INTRODUCTION

The water crisis is a major social problem in Chile today. In 2015, the country ranked fourth in the world in terms of water stress and is projected to lead this ranking by 2040 (Fundación Chile 2018). Although the World Resources Institute defines water stress in hydrological terms, as the imbalance between availability and demand, scholarship in political ecology and extractivism interprets water conflicts in terms of unequal access, dispossession, and the power dynamics entrenched in Chile’s neoliberal governance regime, established under the Pinochet dictatorship via the 1980 Constitution, the 1981 Water Code, and the 1982 Mining Code (Budds 2013, Palomino-Schalscha et al. 2016, Oppliger et al. 2019). Bringing these perspectives into dialog, this article situates the hydrological scarcities identified by global indices within the wider socio-political framework of Chile’s neoliberal water model. The water regulatory framework marked a departure from the existing scheme in at least four ways. First, although it considers water to be a national good for public use, the 1980 Constitution privatized water by allowing the sale and transfer of granted rights (Atria and Salgado 2015, Bauer 2015). Second, the state granted these water rights on a permanent and perpetual basis. Third, it established a distinction between water rights and land rights and use, favoring the emergence of a water market. Fourth, these rights were granted in liters per second, and no consideration was given to a climate change-related scenario of water scarcity, such as the one in which we now find ourselves. The 1980 constitution enshrined water as economic patrimony, and the 1982 mining code, through the concept of the “miner’s waters,” ensured indiscriminate use of water by the mining sector.

The privatization of water created a market that perpetuated the concentration of the resource in the hands of national and foreign companies (Romero et al. 2009:86). Fresh water is exploited intensively by the agricultural and forestry sector, with 82% consumed by export agriculture (Donoso 2021:172). The overexploitation of aquifers has led to desertification and reduced irrigation in a number of valleys, affecting the productivity of small-scale agriculture. In short, the social crisis of water is the result of a water ownership model that tailors water management to the needs of those who have rights. The model has accentuated conflict over water, especially among water users who are excluded from anything more than marginal participation in water management, as is the case with rural drinking water associations (APRs) and small farmers.

Over the past decade, studies of water conflicts in Chile have highlighted the severe impacts of its extractive development model, especially the intensive use of water in agro-export, forestry, energy, and mining (Bolados 2016, Panez 2018, Larraín 2021). In response to the water crisis, two major national political movements have emerged: the Water and Territory Movement (MAT) and the Movement for the Defence of Water, Land and the Environment (MODATIMA). The latter gained international attention for its active struggle in the conflict sparked by the avocado export boom (mid 2000s onward), which left the province of Petorca, in Valparaíso, without water (Mundaca 2014, Bolados 2016, Bolados et al. 2018). These movements have framed water disputes as part of broader environmental conflicts (Yarrow et al. 2008), introducing a commons-based perspective to better address the social dimensions of water management. In 2022, Rodrigo Mondaca, leader of MODATIMA, was elected regional governor of Valparaíso. In parallel, professionals aligned with center-left movements assumed roles in strategic public institutions, such as the General Directorate of Water and the Ministry of the Environment, creating a favorable context for coordination among territorial actors, as well as the public and private sectors.

The 2022 reform of Chile’s Water Code prioritizes human consumption and recognizes ancestral, domestic, ecological, and non-extractive uses (Celume 2022). It also strengthens the authority of Chile’s water regulator, the General Water Directorate (Dirección General de Aguas (DGA)), allowing it to intervene more forcefully in water distribution. The reform was passed amid a prolonged mega-drought and a series of water shortages and agricultural emergencies between 2018 and 2019.

In this context, our research question focuses on how the 2022 water reform and the water governance model proposed by the regional government of Valparaíso have addressed growing water conflicts while fostering new forms of collaborative organization. Within a broader national context shaped by a market-oriented framework whereby water has been treated as a commodity, these actors have promoted dialog aimed at managing water based on principles of community participation and self-governance, even in an otherwise adverse institutional and political environment. Our findings reveal that new actors and instances of cooperation have emerged in water debates, mainly in the form of APRs and municipalities. The latter are increasingly tasked with providing water for human consumption in areas without formal water supply systems, whereas APRs and cooperatives are under increasing pressure to provide new water connections in this context of water scarcity. However, the 2022 reform only partially mitigates the unequal distribution of water. In fact, it does not affect water rights granted prior to the reform, and there are almost no new water rights available. This situation illustrates the acute need to strengthen existing cooperation in order to achieve collaborative water models that acknowledge the diversity of uses and actors within the hydrosocial territories, along with their different ways of relating to the territory.

