water Article Fabricating Irrigators: Contested Hydrosocial Territories and Subject-Making in Spain’s Tagus–Segura Interbasin Transfer Arena Nicholas Bourguignon 1, * , Sergio Villamayor-Tomás 1 and Rutgerd Boelens 2,3, * 1 Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Autonomous University of Barcelona, 08193 Barcelona, Spain; sergio.villamayor@uab.cat 2 Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands 3 CEDLA—Centre for Latin American Research and Documentation, University of Amsterdam, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands * Correspondence: nick.bourguignon@uab.cat (N.B.); rutgerd.boelens@wur.nl (R.B.) Abstract: This article explores how irrigation farmer (regante) subjectivities are constructed in direct conjunction with the production of modernist–capitalist hydrosocial territories across the Tagus and Segura river basins in central and south-east Spain. We explore the complexities and contradictions of how, at various scales of governance, authorities establish and seek to realize ideal regante subjects across time and space. We mobilize a hydrosocial territory approach, combined with feminist political ecology and hegemony literature, to explore how such ideal subjects are built through Spanish and regional legislation and policies from 1866 to 2023. Through interviews with regantes in six irrigation communities, we identify different ideal and actual regante subjects in territories interconnected by the Tagus–Segura Aqueduct. We analyze how policy shifts lead to multiple and contradictory roles and responsibilities for regante subjects, which are linked to plot modernization, agricultural professionalization, and farmer rejuvenation. These sharpen divisions between smallholders and emerging large capitalist actors. Counterhegemonic territorial proposals resist these pressures by embodying alternative values and imaginaries. We conclude that through such counterhegemonic struggles, subject construction is enriched, identifying real-life existing and future alternatives for Citation: Bourguignon, N.; more just hydrosocial territories. Villamayor-Tomás, S.; Boelens, R. Fabricating Irrigators: Contested Keywords: subjectivities; hydrosocial territories; Tagus–Segura Aqueduct; water; irrigation; Spain; Hydrosocial Territories and hegemony Subject-Making in Spain’s Tagus–Segura Interbasin Transfer Arena. Water 2024, 16, 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16020192 1. Introduction Academic Editor: Athanasios Loukas Irrigation farmers in Spain, known as regantes, and the irrigation communities they are Received: 28 November 2023 part of, face pressures from above and below. From above, there are increasing regulatory Revised: 15 December 2023 requirements from multiple scales of authorities, such as the European Union’s (EU) Accepted: 19 December 2023 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and those emerging from the State and decentralized Published: 5 January 2024 regions. Next, they face pressures from supermarket certification processes; competition from non-EU markets; water variability in both quantity and quality; and the climate crisis [1]. From below, the crisis related to the transfer of land from one generation to the next limits the entry of young and new regantes into irrigated agriculture [2]. Young people Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. are unwilling or unable to enter the sector, and there is an increasing demand for diverse Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. knowledge (mechanical, chemical, administrative). Within this situation, the drive for This article is an open access article on-plot modernization as a policy choice upends traditional arrangements and creates new distributed under the terms and requirements and challenges. conditions of the Creative Commons Regantes and their relation to water have undergone profound challenges and changes Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// throughout Spain’s recent history. The material and discursive link with water(s) is creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). deeply embedded in the Spanish national imaginary [3] and in Spanish irrigation farmer Water 2024, 16, 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16020192 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water Water 2024, 16, 192 2 of 21 subjectivities [4–6]. Irrigation plays an important role, historically and currently, in a coun- try with uneven rainfall such as Spain. As of 2021, irrigated agriculture accounts for 22.6% of the cultivated surface, from 18.7% in 2002 [7]. The crops grown under irrigation have fueled the export and livestock sectors compared to rainfed crops. The history and role of regantes in rural development has likewise shifted and changed, with current trends in Spanish rural depopulation [8] making their position even more important. Technological and infrastructural advancements have also multiplied water sources (from surface and groundwater to deeper groundwater, wastewater, and sea water), their geographical reach through intra and inter-basin transfers [9], the capital and technical knowledge needed to realize these, and with them, growing complexity and interscalar socionatural relations between regantes, water, and territory [10–12]. The challenges and shifting structures, conditions, and realities that regantes face imply that the profile of the regantes is also shifting. They shift from traditional irrigation practices in historical riverside minifundia to large family enterprises and agribusinesses, the emergence of contract farming, and the rental and ownership of irrigated land by new urban owners and investment funds, managed by service industries [13,14]. These changes and profiles happen at different paces and in different ways across different territories, however, and alternatives exist where regantes continue traditional minifundium-based irrigated agriculture—in hinterlands; in historic, centenary institutions; or when resisting takeovers and expansion by agribusinesses or implementing new models [15,16]. ‘Farmer’, ‘irrigator’, ‘regante’—these are people who grow our food, many of whom live in rural areas and interact with land and water to coproduce landscapes and territories. However, the public imaginary of the farmer, and in Spain of the regante, is oftentimes unidimensional and