Paper short abstract:

The Northern San Juan Basin is one of the most intensively studied natural gas basins in the world, and yet its subsurface dynamics are described in opposite ways by companies, scientists, and landowners. Such epistemic conflicts complicate the management of subsurface energy and water resources.

Paper long abstract:

The Northern San Juan Basin (NSJB), which sits in Colorado's southwest corner, is one of the most intensively studied natural gas basins in the world (Snyder & Fabryka-Martin, 2007), and yet its subsurface dynamics are described in opposite ways by energy companies, state and federal scientists, and landowners. The dueling narratives of the basin's inner workings differ in their descriptions of hydraulic connectivity and, relatedly, on the question of whether removing groundwater in the process of coalbed methane extraction could drain surface water systems and harm senior water rights. Such epistemic conflicts are common in zones of unconventional oil and gas extraction and complicate natural resource management in those areas (National Academy of Sciences, 2010). In this case study, I examine the contest of NSJB subsurface narratives as waged via groundwater models and empirical data across several institutional venues, including the Colorado Supreme Court. In 2009, the state's high court sided with Four Corners ranchers who argued that that groundwater removed from the subsurface by extractive industries should be tracked and governed like any other water in the state. My analysis is based upon in-depth reviews of six modeling projects, policy and legal documents, interviews, and tacit knowledge developed while contributing to a geochemical study of NSJB hydrogeology in 2010. I combine Political Ecology's strengths in critiquing environmental narratives (Robbins, 2011) and Science and Technology Study's strengths in investigating the production of the scientific knowledge that is bound up in those narratives (Haraway, 1988).