Below, we briefly explain the political ecology approach, introducing key literature on extractivism and commons-based perspectives in the study of water-related social crisis. We also introduce our own analytical lens, which views the Aconcagua Basin as a hydrosocial territory. We then present the research methodology and explain how we analyzed the material. Subsequently, we set out our main findings concerning water conflicts and collaborative efforts in crisis management. We conclude by discussing the potential for a water model that accounts for social and geographical heterogeneities and considers the various scales—local, provincial and regional—at which collaborative water management initiatives can be developed.

A POLITICAL ECOLOGY APPROACH TO STUDYING CONFLICTS SURROUNDING PRIVATISED WATER

Our theoretical approach for studying the social crisis of water in Aconcagua draws on both political ecology and extractivism perspectives. Political ecology offers essential analytical tools for understanding power inequalities in access to and distribution of natural resources and common goods (Budds 2012, Bauer 2015). A Latin American political ecology of water situates these inequalities within the region’s colonial-modern period and its subordinate position as a supplier of raw materials to the global capitalist economy. In dialog with this perspective, the extractivism literature delves into the specific economic conditions underlying these inequalities, particularly the natural resource-export model, which reduces nature to an instrumental resource (Merlinsky 2013, 2017, Roca Servat and Perdomo-Sanchez 2020). Although extractivism underscores how capital accumulation is sustained through the dispossession of local communities and environmental degradation, political ecology emphasizes that the social, political, and environmental impacts of commodifying nature are unevenly distributed. These unequal power relations reflect diverse uses and valuations of natural resources, which nevertheless enter into asymmetric disputes that are often framed as struggles between territorial and community actors on one side, and private or state actors on the other (Damonte and Lynch 2016, Prieto 2016, Panez 2018, Lukas et al. 2020). The notion of “colonized nature” (Alimonda 2011) captures how extractivist and, more recently, neo-extractivist models have enabled the domination and commodification of so-called natural resources. These dynamics help explain the emergence of an eco-territorial shift in struggles against dispossession, giving rise to movements in defense of the commons.

Such a defense constitutes an effort to decolonize the concept of natural resources, reimagining the commons as a collective horizon beyond appropriation. In this view, the commons become a central axis of territorial struggles in Chile and across the region, as well as a political strategy to advance the decommodification of water under current regulatory frameworks. Framing the water crisis in terms of commonality allows us to envision a continuum between conflict and collaboration. As Merlinsky (2013) notes, today’s socio-environmental conflicts, often marked by violence and criminalization, have forced their way into the public agenda as arenas of political struggle over the commons. At the same time, they foster learning and debate regarding their protection, opening new spaces for social participation. This perspective opens the way for a political ecology of water (Bustos et al. 2015, Ávila-García 2016, Prieto 2016) or an eco-geopolitics of water (Bolados et al. 2018)—conceptual foundations for a collaborative governance model in which power flows through both territorial and institutional dimensions, creating the conditions necessary to confront our shared climate crisis.

The case of Aconcagua is a paradigmatic example of water conflicts in Chile, offering valuable territorial, institutional, and legal lessons. Emphasizing the generative potential of conflict, this article proposes that one of its key outcomes has been the emergence of collaborative initiatives rooted in the knowledge and relationships forged through these struggles. These collaborations form the basis of current experiences and joint efforts around water governance.

This article offers a critical contribution to global debates on water governance, which have largely been shaped by hierarchical models promoted by international multilateral institutions. Rooted in the logic of economic sustainability tied to transnational extractivism, these frameworks prioritize market-led valuations of water while overlooking local geographic and cultural specificities, and the ecological consequences of commodifying water. In response, we draw on political ecology and extractivism perspectives aimed at democratizing water and reclaiming it as a commons (Bauer 2015, Budds 2012, Bolados et al. 2018, Panez 2018, Kloster 2021).

