On one level, the community-based water management research program focuses on a broad array of emerging water problems, such as groundwater overdraft, that threaten basic livelihoods in South Asia and, for that matter, many other parts of the world as well. Problems, such as the 3m/year decline in aquifer levels now common in much of Gujarat, generate conflict both at the very local level between individual users and at higher levels between, for example, urban and rural areas or between states. Specific conflicts of this type are well documented in the book, Rethinking the Mosaic that was produced during the first phase of the project. Looking beyond these immediate tangible conflicts, however, the core challenges lie not in the physical problems themselves or in the conflicts between users and regions but in the social and institutional context determining how society responds to water problems and the conflicts they generate. As discussed in the previous section, three conflicting models of social change dominate most approaches to water – and other natural resource – management. These models are also ideological endpoints and stem from the fundamentally different worldviews of their proponents. They are, in themselves, perhaps the most fundamental points of conflict.

The conflict between worldviews is clearly evident in current debates over the viability and desirability of large dams. In South Asia, large dam projects have been designed and implemented by the state and are run through highly centralized irrigation departments. This approach has its roots in Nehruvian socialism with its emphasis on the State as a primary actor and motivator of development. Opponents to such projects often propose community-based management through communities and the revitalization of traditional water management systems. Opposition can also come from organizations, such as the World Bank, that emphasize the dominant role of economics and the private sector. This worldview may not oppose the dams per se but focuses on reducing the role of the public sector in their construction, operation and maintenance. The conflicts generated by the above worldviews can be intense. In Gujarat, for example, debates over the Narmada project and potential alternatives to it have led to withdrawal of the World Bank’s financing for the scheme and to many instances of physical violence between opponents and the State.
Opportunities also often abound in the contested terrain between worldviews. In many cases ideologies can be undermined by rational arguments based on neutral scientific information and data. In the large dam debate, for example, most scientific information has been collected and project proponents have done engineering analysis. Alternatives have rarely been analyzed in a systematic or professional manner – one that would be viewed as technically equivalent to the analyses undertaken for the dam project. Proponents of community-based approaches to water management lack the professional capability and scientific information necessary to establish whether or not the approaches they advocate represent viable alternatives to large state-centric projects. Opponents are, at least in some cases, capable of blocking the implementation of large projects such as the Arun III project in Nepal. They are, however, rarely able to develop comprehensive alternatives. Deadlock results. This type of situation represents a potentially major opportunity in which professionally competent and politically neutral “social auditors” can catalyze change by undertaking high quality analysis of alternatives and engaging the full range of involved stakeholders in dialogue. This is the type of opportunity our collaborative project is designed to exploit.