Democratizing Water Governance in Iran

A Prerequisite for Restoring Resources and Public Trust Nik Kowsar

In a country like Iran, where the water crisis has pushed ecosystems to the brink of collapse, structural reform in water governance is not merely a policy option—it is an existential necessity. Decades of centralized, unaccountable, and technocratic management, dominated by rushed megaprojects and exclusionary decision-making, have not only failed to resolve the crisis but have also deepened public distrust, widened inequalities, and inflicted irreversible damage on natural resources. Only a transition to democratic water governance can break this vicious cycle.

Why Must Iran Democratize Its Water Governance?

Water management in Iran has long been top-down, where a narrow group of engineers, bureaucrats, and politically connected elites make strategic decisions without public consultation. This paternalistic, technocratic model assumes that citizens lack the capacity to understand or contribute meaningfully. In contrast, leading countries around the world—particularly since the 1980s—have increasingly embraced participatory governance, empowering citizens, civil society, and local institutions in water decision-making.

Four pillars define democratic water governance: transparency, public participation, accountability, and equitable access to water. Without these, decisions often serve vested interests, resulting in environmental degradation, social unrest, and even ethnic and regional tensions.

The Failure of Authoritarian Water Management in Iran

In Iran, water governance has been dominated by the Ministry of Energy, affiliated companies, and contractors whose interests often overlap. Costly and ecologically disastrous projects like the Gotvand and Chamshir dams, or inter-basin water transfers, were implemented without thorough environmental or social assessments. The consequences—land subsidence, the desiccation of wetlands, and mass displacement—are now plain to see. In the absence of accountability, the public bears the costs of decisions made in opaque, exclusive forums.

What Is Water Democracy, and How Can It Be Realized?

Water democracy entails the meaningful participation of citizens, civil society, and stakeholders at every level of water management—from planning to implementation and oversight. This participation must go beyond token voting; it requires legal, institutional, and digital infrastructure to ensure access to information, space for critique, and mechanisms for civil pressure.

Policy Recommendations for Democratizing Water Governance in Iran

1. Establish a National Water Authority as an Independent Oversight Body

   - Mandated to uphold the rule of law, prevent corruption and conflicts of interest, and operate on a basin-based regional structure.

2. Create a “Human Rights and Water” Unit

   - Tasked with investigating discrimination, handling public complaints, and defending the rights of vulnerable communities—linked to international covenants like the ICESCR.

3. Ensure Transparency in Policy and Project Implementation

   - Require public disclosure of feasibility studies for water projects before initiation.

   - Enable public access to data on water availability, consumption, and allocation.

4. Embed Water Education and Public Awareness

   - Introduce water ethics and environmental education from preschool to media campaigns.

   - Engage artists, academics, and independent media in public outreach.

5. Establish a Transparent and Equitable Water Market

   - To rationalize pricing, reduce waste, and ensure fair distribution of water resources.

6. Develop Mediation and Conflict Resolution Mechanisms

   - Especially in high-risk regions, to mediate disputes between communities and authorities.

7. Revise and Draft Water Laws with Public Input

   - In collaboration with think tanks, universities, and civil society organizations.

   - Strengthen legal safeguards and institutional accountability.

Global Lessons for Iran

In the United States, following decades of uncontrolled dam-building from the 1930s to the 1970s, civil society and legal action led to the removal of environmentally harmful dams. Today, U.S. water infrastructure projects must undergo environmental review, stakeholder consultation, and legal compliance. Similar basin-level participatory models have been implemented with success in countries like India and Brazil.

Conclusion: Democratic Transition or Environmental Collapse

Iran’s water governance system requires a fundamental shift in both structure and values—from technocratic authoritarianism to environmental democracy. Without this shift, the promise of sustainable development and water security will remain empty rhetoric.

Democratizing water management is not only a prerequisite for saving Iran’s natural resources. It is also a pathway to rebuilding public trust, achieving social justice, and ensuring the political legitimacy and durability of any future government.