There is a stark contrast between a neoliberal model of water government, such as in Chile, and one focused on the commons (Laval and Dardot 2015). The former treats water primarily as a productive resource subject to market allocation; the latter separates what communities consider fundamental to life from commodification (Lazos Chavero 2020, Ibarra et al. 2023). In the commons paradigm, water is valued not only for its productive use but also for its cultural, ecosystemic, and spiritual significance—dimensions anchored in territories yet often rendered invisible under neoliberal governance. This perspective also draws on Latin American notions of communities as networks (Gutiérrez et al. 2016) and of “communality” (Maldonado Alvarado 2013), which together reframe the commons as relational, political, and embedded in collective life. Defending the commons thus becomes both a proposal and collective goal informed by feminist critiques of enclosure and dispossession, particularly of women (Federici 2004).

UNDERSTANDING THE ACONCAGUA BASIN AS A HYDROSOCIAL TERRITORY

Our starting point is to study the Aconcagua basin as a hydrosocial territory complete with an interrelationship between nature and culture, and concrete forms of territorialization through water management (Linton 2010). Damonte (2015) defines “hydrosocial territory” as a combination of three spaces: (1) the basin’s physical spaces, including water infrastructure; (2) social spaces (the material and symbolic uses and management of water by social actors in a basin); and (3) political-administrative spaces (the practices and discourses that comprise the territorial and institutional development of water regulation). Thus, the hydrosocial territory includes both physical and socio-political dynamics, allowing us to recognize how social groups conceive and materialize the uses of water resources, and how they connect with water flows and hydraulic infrastructures (Orlove and Caton 2010, Boelens et al. 2016). Unlike the traditional concept of the basin, which may have a relatively fixed geographical perimeter, the boundaries of a hydrosocial territory are dynamic and are constantly being redefined by actors who co-create them (Damonte and Lynch 2016).

The hydrosocial territory of the Aconcagua River is located in the Valparaíso Region of Chile (Fig. 1). It runs from the Andes Mountains down along the Juncal and Blanco rivers to Concón beach. The main economic activities of the territory are agro-export, trade, and mining. The Andes Mountain range, in which the Aconcagua tributaries originate, is rich in mineral deposits, which are exploited by companies such as Codelco and Anglo American. The impact of mining—tailings deposits, the drying up of rivers, damage to glaciers—on Andean valleys is significant (Lagos 1997, Bolados 2014, Aitken et al. 2016). The worsening drought has affected these activities, as well as access to drinking water for inhabitants. Since the early 20th century, the basin has been divided into four sections that are each monitored by oversight boards that distribute water according to water rights. Aconcagua is the one remaining basin with available surface water in the Valparaíso region. From 2008 to date, the national regulator, the DGA, has issued more than ten “water scarcity” declarations, altering the normal functioning and distribution of water. One of the effects of these water scarcity decrees is the entitlement of the DGA to authorize surface or groundwater extraction in cases where water use rights cannot be exercised, and to do so without regard for the ecological flow limitation established in the Water Code (Pérez-Silva and Castillo 2023). On the other hand, the intensity of agricultural activity means that water use in the basin is predominantly productive. The Valparaíso Region has a total water demand of approximately 1053 million cubic meters per year (m³/year), of which 78% (818 million m³/year) is accounted for by agriculture. The crops with the highest water demand are fruits of various types, accounting for 62% of agricultural consumption (508 million m³/year). Of these, avocado trees (46%) and table grape vines (23%) are the most significant consumers (Fig. 2). It is due to the priority given to agricultural production that community and eco-systemic water uses, raised primarily by socio-environmental organizations, are perceived as secondary.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used a range of qualitative and cartographic methodologies to carry out this research. We identified the key conflicts in the Aconcagua hydrosocial territory, the actors involved, and the intertwined reasons for disputes: scarcity, contamination, or control of water. We combined document analysis, literature review, and 19 semi-structured interviews with relevant actors. Between 2023 and 2024, we interviewed municipal and Water Directorate officials and members of NGOs, socio-environmental groups, oversight boards, APRs, and channel associations. Interviewees were selected according to their participation in these conflicts. In addition, we conducted participant observation of five regional meetings organized by the Valparaíso government (in San Esteban, San Felipe, Calle Larga, La Calera, and Panquehue), aimed at ascertaining the concerns of users regarding water scarcity. These meetings, known as “water roundtables” (mesas hídricas), are part of the Water Development and Sustainability Policy for Valparaíso (Fig. 3). They represent a unique initiative in Chile, serving to strengthen coordination between territorial actors and technical and political bodies, e.g., between municipalities, APRs, supervisory boards, and the DGA. Many of the interviewees participated in these regional meetings, which constitute new spaces for seeking collective solutions to the problem of water scarcity.