idealized [17], and authorities at multiple scales—regions, the State, the EU—encourage a circumscribed model regante subject to be governed [18,19]. Ignoring the multifaceted and complex lives of regantes and how regantes as subjects are crafted risks ignoring the diversity of territories and histories of the principal water users of the country. This poses misguided policy prescriptions and guidance for land and water resource governance and the conflicts and contestations surrounding them. Assuming one regante subject ignores the multiplicity of values and rationales—tied to local histories and territories [20]—behind irrigation farming. Likewise, unpacking the regante subjects allows for an examination of the role of power and politics in shaping generations of regantes. Hegemonic power is enacted in different times and with different outcomes across the scales of regional governments, the State, and up to the EU, through policy actions. These shape and are shaped by values and imaginaries, their insertion in irrigation system governance, and the subsequent shaping of subjects and territories. From a policy perspective, it institutes limited expectations about how regantes actually behave when confronted with changing circumstances (such as drought, technological innovation, or regulatory demands) [21]. In this article, we explore how regante subjects are produced and mobilized through European, national, and regional hydrological and agricultural policies within the context of the Tagus–Segura Aqueduct (TSA) interbasin transfer in Spain. We also explore how regante subjectivities are produced by regantes themselves, in relation to each other, in relation to regantes across basins and infrastructural/technological options and choices, and in relation to historical, present, and imagined water sources. These subjectivities are framed and embedded in specific territories and represent sets of both hegemonic and counterhegemonic imaginaries [22]. This article, therefore, poses the question of how regante subjectivities are constructed in relation to the (contested) configuration of the particular hydrosocial territories in which they are assumed to take part. We explore the complexities and contradictions of authorities establishing ideal regante subjects across time and space and to what extent these ideals are realized by regantes themselves. We cast light on existing hegemonic, non-hegemonic, and counterhegemonic territorial imaginaries, the latter veering from the ideal regante subject. This can inform the search for more equitable and just water futures. Water 2024, 16, 192 3 of 21 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Theoretical Framework The conceptual aim of this paper is to problematize and question the construction of the regante as a modernist water user in irrigated agriculture with the politics behind the production of the techno-capitalist irrigation farmer as subject. It explores the construction of the ideal regante subject as envisioned and deployed materially and discursively by various levels of authority—from the regional level, to the State, to the European Union (EU)—and how regante subjectivities are in practice realized, whether these conform to or subvert the ideal, and the relationship these subjects have with the territories they manipulate and inhabit. Feminist political ecology contributions to the subjectivity literature provide ways of thinking about human–environment relations and the co-creation of socionatures embed- ded in material realities. This literature focuses on subjectivities and natural resource use intersecting social categories of difference [23–25]. Acknowledging that subject creation has long been a concern of the social sciences [26], feminist contributions are inspired by, for instance, Butler’s [27] performativity of gender, which sees gendered subjectivities as con- structed and informed by power relations and their environment [28]. Subject performance is not limited only to gender but equally involves other social categories of difference such as class, race, or age, which combine intersectionally [23,29,30]. Through this, subjectivity is studied, amongst others, as a process through which people are “disciplined by and iden- tified with certain discourses and practices” [31] (p. 33). The subjects are produced through multi-dimensional aspects of power, which are exercised and internalized, commonly with unexpected consequences [28]. Through power, subjectivities oftentimes develop processes of social differentiation and hierarchies. Mainstream narratives and processes of subjection tend to shape individualized modes of identification; subjectivities that relate to neoliberalized natures break away from forms of communal resource management [32]. In this way we can visualize the link between subject formation, power, and Foucauldian governmentality as a form of dispersed everyday rule through strongly individualized practices and contained perspectives that legitimize particular knowledges [33,34]. Theoretical insights by Nightingale [25] provide a particularly relevant understanding of subject creation and subjection and the power relations linked to resource users and the environments they are embedded in. She explores the creation of fishermen subjects in Scotland and argues that the construction of specific subjects, as outsiders, as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ fishermen is linked to the method and technology at fishermen’s disposal, to their connection to community, to perceptions of ‘sustainable’ fishing, and to the construction of fishermen subjects by policymakers when the governed subjects comply or resist. She invokes three developments made by feminist geographer Longhurst [35] when theorizing the subject. First, subjects are always placed; that is, they perform in specific places and spaces. Second, subjectivities are embodied and, therefore, material; that is, they are consti- tuted by physical acts. Finally, and mirroring the arguments made by Hommes et al. [20], resistance to subjection entails moments of reframing and breaking away from modes of established meaning making and self-identification as territorial subjects. The hydrosocial territory literature emerges with a strong focus on the construction of subjects through governmentality and contested modes of territorialization [36]. We consider