In Costa Rica, water is a public good owned by the State. Yet, 1,250 community-based drinking water organizations (CWOs) hold legally recognized rights to use water under specific administrative conditions. These locally elected entities operate within a decentralized legal framework that grants them responsibility for providing water services in rural areas—often where neither state agencies nor private operators are incentivized to act. In doing so, CWOs have become key governance actors ensuring access to safe drinking water for marginalized populations amid growing climate pressures.
To strengthen their autonomy and protect water sources, approximately 25% of CWOs have acquired forested lands, obtaining property rights in strategic recharge zones within their watersheds. Drawing on a comprehensive dataset of 1,250 CWOs and geospatial information, this study examines the governance and spatial patterns associated with land acquisition, as well as the institutional characteristics of CWOs that shape these processes.
Statistical analysis reveals that land acquisition for conservation is concentrated in regions distant from state-managed protected areas, suggesting that CWOs effectively fill governance and conservation gaps left by the State. However, their cumulative landholdings represent less than 1% of the national territory, reflecting limited influence on the national scale. Land purchases primarily occur in areas with steep slopes and near agricultural holdings, indicating efforts to mitigate contamination risks to surface water sources and limit agricultural expansion. Moreover, smaller and more financially vulnerable CWOs are less able to purchase land, which may negatively affect their long-term management resilience.
This paper advances the understanding of hybrid water governance regimes in the Global South, where community institutions strive to manage their water systems within state-ownership frameworks. It highlights implications for policy design, the role of civil society, and equitable governance under conditions of climate variability and ecological degradation, contributing to debates on “Water Rights, Obligations, and Justice.”

For decades, Germany was considered a water-rich country where freshwater scarcity was only a regional challenge. From the perspective of German water management law, water availability was therefore not a central issue. The drought that affected almost all of Europe in 2022 has brought the issues of drought and water scarcity to the forefront. The presentation highlights the instruments available under German water law to meet these challenges. The principle of economy (Section 5 Federal Water Act - WHG) plays a special role in this regard. The presentation also looks at the management objectives, which transpose the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive into national law. The provisions on ensuring public water supply (cf. Section 50 WHG) are of particular importance for water scarcity prevention. An important instrument for the preventive safeguarding of water supply are water protection areas (Section 51 WHG). Aspects of climate adaptation can also be addressed in water supply concepts, which, however, have so far only been legally enshrined in a few state laws. In the event of water scarcity, the prioritization of water uses resulting from the water law approval regime may be considered (cf. Section 12 WHG). In particularly severe cases of water scarcity, restrictions on use and bans on use should be considered. Finally, the Water Reuse Regulation (EU) 2020/741 will be mentioned as an instrument for mitigating water scarcity associated with climate change. The presentation will focus on the provisions of the WHG. However, the state water laws will also be discussed in some cases, as they contain some innovative and progressive provisions. In this context, the question of whether the existing legal framework is sufficient or needs to be adapted will also be explored.

To address climate-induced water shortages in the Colorado River Basin, western U.S. states are adopting mandatory water conservation measures in urban areas. These often target decorative grasses, resulting in what are commonly referred to as "non-functional turf bans." The proliferation of these laws and several years of data from their implementation can provide us with insight into their efficacy and the process of adopting laws for water system resilience.

First, policy diffusion can be an important pathway for climate adaptation governance to regionalize across separate sovereigns. Each new law in the Basin explicitly referenced the preceding efforts in other jurisdictions. Second, the success or failure to adopt these laws seems to require certain political and fiscal pre-conditions. Third, in some instances these policies have been adopted without a scientific understanding of how much water would be conserved. This raises fundamental questions around expending political capital, creating new requirements, and committing financial resources without integrated planning. Fourth, actual water savings have not met projections or expectations, even in jurisdictions that completed studies before adopting mandatory conservation laws. However, some realized savings came from social mechanisms rather than regulatory requirements or subsidized activities - highlighting the potential for non-legal efforts to address scarcity.

Ultimately, understanding the overall cost of turf removal efforts and the return on investment compared to other conservation tools, such as conservation-oriented tiered water rates, water budgets, egregious use limits, landscape codes, and wastewater ordinances, is imperative for strategic and responsible planning at the local and state level. The presentation will focus on data-driven insights to unpack turf removal's comparative impact and effectiveness across jurisdictions, with a focus on the lessons learned in Colorado and Nevada. The presentation will also provide recommendations to curb municipal demand in times of uncertainty and change.

The right to clean and safe drinking water has gained increasing recognition as a fundamental human right and a key objective in the United Nations (hereafter “UN”) Sustainable Development Goals. In Europe, the right to water attracted attention following the European Citizens’ Initiative, which spurred the revision of the European Union Drinking Water Directive in 2020. The Directive aims to raise water quality standards, expand access to water and promote information. Nonetheless, barriers persist for disadvantaged communities to access safe and affordable water while there are limited opportunities for consumer engagement and redress. This article examines the Directive’s potential to improve the right to water throughout Europe from the perspectives of consumer protection and human rights. By exploring the Directive’s provisions, identifying gaps, and proposing regulatory improvements, the article provides fresh insights into the interplay between international human rights and consumer protection. It contributes to the broader discourse on water rights highlighting the roles of the EU and its Member States in ensuring access to safe, accessible, and affordable drinking water for all

Climate change will have a profound impact on public access to water for beneficial uses, especially in the arid regions of the world. As temperatures rise, evaporation and evapotranspiration increase, and drier soils act like sponges reducing runoff into waterways. This has at least two negative consequences. First, the most vulnerable in society will likely lose access to sufficient water supplies, even for critical domestic needs. Second, securing sufficient water to meet essential human needs will lead to the dewatering of waterways with serious ecological consequences.

To solve these problems, we need policies that align water resource allocations with a climate-compromised water supply. Existing water users, especially agricultural users, must reduce their consumptive use of water. While politically difficult, it can happen with only modest adjustments to existing allocation schemes.

The legal regimes for allocating water resources vary widely but modern water laws typically require water users to obtain government permits. They also recognize water as a public resource that States must manage in the public interest. Permit regimes largely fall into two categories – (1) those that allocate water rights based upon priority, and (2) those that grant water rights subject to equitable sharing in times of drought. It is likely easier to reduce consumption where equitable sharing is the norm, but the obligation to manage water in the public interest offers opportunities to reduce consumption even in priority-based systems.

After laying out this background, the presentation will address three strategies for reducing water consumption. These strategies focus on agriculture since it accounts for about 90% of water consumption in most arid regions. These strategies include (1) crop switching; (2) deficit irrigation; and (3) rotational fallowing. The presentation will then explain how these strategies can significantly reduce water consumption.