The interviews were analyzed using Atlas Ti. First, the coding was done manually, based on the analysis of interviews and working roundtables. We established categories of analysis according to the frequency with which keywords occurred and validated the relevance of content. The categories and concepts that emerged were then analyzed and grouped into two types of findings: (i) water crisis as a management and paradigm crisis, and (ii) achieving collaborative governance.

We developed two types of cartographies: traditional and participatory mapping. The traditional mapping was conducted using ArcGIS Pro, with all data projected in the WGS84 UTM Zone 19 South coordinate system. We used data layers available from the Chilean Government Geospatial Data Infrastructure (IDE Chile). We downloaded layers corresponding to administrative boundaries, hydrography of the Valparaíso region, and land use. We then defined the study area and selected the districts within the Aconcagua River basin. The hydrographic and land-use layers were standardized using the clipping geoprocess, and all layers were then superimposed in ArcGIS Pro. Additional layers, such as oversight boards and the location of APRs and aquifers, were downloaded from the Ministry of Public Works (MOP), projected using the same coordinate system, and clipped to fit the study area.

The participatory mapping was carried out during the “Water Fair” held in Panquehue in June 2024. In this context, participants geo-referenced local issues and collaborative actions related to water management in the Aconcagua basin. An initial base map was created in ArcGIS Pro, including rivers, topography, and major population centers. This map served as the foundation for the participatory workshop, during which participants identified problems, actions, and relevant actors involved in water conservation and governance. During the systematization stage, Adobe Illustrator 2025 was used to vectorize the icons associated with the workshop’s input. These icons were then superimposed onto a land-use map previously prepared in ArcGIS Pro. The resulting map was adjusted to display only those districts or sectors where specific problems, actions, and conflicts had been identified, offering a representation aligned with the information collected during the workshop (Fig. 4).

DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The information gathered from interviews and participant observation of the provincial water roundtables revealed two key issues that consistently emerged in both discussions with participants and our own observations: (1) the urgent need to address the crisis of access to clean water experienced by rural water associations (APRs) and municipalities; and (2) the conflicts, legal disputes, and emerging forms of collaboration between water user associations (juntas de vigilancia) and the state. These two issues, repeatedly emphasized during the roundtables, serve as central themes for the analysis conducted in this article. A clear differentiation emerged across the 19 interviewees, however. Municipal officials and APR representatives emphasized gaps in access and infrastructure, whereas oversight boards stressed property rights and self-management. Small farmers highlighted vulnerability to drought and exclusion from formal water rights, whereas NGOs framed the crisis within a broader discourse of ecological justice. These perspectives often aligned with position (state vs. community vs. private sector), geography (upper basin mining conflicts vs. mid-zone agribusiness vs. lower basin contamination), and politics (progressive NGOs/municipalities vs. conservative oversight boards).

Although the APRs have been responsible for distributing water in rural areas since the 1960s, with technical support from and infrastructure funded by the state, they came under pressure with the introduction of the new Rural Sanitation Services Law, which made them accountable for water treatment and pushed them to professionalize and adopt a business-style management model. Following the 2020 pandemic, with significant migration from urban to rural areas and limited water availability or infrastructure to support new connections, the APRs became overwhelmed. In response, they began organizing to advocate for the creation of a new legal framework.

As an APR leader in Llay-Llay explains, “new residents coming from Santiago demand connection to the water network as if we were a private company. Yet we are a cooperative with limited resources for new infrastructure.” In practice, the sanitation law obliges APRs to treat wastewater and deliver freshwater that they do not have, in the absence of both infrastructure and resources. The APRs claim that, without a significant change in public support for their functions, they are destined to disappear. If this should happen, the last community water management system in Chile would vanish.