multi-scalar hydrosocial transformations and their impact on subject-making, ranging from on-plot and the irrigation community scale to basin and interbasin exchanges and scales. We also enroll the concept of hegemony grounded in Gramscian thought, where dominant ideas and discourses espoused by the State and other institutions vested with power [34,37] are constantly rearticulated to stabilize the hegemony. They become accepted as dominant and unquestioned facts and relationships with implications for how social groups perceive problems and possible solutions [22,28,37,38]. On-plot technological transformations were documented by Sanchis-Ibor et al. [13], who explored the role of privatization as a subtle technology transfer and modernization issue, shaping new subjectivities and identities involving the moralization of technology Water 2024, 16, 192 4 of 21 and counter-moralization strategies (see also [39]). We take on the transformation of regante subjects through these strategies, where different authorities not only encourage the adoption of on-plot technologies to create model regantes but they also create regante others, that is, those water users who continue traditional forms of irrigation. Not only are authorities complicit in creating these subjects but irrigation farmers themselves are quick to name ‘good’ and ‘bad’ examples of regantes, and these are intimately tied to place and water use based on the type of irrigation practiced. This brings in arguments brought forth by Hommes et al. [20], who explored the hy- drological infrastructures’ role in (re)constructing territory, imaginaries, and subjectivities through governmentality endeavors. Imaginaries informed by science and technology are never apolitical, and their realization through (hydrological and hydraulic) infrastructure contains their own prescriptions and norms. Whether specific subjects subscribe to this dominant imaginary or not, the subjects stand in relation to its truth claims. New sub- jectivities emerge when circumstances and relations shift, such as when infrastructure is constructed and technologies are implemented that change the subjects’ ways of living and operating in socio-technical systems. The ideals of the imaginary also contrast between expected (normative) and actual (lived) experiences of subjects and their self-perception regarding expected and actual access and control over the material environment. The mate- rialization of infrastructure as “hardened morality or materialized power” [20] (p. 5 cf. [40]) nonetheless does not guarantee a fixed path over how infrastructure is actually used, governed, or abused. The clash between normative and lived subjectivities can give life to new imaginaries and identities, where “fugitive energies” [20] (p. 6) can propel new subjectivities, generating new imaginaries that challenge and change existing hydrosocial territorial configurations anew. The notion of territories within a territory (territorial pluralism) [36,41] positions multiple entangled and hybridizing territories where territorialization contributes to “con- ducting subject populations’ conduct” [33,42]. This also finds expression in, for instance, the construction of “river-as-subject” [43] by authorities, regantes, and the imaginaries deployed to do so. Interbasin water transfers (IBWTs) such as the TSA problematize water resource gov- ernance by piercing across water basins, these being discrete water governance units as encapsulated in the integrated water resource management paradigm [9,44,45]. Of contin- uing interest here is how the TSA as a conduit and infrastructural artifact mediates and constructs regante and river subjects on either side of the TSA. As argued by Boelens et al., “A socio-ecological river expresses being/becoming subject through the meaning ascribed to it, which in turn shapes the river and those ascribing the meaning at the same time” [43] (p. 15). Here, it is not only humans or presumably dehumanized river ecologies that are subjectified, but in an integrated manner, this also includes the IBWT infrastructure itself, being bestowed with new and often contested meaning. Regantes in the Tagus and Segura basins cannot materially or discursively understand their own place, self, or waters without recourse to the TSA, to regantes within their own communities and basins, or in the other basins that now become connected [19,46,47]. 2.2. Methods In terms of methodology, the results explore two dimensions. The first section outlines the evolution of the construction of ideal regante subjects as envisioned by authorities across five distinct periods from 1866 to 2023 through an analysis of the hydrological, agricultural, and rural development legislation and policies at the levels of the State, the EU, and from two regions—Murcia and Castille–La Mancha. The source material includes a literature review of the scholarship examining Spanish hydraulic and agricultural policy, as well as legislative and policy documents (see Supplementary Materials). The second section explores the lived regante subjectivities and is based on interviews and group meetings (interviews were anonymized and pseudonymized) with 27 individu- als in six irrigation communities: two in the Tagus basin and four in the Segura basin—with Water 2024, 16, 192 5 of 21 the TSA as a backdrop. The interview selection considered, whenever possible, gender, age, and farm size (based on number of hectares of irrigated land owned) as selection criteria. Semi-structured interviews with regantes were conducted to share their experi- ences, histories, and accounts of technological changes in their communities, as well as perceptions of water use and sustainability in other communities within and across the aqueduct-connected basins. The following Table 1 provides a breakdown of the irrigation communities in question. Table 1. Irrigation communities in the Tagus and Segura River basins. Irrigation Year Water Irrigated Basin Region Members Community Established Sources Surface (ha) Castilla- Canal Bajo del Tagus 1957 Surface 8879 3000 La Mancha Alberche Castilla- Tagus Alcolea de Tajo 2000 Surface 3632 373 La Mancha TSA; Región de Campo de Segura 1952 groundwater; 42,255 9699 Murcia Cartagena Residual TSA; Groundwater; Región de Trasvase Tajo- Segura 1979 Treated 10,780 4500 Murcia Segura de Totana residual; desalinated Surface; Juzgado