholarship has addressed the rise of the watershed as the preferred scale for the governance of water quality. Although the watershed remains widely perceived as an ideal, “natural” scale of freshwater governance, arguments for the merits of alternative scales and multi-scalar approaches are gaining prominence. The Great Lakes Areas of Concern program, managed jointly by the United States and Canada, represents an important case in which the watershed has not prevailed as the default local scale of governance, at least in the 31 Areas of Concern located in the United States or straddling the international border. Based on a review of documents and analysis of a survey and interviews with key actors from local Areas of Concern, we find considerable variation among U.S. states in the designation of Areas of Concern as watersheds and partial watersheds, bank-to-bank watercourse segments, or hybrids of both. This variation depends not only on the differing biophysical conditions at Areas of Concern but also on differences in the latitude that state agencies gave to local stakeholder groups when the geographical extent of each Areas of Concern was designated and negotiated. In several cases, questions about the appropriate scale of the Areas of Concern led to controversy, with implications for subsequent remediation. We contend that understanding the uneven embrace of the watershed as a scale of water governance requires attending not only to specific governance objectives but also to variations in the relationships between local and subnational scales in governance programs.