Municipalities also emerged as key actors in the water crisis. The 2022 reform of the Water Code obligated them to provide “emergency water” for human consumption. Although the World Health Organization recommends a minimum of 100 L of drinking water per person per day, the law established a standard of only 50 L for those without access—primarily residents of informal urban settlements (tomas) and areas where APRs do not provide supply or connections. In addition, municipalities stepped in to support small-scale farmers who lacked registered water rights and the financial or legal capacity to navigate the complex procedures introduced by the Water Code reform. As a local Mayor explained during an interview: “Many local stakeholders talk about the need to redefine the ownership and administration of resources because they feel that the rich have more access to water than the poor, or that the latter have fewer rights.’

Regarding the conflicts between oversight boards and the state, the former had traditionally managed water crises through voluntary agreements between canal operators in different sections of the basin. However, the 2022 Water Code reform granted the General Directorate of Water (DGA) the authority to intervene directly and redistribute water flows in critical situations, thus overriding the distribution criteria for the water rights of channel operators. In line with the prioritization of water for human consumption, the DGA focused on filling the Los Aromos reservoir, which supplies several urban areas. In response, several oversight boards took legal action, asserting their ownership of water rights. Despite these disputes, the crisis also created conditions for engagement: many of these actors, although involved in litigation, nonetheless took part in the participatory roundtables convened by public authorities. As a representative of the NGO Aconcagua Sustentable points out:

Farmers have had the water shortage problems for 15 or 20 years. But now when the DGA intervened, the channel owners cried, “they are stealing our water, help us.” They say it’s for the community, yet in reality, channel owners and agribusiness firms need cannon fodder to protest so that they can have the water. And we all believe that they are stealing our water, when in reality, they and the mining companies had already stolen our water a long time ago.

As a municipal official from San Esteban explains, “There is a sector that has managed to regularize its rights and another sector that has not, so conflicts are generated internally.” Arguments include defending the historical right of channel owners to organize water distribution amongst themselves without considering small farmers. Private channel operators doubt the regulator’s technical capacity to allocate water between sections and, in general, resent a state body controlling private water use. As one of them argues, “We have been distributing water for 90 years without any problems within the basin. Until the DGA arrived to forcibly give water to section 3 with the justification of human need. It is absolutely arbitrary.”

Faced with this conflictive situation, the regional government of Valparaíso has organized several instances of territorial dialog (water roundtables) to strengthen coordination between actors and seek collective solutions to the problem of water scarcity. The latter is an extremely challenging task, particularly when it comes to achieving legitimacy in the solution proposed. As the governor’s office itself recognized at one of the tables: “In these meetings, we have to be very careful that the solution is born from the territory. We can provide inputs to improve decision making, but we do not come up with the solution.”

During participant observation, we noted marked power asymmetries in participants’ interactions: oversight boards often dominated discussions, yet APR leaders and NGOs increasingly challenged their authority by invoking the right to water and ecological values. These dynamics signalled a discursive shift: from water as property to water as commons.

As the mining sector is not governed by the 2022 Water Code, it remains the most difficult actor to engage in collaborative solutions to the water crisis. Under the Mining Code, companies are not required to report their water usage within authorized concessions, which creates significant uncertainty regarding how much water they consume and where their extraction points are located. Although the mining industry is a major water user, it is not formally recognized as such within the water management framework coordinated by the Ministry of Public Works. Several of the actors we interviewed are highly critical of mining firms for their discretional use of water. “They’re stealing our water; they’re not giving us anything!” comments a small farmer. “Codelco has the water up in the mountains for the mine, and the valley gets whatever is left over. If they let the water flow down, we wouldn’t have the drought we do today,” argues another.