Comunidad Transfer; Segura Privativo de Aguas 1275 6793 11,270 Valenciana Treated de Orihuela Residual Castilla- Las Fuentes de Segura 1986 Surface 351 400 La Mancha Letur Note: Source: [22]. Based on the fieldwork conducted in 2022, the establishment of hegemonic and coun- terhegemonic irrigated territories in river basins connected by the TSA is based on the history and relationship with dominant, hegemonic visions of irrigation practice and ter- ritorial transformation. Combining hegemony with the hydrosocial territories approach revealed particular relationships from regantes with their immediate territories and irriga- tion communities to hegemonic discourses and practices. Following this framework, the hegemonic core territories are those where their trans- formation is most aligned with the hegemonic imaginaries on the State’s ideal irrigation territory [22]. Next, the so-called frontier hegemonic territories also feature transformations moving towards the hegemonic ideals of irrigation, though these are only partially realized. Finally, so-called counterhegemonic territories are those that do not subscribe to or even reject the hegemonic ideal and present configurations of alternatives to hegemony [38] and potential pathways for water justice [48]. The following Figure 1 places the irrigation com- munities visited in Table 1 within the hegemonic territories within the territory framework discussed above. Water 2024, 16, 192 6 of 21 Water 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 21 Figure 1. Hydrosocial territories and irrigation communities in the Tagus and Segura River basins Figure 1. Hydrosocial territories and irrigation communities in the Tagus and Segura River basins and the location of the TSA in Peninsular Spain. Source: [22]. Hegemonic core hydrosocial territory and is inthe red,location of the hegemonic TSA in frontier Peninsular hydrosocial Spain. is territory Source: [22].and in orange, Hegemonic core hydrosocial counter-hegemonic territory hydrosocial isterritory in red, hegemonic is in green. frontier hydrosocial territory is in orange, and counter-hegemonic hydrosocial territory is in green. 3. Results 3. Results 3.1. Shaping the Ideal Regante Subject—Hydraulic and Agrarian Legislation and Policy 3.1. Shaping the Ideal Regante Subject—Hydraulic and Agrarian Legislation and Policy The historical construction of the regante subject by hegemonic authorities has The historical construction of the regante subject by hegemonic authorities has changed changed markedly since the Spanish State declared water as part of the public trust in markedly since the Spanish State declared water as part of the public trust in 1866, thereby 1866, thereby putting regantes, as the principal water users in Spain, under the jurisdiction putting regantes, of State power. The as the principal time from 1866 water to users 2023 is in broken Spain, under down the intojurisdiction of State five historical periodspower. The time from 1866 to 2023 is broken down into five historical where the ideal regante’s portrayal shifts, and these fall under the general sociopolitical periods where the ideal regante’s portrayal shifts, and these fall under the general sociopolitical epochs of Spanish history from the late 19th into the 21st centuries. The first period, regen- epochs of Spanish history from began eracionismo, the latein19th 1866intowith thethe 21st centuries.ofThe declaration firstas water period, part ofregeneracionismo, the public trustbegan and in 1866 ended in 1938 towards the end of the Spanish civil war when the Francoist regime began the with the declaration of water as part of the public trust and ended in 1938 towards end of thethe undoing Spanish civil war II Republic’s whenreform agrarian the Francoist and began regime began undoing centralizing power. The theearly II Republic’s dicta- agrarian reformstarting torship period, and began at thecentralizing closure of power. the civilThe war,earlyendeddictatorship in 1952 whenperiod, starting at the regime the closure ended of the civil its period war, endedisolation, of international in 1952 when the regime and agrarian endedbegan reforms its period of international encouraging the isolation, training of and agrarian farmers andreforms regantes.began Theencouraging late dictatorship the training ended itsof farmers and regantes. period with Franco’sThe late dictatorship death, leading toended its periodrestoration the democratic with Franco’s death, period, from leading to the of the passing democratic restoration the 1978 Spanish period, from to constitution the1998. passing Thisof the 1978 period Spanish is marked byconstitution the redistributionto 1998.of This powerperiod to theisSpanish marked by the redistribution regions, of poweroftoregional the development the Spanish regions, autonomy, andthethedevelopment insertion of EUof regional legislation.autonomy, The and the insertion current democratic of regionalization EU legislation. periodThe currentis named democratic as such due regionalization period isand to the establishment named push of regional agricultural and rural development plans, as such due to the establishment and push of regional agricultural and rural development with regional governments flexingwith plans, theirregional power and visions accorded governments flexingthrough their power their andautonomy visionsfrom the central accorded through gov-their ernment. Itfrom autonomy started thein 1999 with central the modification government. It started ofin the19991985 water with thelaw, and the develop- modification of the 1985 ment of water law,regional and the CAP-funded development development of regionalplans gave moredevelopment CAP-funded power to the plans regionalgavegov-more ernments power andregional to the stakeholders in directing governments their and vision of regantes. stakeholders The following in directing Tableof their vision 2 sum- regantes. marizes The the regante following Tableideal from each period, 2 summarizes the reganteas laid outfrom ideal in theeach analysis in Supplementary period, as laid out in the Materials. analysis in Supplementary Materials. Water 2024, 16, 192 7 of 21 Table 2. Ideal regantes by historical period—1866–2023. Historical Period Regante Ideal Regantes as petty-bourgeois, small scale, independent, democratic, modern, and competitive [3] (p. 74) [4,49]. Combination