A comparative study of water allocation and drought in two US states

Issues of water allocation, especially in times of prolonged drought, are increasingly common in the US. The lack of a national policy regarding water allocation means that allocation schemes are the purview of states, except in some cases of interstate water allocation. State supremacy in this policy arena means that there are, in effect, 50 different water allocation policies in the US, reflecting different political realities, legal foundations, and problem recognition/severity determinations. The result is a patchwork of policy frameworks, government activities, and problems that impact water allocation. This paper presents case studies of two US states – California and Texas – and examines how these two states address water allocation in times of drought, focusing specifically on the role of innovation. Using Toddi Steelman’s framework for policy innovation, this paper examines how California and Texas govern water allocation with respect to rational choice, historical, and sociological institutionalism, as well as geographic and physical constraints. Through a comparative case study method, we develop some broad conclusions about water allocation in the US and the role of innovation, and offer thoughts for future research in this context.