The participatory mapping revealed that the Aconcagua hydrosocial territory is under threat from various extractive activities, particularly intervention in water sources located in the upper Andean zone. Two mining projects have sparked significant social conflict: the alteration of the river for the Vizcachitas mining project in Putaendo, and the activities of the Nutrex mining company along the Juncal River and Glacier, which constitute the headwaters of the Aconcagua River. Toward the center of the hydrosocial territory, water conflicts are linked to the expansion of agribusiness—primarily the mass production of avocado and other fruits for export. Exponential demand for water from this sector has limited availability for human consumption and eco-systemic purposes. The lack of water for human consumption is particularly critical in Olmué and Limache, where there is the greatest concentration of water rights granted to agribusiness. Water for many inhabitants of these districts has to be supplied by tanker trucks, which has an enormous economic cost for the state and generates multiple practical problems for inhabitants. The extraction of aggregates (particulate materials such as sand or gravel used in construction) from the Aconcagua River is also a significant issue, leading to landscape alterations as well as floods and river overflows caused by changes to the riverbed. Mining activities in the high Andes result in a drastic reduction in the water available for irrigation and human consumption in the mid-zone, where the most densely populated of the region’s districts are located. Finally, at the river’s mouth, the main problem identified is severe pollution caused by the National Petroleum Company (ENAP) in the Concón wetland. The company discharges its waste there, dramatically affecting the Aconcagua River’s outflow into the sea.

Participatory mapping highlights the multiple collaborative actions that have emerged in response to these conflicts. These reflect strong concern for protecting water sources through initiatives such as the proposal to designate the Rocín River—a tributary of the Putaendo and Aconcagua Rivers—as a Nature Sanctuary, and the creation of strategic parks aimed at glacier protection, such as the Andean Juncal Park. These efforts were part of the “30-Point Proposal” signed by the regional government and the Environmental Conflict Observatory, an NGO that coordinates various local organizations. Likewise, the designation of urban wetlands, such as the Macaya Wetland in Quillota (mid-zone) and the Concón Wetland (lower zone), has served to defend these vital ecosystems. Finally, environmental education is also a key component of local initiatives, and one example is the Parque La Giganta, which aims to protect one of the southernmost forests of algarrobo trees. In sum, new collaborations emerged when municipalities began coordinating with APRs to cover emergency supply and when NGOs and regional authorities began collaborating on ecological protection measures such as wetland designations and park proposals, forming unprecedented partnerships between state and civil society actors.

CONCLUSIONS

This article examines how actors and organizations in the drought-stricken Aconcagua hydrosocial territory have tackled growing water conflicts and assesses how the 2022 Water Code reform and the Valparaíso regional government’s proposed governance model have addressed these conflicts. Our research exposes how new actors—mainly rural drinking water associations (APRs) and municipalities—have emerged in water debates and how government initiatives in search of collaborative solutions to water scarcity, i.e., water roundtables, have made some progress in tackling conflicts while achieving only limited impact. Power asymmetries between actors, mistrust of the regulator, and a long history of privatization have all hindered collective decision making. These divergences reveal how water is not only a scarce resource but also a marker of social inequality. Rights holders defend a legalistic view of property, whereas municipalities and APRs call for equity and state redistribution, and NGOs stress the decommodification of water. Disputes are also shaped by geography: mining conflicts dominate the upper basin, agribusiness expansion the middle basin, and pollution the lower basin. Together, these differences highlight how water governance reflects broader tensions of class, territory, and political orientation. These findings are grounded not only in interviews and observation, but also in documentary evidence—such as legal disputes filed by oversight boards, NGO policy proposals, and municipal emergency plans—that corroborated and contextualized actors’ testimonies.

The current social crisis of water in the region requires that we think carefully about sustainable water models in order to reduce the impact of the mega-drought. Although the paradigm of privatized water permeates the practices of the main productive actors in water management, following the 2022 Water Code reform, other uses and valuations of water are being claimed by communities, APRs and socio-environmental organizations. The current management model, centered on the allocation of private rights, is being eroded due to radical inequalities in access to water, in turn triggering new conflicts and disputes among actors. Different groups seek to impose their own vision of water, each privileging a particular use. Although the recent reform of the Water Code introduced a new priority for human consumption, absent in earlier frameworks, it provides only a partial foundation and has proven insufficient to address the crisis. The mega-drought crisis in Aconcagua has pushed all affected actors to consider ways and actions to improve the water management model, promoting new collaborations and cooperation. These actions recognize new valuations of water beyond the productive ones enshrined in the current legislation, promoting a form of water management that guarantees human consumption but also recognizes community and eco-systemic uses. Collaborative initiatives help not only to channel conflicts between actors but also to generate new cooperation between public services and private actors. This, in turn, helps to build a common narrative of water crisis that deprioritizes the individual’s private view of water, bringing hope for agreements and collaborations.