of expansive supply-side Regeneracionismo (1866–1938) hydraulic policy to make water available for irrigation expansion and internal Hegemon: State colonization creating communities of smallholders with agricultural experience to create agricultural surplus. See also [50–55] Colonist regantes in new irrigation schemes deemed peasants (campesino), though aimed to be modern food producers and serving as an example to large landowners to attract land sales and private investment in the new colonies and irrigation schemes [56]. They would settle new territories declared in the Early national interest through the sale of the land of large landowners. The figure of dictatorship campesino denotes the smallholder peasant farmer. As a social class in and of (1939–1951) itself, the campesinado, or peasantry, was the subject of the Second Republic’s Hegemon: State agrarian reforms to have them and landless peasants own land and, by Francoist agricultural policies, to provide them the land without jeopardizing the status and political will of the large landowners who were the regime’s supporters [57–59]. See also [3,60–62] Continuation of the early dictatorship’s ideal, with more expectations of Late dictatorship (1952–1977) knowledge transfer and professionalization vested through the agricultural Hegemon: State extension services [11]. Expansion of the number of colonists serving the ideal. See also [63,64] No explicit mention of a regante ideal, though farmer ideals are characterized. Emerging contradiction between EU and State policy envisioning farmers and their roles. EU begins with the professionalization of the figure of the farmer, who would receive CAP finance, including technical assistance and support, support to small firms, and rural tourism, as ways of reducing Democratic out-migration [65,66]. The Spanish legislation on water reinforces the Restoration rationality and scarcity view of the water resource [67]. Agricultural policy (1978–1998) views traditional irrigation as irrational and wasteful: it identifies the Hegemon: State, EU contradiction of traditional agriculture as strong in populating rural areas but changing it on competitivity principles requires modernization [12]. By identifying the limits on competitivity, the ideal farmer (and regante) would have larger plots, be young, have access to land and the means of production, and access markets [68–70] The ideal regante runs an economically efficient agri-enterprise with a modernized, water-efficient irrigation system. The regante is most likely male, preferably young, professional, and has the technical and general knowledge to work with increasingly complex and innovative irrigation distribution and on-plot application systems and technologies, as well as increasing protocols and requirements to be environmental stewards and produce exporters [13]. Democratic Regionalization (1999–2023) Regantes would also be the facilitators of economic change, job creators, and Hegemon: State, Regions, EU reinvigorating rural communities [70–75]. The regional variants of the regante also emerge. The Murcian regante ideal is young, knowledgeable of various issues, incorporating multiple water sources for irrigation, and exporting produce outside of Spain. The Manchegan regante is modernized, saving water and aiding in the establishment of new irrigation schemes and gaining new technical knowledge [20]. Note: Source: own elaboration. Compared to the previous historical periods, the current democratic regionalization period has multiple sources of authority establishing legislation and policy, which makes the reading of time and authority complex. The following Figure 2 provides an outline of the timeline and scales of the policies in this period. Water Water 2024, x FOR16, 16, 2024, 192 REVIEW PEER 8 of 21 8 of 21 Figure 2.Figure Timeline of agricultural 2. Timeline (green)(green) of agricultural and hydraulic (blue)(blue) and hydraulic legislation and policies legislation at the and policies at Euro- the European, pean, State, and TSA-connected regional (Castille–La Mancha and Murcia) levels between 1999 and State, and TSA-connected regional (Castille–La Mancha and Murcia) levels between 1999 and 2023. 2023. Source: own elaboration (see Supplementary Materials). Source: own elaboration (see Supplementary Materials). In the current democratic In the current regionalization democratic period,period, regionalization the Water theFramework Water FrameworkDirective was was Directive incorporated into Spanish incorporated legislation, into Spanish and one legislation, andifoneits if keyits policies—shifting key policies—shifting river manage- river management ment totothe the basin level—already found Spain managing water at the river basin levellevel basin level—already found Spain managing water at the river basin through its throughRiver its River Basin Basin Authorities Authorities (RBAs)(RBAs)[75].[75]. Its focus Its focus on on environmental environmental criteria, criteria, atten- to the attention tion to the quality quality of bodies of bodies of water, of water, and and increasing increasing the participation the participation of stakeholders of stakeholders was awas novelty in a novelty in the Spanish context [44], which had RBAs until then being the Spanish context [44], which had RBAs until then being governed alongside technocratic, governed alongside technocratic, supply-side supply-side criteria, criteria, and withandawith a near-monopoly near-monopoly of the of the hydroelectric hydroelectric and irri- sectors and irrigation gation sectors in the governance boards. The competent authorities in the governance boards. The competent authorities designated in Spain under designated in Spain the WFD under the WFD are the RBAs and the ministry for ecological transition are the RBAs and the ministry for ecological transition and demographic challenge [76]. and demographic challengeThe[76]. The regional regional governments governments playin play a role a role RBAingovernance, RBA governance, with represen-in their with representation tation ingoverning their governing boardsboards assigned assigned accordingaccording to theto the proportion proportion of theofterritory the territory and and population population thatregions that the the regions have havein thein the basin, river river basin, alongsidealongside the usertheassociations user associations [44]. many [44]. Among Amongothermanyhydrologically other hydrologically related related functions, functions, the RBAthe RBA user-participatory user-participatory boards annual boards decide decide annual allocation allocation quotas [76]. quotas [76]. Within Within the agricultural sector, the the agricultural introduction sector, the introductionof riverofbasin rivermanagement basin management plans asplans as required by the Water required by the Framework Water Framework Directive, which, which, Directive, in turn,inwould inform inform turn, would the National the National Hydrological Plan, saw Hydrological Plan, these sawfocusing on increasing these focusing water-use on increasing efficiency water-use throughthrough efficiency the the modernization modernizationof the of irrigation systems. the irrigation Nonetheless, systems. Nonetheless, thesethese posepose problems, problems, since water since water con- consumption sumption has has not not decreased decreased butbut surface surfacewaterwaterandand aquifer recharge aquifer rechargehashas[77]; further- [77]; furthermore, cropproduction more, crop production has intensified and and water waterconcessions concessionswere werenotnotrevised revised post-modernization post-mod- andand ernization impact impactthethe social cohesion social cohesion of of thethe traditional traditionalirrigation irrigationcommunities communities[58]. [58].ItIt should should bebe noted noted that the last National National Hydrological HydrologicalPlan Planof of2001 2001aimed aimedtototransfer transferwater water from from the the Ebro Ebro basin basin to to thethe Segura Segura basins, basins, representing representing the the lastlast attempt attempt of large-scale of large-scale trans-transfers within fers within Spain’s Spain’s hydrological hydrological paradigm. paradigm. Following Following significant significant opposition, opposition, this this waswas cancelled, can- even ififthe celled, even theWater WaterFramework Framework Directive Directive was was contested contested by the by the supporters supporters of defending of defend- Spain’s “singularity”, which backed transfers to southeast ing Spain’s “singularity”, which backed transfers to southeast Spain for urban and irriga- Spain for urban and irrigation development tion development [75]. [75]. Water 2024, 16, 192 9 of 21 3.2. The Actual Regante Subject Following the presentation of ideal regantes across historical periods, this section presents the results of interviews with regantes and how they act and are in the differ- ent territories. We follow Longhurst’s three categories of analysis for understanding subjects—that subjects are always in place, they are embodied and material, and subjection and re-subjection reproduce dominant discourses [35]. We apply these across the territorial categorizations of hegemony, frontier hegemony, and counterhegemony, thereby linking subjectivity with water and territory. 3.2.1. Hegemonic Territory Subjectivities The hegemonic territories in Totana and Cartagena have their own histories of irriga- tion and power relations over water, conditioning the current perceptions of water and land. Totana’s link to a nearby river that is historically irrigated with muddy waters was not included in the perimeter designed for the TSA water until 2019. This and the local elites’ historical ownership of wells that auctioned irrigation water at exorbitant prices condition hydrological relationships to this day. The semi-arid nature of the region also invokes descriptions of place as desert turned green due to the TSA. There are high levels of on-plot modernization and professionalization of regantes setting up agribusinesses, growth of large, locally based agribusinesses, and smallholder and medium-sized regantes purchasing and leasing plots from an emergent crisis of generational handover. In this way, hegemonic territories display a close alignment with policy discourses describing ideal regantes (see Table 2). The development of distribution systems and on- plot modernization infrastructure and technologies is perceived to be among the most technologically advanced and innovative in the world, with the principle of absolute con- trol over resource inputs to grow crops shared by irrigation community leadership, as well as smallholders. Traditional flood irrigation is questioned at best: “they [water] are scarce resources. We don’t understand how there are still areas where flood irrigation is practiced” [78]. Even those critical of the TSA, who question water scarcity discourses justi- fying the continuation of the TSA, point to technology to secure alternative water sources. At the same time, regantes face significant uncertainty due to water availability, increasing demands from regulatory authorities, requirements to receive subsidies, and increasing certification requirements from supermarkets. Smallholders also criticize contradictions in policy support, which they argue goes to richer regantes. In hegemonic territories, there is a distinction between regantes, those that do things “the old way”, and those that are technologically developed. The latter are dependent on engineers, technicians, and service providers. This is accentuated by the distinction between who is considered a regante, those that own plots of land, and the professional agricultor farmer, likewise a regante by virtue of owning irrigated land. Professional farmers are those engaged in production for international markets. “Here most of us . . . there are small areas where there are still regantes with small plots for self-consumption, but very little . . . Most farmers and regantes have an average of, well it depends, there are farmers with more than 100 ha, farmers with between 100 and 50 ha, and then there are many that have 10, 15, 20, 5 ha. Around there. But most farmers sell their products with cooperatives, enterprises . . . and it’s true that it could be 5% of farmers that do it for leisure, that have a job and have a small plot to grow on, and they may take it to a cooperative, but at a small scale” [79]. Following national and European protocols and requirements, as well as certifications to sell to supermarkets, can be onerous and requires the regante to pay service providers to ensure that these are met. A second distinction is based on plot size: medium and large landholders, and