Negotiation and knowledge exchange are vital to achieving joint resolutions between actors with diverse interests in tackling the water crisis. The case of Aconcagua shows that collaborative water governance requires coordination between different local actors to break down barriers. The regional government of Valparaíso, as well as municipalities and APRs, have been vital in this effort. The possible instances of coordination that emerge in the territory serve as points of reference for the construction of collaborative water governance in an increasingly complex context at both the local and global scales.

LITERATURE CITED

Aitken, D., D. Rivera, A. Godoy-Faúndez, and E. Holzapfel. 2016. Water scarcity and the impact of the mining and agricultural sectors in Chile. Sustainability 8(2):128. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020128

Alimonda, H. 2011. La naturaleza colonizada. Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO), Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Atria, F., and C. Salgado. 2015. La propiedad, el dominio público y el régimen de aprovechamiento de aguas en Chile. Thompson Reuters, Santiago, Chile.

Ávila-García, P. 2016. Hacia una ecología política del agua en Latinoamérica. Revista de Estudios Sociales 55:18-31. https://doi.org/10.7440/res55.2016.01

Bauer, C. J. 2015. Canto de sirenas. El derecho de aguas chileno como modelo para reformas internacionales. Ediciones El Desconcierto, Santiago, Chile.

Boelens, R., J. Hoogesteger, E Swyngedouw, J. Vos, and P. Wester. 2016. Hydrosocial territories: a political ecology perspective. Water International 41(1):1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2016.1134898

Bolados García, P. 2014. Procesos transnacionales en el salar de Atacama-norte de Chile: Los impactos de la minería y el turismo en las comunidades indígenas atacameñas. Intersecciones en Antropología 15(2):431-443.

Bolados, P. 2016. Conflictos socioambientales/territoriales y el surgimiento de identidades post neoliberales (Valparaíso-Chile). Izquierdas 31:102-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-50492016000600102

Bolados, P., F. Henríquez, C. Ceruti, and A. Cuevas. 2018. La eco-geo-política del agua: una propuesta desde los territorios en las luchas por la recuperación del agua en la provincia de Petorca (Zona central de Chile). Revista Rupturas 8(1):159-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.22458/rr.v8i1.1977

Budds, J. 2012. La demanda, evaluación y asignación del agua en el contexto de escasez: un análisis del ciclo hidrosocial del valle del río La Ligua, Chile. Revista de Geografía Norte Grande 52:167-184. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-34022012000200010

Budds, J. 2013. Water, power, and the production of neoliberalism in Chile, 1973–2005. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 31:301- 318. https://doi.org/10.1068/d9511

Bustos, B., M. Prieto, and J. Barton. 2015. Ecología política en Chile. Poder, naturaleza, conocimiento y propiedad. Editorial Universitaria, Santiago, Chile.

Celume, T. 2022. Reconocimiento legal del derecho humano al agua y sus implicancias en los principios que informan el Código de Aguas. Revista de Derecho Ambiental (17):33-56. https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-4633.2022.67944

Damonte, G. 2015. Redefiniendo territorios hidrosociales: control hídrico en el valle de Ica, Perú (1993–2013). Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural 12(76):109-133. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.cdr12-76.rthc

Damonte, G., and B. Lynch. 2016. Cultura, política y ecología política del agua: una presentación. Anthropologica 34(36):5-21.

Donoso, G. 2021. Management of water resources in agriculture in Chile and its challenges. International Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources 48(3):171-185. https://dx.doi.org/10.7764/ijanr.v48i3.2328

Federici, S. 2004. Caliban and the witch. Autonomedia, Brooklyn, New York, USA.

Fundación Chile. 2018. Escenarios 2030. Radiografía del Agua. Brecha y riesgo hídrico en Chile. Fundación Chile, Santiago, Chile

Gutiérrez, R., L. Linsalata, and M. L. Navarro. 2016. Producing the common and reproducing life: keys towards rethinking the political. Pages 79-92 in A. C. Dinerstein, editor. Social sciences for another politics: women theorizing without parachutes. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47776-3_6

Ibarra, M. I., A. Guasch, J. Ojeda, W. Riquelme Maulen, and J. T. Ibarra. 2023. Commons of the South: ecologies of interdependence in local territories of Chile. Sustainability 15(13):10515. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310515

Kloster, K. 2021. Las luchas por el agua en México (1990–2010). Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México-UACM, Mexico City, Mexico.

Lagos, G. 1997. Impactos ambientales de la minería en Chile. Ambiente y Desarrollo 4:13-20.

Larraín, S. 2021. Ecología política. Taurus, Santiago, Chile.

Laval, C., and P. Dardot. 2015. Común: ensayo sobre la revolución en el s. XXI; GEDISA: Barcelona, Spain.

Lazos Chavero, E. 2020. Introducción. Experiencias que enriquecen las conceptualizaciones y luchas en la defensa de los comunes en América Latina. Pages 11-36 in E. Lazos Chavero, editor. Retos Latinoamericanos en la lucha por los comunes. CLACSO, Buenos Aires, Argentina. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1gm02k3.3

Linton, J. 2010. What is water? The history of a modern abstraction. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774817035

Lukas, M., M. C. Fragkou, and A. Vásquez. 2020. Hacia una ecología política de las nuevas periferias urbanas: suelo, agua y poder en Santiago de Chile. Revista de Geografía Norte Grande 76:95-119. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-34022020000200095

Maldonado Alvarado, B. 2013. Comunalidad y responsabilidad autogestiva. Cuaderno del Sur, Revista de Ciencias Sociales 34:21-27.

Merlinsky, G. 2013. Política, derechos y justicia ambiental. El conficto del Riachuelo. Fondo de Cultura Económica, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Merlinsky, G. 2017. Cartografías del conflicto ambiental en Argentina. Notas teórico-metodológicas. Acta Sociológica 73:221-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acso.2017.08.008

Mundaca, R. 2014. La privatización de las aguas en Chile. Causas y resistencias. América en Movimiento, Santiago, Chile.

Oppliger, A., J. Hohl, and M. Fragkou. 2019. Escasez de agua: develando sus orígenes híbridos en la cuenca de Río Bueno, Chile. Revista de Geografía Norte Grande 73:9-27. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-34022019000200009

Orlove, B., and C. Steven. 2010. Water sustainability: anthropological approaches and prospects. Annual Review of Anthropology 39:401-415. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.105045

Palomino-Schalscha, M., C. Leaman-Constanzo, and S. Bond. 2016. Contested water, contested development: un-packing the hydro-social cycle of the Ñuble River, Chile. Third World Quarterly 37(5):883-901 https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1109436

Panez, A. 2018. Agua-Territorio en América Latina: contribuciones a partir del análisis de estudios sobre conflictos hídricos en Chile. Revista Rupturas 8(1):201-225. https://doi.org/10.22458/rr.v8i1.1978

Perez-Silva, R., and M. Castillo. 2023. Taking advantage of water scarcity? Concentration of agricultural land and the politics behind water governance in Chile. Frontiers in Environmental Science 11:1143254. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1143254

Prieto, M. 2016. Transando el agua, produciendo territorios e identidades indígenas: el modelo de aguas chileno y los atacameños de Calama. Revista de Estudios Sociales 55:88-103. https://doi.org/10.7440/res55.2016.06

Roca-Servat, D., and J. Perdomo-Sánchez. 2020. La lucha por los comunes y las alternativas al desarrollo frente al extractivismo. CLACSO, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Romero T., A. Romero, and X. Toledo. 2009. Agua poder y discursos: conflictos socio-territoriales por la construcción de centrales hidroeléctricas en la Patagonia chilena. Anuario de Estudios Americanos 66(2):81-103. https://doi.org/10.3989/aeamer.2009.v66.i2.318

Yarrow, M. M., A. Tironi, A. Ramírez, and V. Marín. 2008. An applied assessment model to evaluate the socioeconomic impact of water quality regulations in Chile. Water Resources Management 22:1531-1543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-008-9241-0