smallholders. Smallholders argue that they, not multinationals, would be the ideal regantes in a sustainable future since they are the ones connected to territory, to land and water, and who have a connection to their local environment and can safeguard it. Traditional irrigation practices in the basin that have historical concessions are seen as destined to disappear. Water 2024, 16, 192 10 of 21 3.2.2. Hegemonic Frontier Territory Subjectivities Frontier hegemonic territories were established during the early dictatorship and as late as the democratic restoration period. Historically, and under directives of the then ministry of agriculture and National Institute of Colonization, both the Alberche and Alcolea communities were directed towards specific crop choices by national and regional authorities. The irrigation community surrounds the city of Talavera de la Reina, with urban expansion eating into the irrigable perimeter and the Tagus RBA not permitting expansion of the perimeter. The plots of land were originally small, around 4 ha, and when the cattle sector became dominant, all farmers had under 10 heads of cattle, considering themselves self-sufficient. Nowadays, there are farms with over 100 heads of cattle that can be considered viable. Investment funds are entering the irrigation community and buy land to cultivate high-value tree crops. This increases land prices but complicates the individual regantes’ ability to expand. This also reduces alfalfa production, worrying regantes with livestock. The Alcolea community’s relationship with the river has been lost due to contamination and eutrophication. Residents could bathe in the river and canals, but now, regantes deal with contamination, eutrophication, and stench. Nonetheless, water is seen as giving life, and the transformation from rain-fed to irrigated agriculture is symbolized by the shift in colors, from brown and yellow to green. In hegemonic frontier territories, the entrance of investment funds as actors in the Alberche and Alcolea communities drives land purchase and concentration. The purchase of land by the funds and the planting of tree crops lasting potentially up to 30 years is making it increasingly difficult for local regantes to rent land. In the Alberche community, there has been no investment in the maintenance of the community’s distribution network. In the Alcolea community, water quality is a concern. Regantes check visually and by smell the state of the water in the water source. When there is strong eutrophication in summer, regantes must be careful that algae do not foul their distribution systems. The frontier hegemonic territories consist of regantes attempting to keep in line with hegemonic discourses, yet they face challenges from the entry of new actors and an acute crisis of the generational handover of land. The establishment of the Alberche community responded to the dictatorship’s policy of “internal colonization” to expand irrigation, in- crease food production, and encourage the establishment of smallholder communities. This is reflected in the establishment of a local agrarian training center and low interest credit provided for the purchase of machinery that covered full costs. Such policies encouraged young farmers in the 1950s and 1960s to settle. Nowadays, similar subsidies cover a fraction of the required machinery costs, effectively barring young farmers from accessing land unless they inherit it. Regantes do not see their children continuing in agriculture, since they consider the uncertainty of economic viability to be an impediment, and individuals trained in agriculture cannot purchase their own land. The entry of investment funds has local regantes worried that it will accelerate the end of the locally based, smallholder professional regante. Local regantes expect the future to be based in agribusinesses and service providers, including irrigated land management services. The Alcolea community, on the other hand, reflects policy decisions of the current democratic regionalization period. The local National Institute of Colonization spurred the transition to livestock in the area, while the requirement to practice drip irrigation is reflected in regional policy. The hegemonic frontier regantes see themselves as educated, trained through local demonstration plots and by agrarian training centers. The technical knowledge needed to be able to grow crops in conditions allowing sales to supermarkets means they must master multiple disciplines and navigate administrative processes. Lately, there has been more interest from people new to the sector, from Madrid, in training as farmers. However, as mentioned earlier, it is very difficult to obtain land, and new farmers can only work for other regantes, service providers, or agribusinesses. The current policies and administrations are seen to only favor large agribusinesses, exacerbating the generational handover crisis and creating a distinction between two regante subjects, those locally based regantes who Water 2024, 16, 192 11 of 21 still own land and live in the community and absent regantes owning land but using service providers. 3.2.3. Counterhegemonic Territory Subjectivities Regantes in counterhegemonic territories are intimately linked with centuries-old irrigation systems. In Letur, they seek to maintain their territories as they are, resisting changes and keeping open-air canals fed by springs. The irrigation system is perceived as the result of a centuries-old process of trial and error and an example of sustainable water use, resisting social, political, and economic changes, as well as shifting food system models. In Orihuela, the irrigation system is dependent on the cycle of “live and dead water”, recycling irrigation water—which relies on flood irrigation [80]. It dates to 1275 through a royal privilege declaring that the beneficiaries “irrigate and irrigate as much as they did in times of the moors and more if they can” [81] (p. 290). This is a historical recognition by the Castilian king Alfonso X of the irrigation improvements brought to and developed by Muslim Arabs in Islamic Spain. Traditional agriculture up to the 1970s involved women and men watering their fields with buckets, wooden mills, and mules. According to the data provided in 2023 by the secretary of the Orihuela tribunal [82], approximately 95% of the system still practices flood irrigation. The land in the system is highly distributed, described as “a brutal minifundium” [82], with average holdings not reaching a hectare. The material acts in counterhegemonic territories focus on maintenance and interven- tion in systems and resistance to actions from authorities that impact their systems. In Letur, the network is constantly worked on and repaired. The leadership of the irrigation community passed bylaws ensuring the canals remain uncovered, “that the water can be seen, and that it can continue being enjoyed as it has been for centuries, and that Letur remains the same” [83]. The community has mobilized to stop the drilling of artesian wells close to the springs and to reject the installation of water counters. In Orihuela, smallholdings meant that before mechanization was introduced, regantes would water by hand. The arrival of the TSA saw the transformation of rain-fed lands uphill of the valley floor dedicated to fruit trees. In the 1980s, the canals feeding the traditional system were impermeabilized with concrete, which affected the collection of dead water after irrigation. Regantes in counterhegemonic territories present resistance, as well as ambivalence, towards hegemonic discourses. The Letur community perceive themselves as outsiders of agricultural development policies. The policies require covering canals, installing water counters, or shifting to drip or spray, which are resisted. The community perceived that they are constantly under the threat that the Segura RBA could tap and exhaust their aquifer. The Letur leadership claim policy should “support those who truly take care of water, not only of those who destroy it” [83]. While Letur is not immediately impacted by the TSA, they argue the transfer created supply expectations that became a real, unsatisfiable demand: “Now there is a giant monster consuming water in the Segura basin, in large part thanks to the transfer, and that monster wants water, wants water, and it has an enormous political and economic power, and we are nothing compared to [that monster]” [83]. In the Orihuela tribunal, there is a perception of total abandonment by authorities towards traditional agriculture and the Segura River. The agricultural development policies are perceived as benefiting large farms and irrigation communities. This is seen as hypocritical when there is similarly a policy push for ecological agriculture, zero-kilometer food production, protection of the environment, and reduced contamination. The arguments for modernization are refuted by traditional regantes. The reuse of water and its cycling through the system cannot be carried out with drip irrigation, and policies mark the end of the small-scale farmer. The TSA is described as “a monster, a seven-headed hydra” [82]. Counterhegemonic territory regantes see themselves as defenders of the environment, of territory, and of water. Cooperation in both Letur and Orihuela is crucial for the functioning of their systems. In Letur, irrigation systems respect biophysical and territorial limits, with no expectations of expanding the irrigable perimeter. The constant flow of Water 2024, 16, 192 12 of 21 water provides for the local ecosystem, the landscape, and communities downstream. Few individuals live off agriculture exclusively; most regantes are retired or part-time farmers for self-consumption or for additional income. Farming is valued not only economically but there is also joy and satisfaction in tilling soil or sharing produce with family members. In Orihuela, specific on-plot technologies are not seen as superior or inferior to one another but depend on crop choice. Sustainable water use is that which uses the right amount to optimize crop growth. The traditional model is compared to intensive irrigation models that create landscapes of plastic greenhouses. As stated by the tribunal’s secretary, “In terms of traditional irrigation’s water sustainability, examining the numbers well, it beats the [TSA] transfer[’s irrigation model] totally. If you are speaking about economic performance, they [the TSA transfer’s irrigation model] wipe us [the Orihuela tribunal’s traditional irrigation model] clean. Without a doubt” [82]. Future outlooks of the smallholder regante are perceived to be bleak because there is no policy support, and there is a suspicion that is what is desired by the regional and national authorities. 4. Discussion 4.1. The Contradictions of Realizing Ideal and Real Regantes Early policies and legislation, from regeneracionismo through the dictatorship, set the legislative, policy, and infrastructural agenda for hydraulic development that aimed to not only transform territories through supply-side infrastructure but also begin crafting a social category of farmer, regante, to do so. A specific imaginary [20] of water control is developed and institutionalized, with the State putting surface water under the public trust in 1866, RBAs being established in 1926, and planned infrastructural works, including the TSA, being proposed in 1936. The State’s vision of total hydraulic transformation [3,34,37] responded not only to make Spain self-sufficient in food production but also responded to political pressure to resolve the agrarian question of providing peasants with land by populating the interior of the country and expanding irrigation schemes, as seen in hegemonic frontier territories. The end of international isolation sped the construction of hydraulic infrastructure, with the TSA being approved in 1955, construction commencing in 1968, and transfers being legally approved in 1971. It is with the arrival of the TSA that hegemonic territories transformed and counterhegemonic territories entered a discursive and material relation with the TSA and hegemonic discourses and policies through the reintegration of the Segura RBA, such as by impermeabilizing the live water–dead water network of Orihuela. The transformation of regantes occurs in parallel to hydraulic developments. The 1932 irrigation works law constituted the colonization boards, later continued under the dictatorship’s National Institute of Colonization in 1939, which intervened in the hegemonic frontier territories of the Tagus basin as late as the 1980s. As in the 1950s, with policy reform and the institution of agricultural extension services, there is the beginning of a modernizing discourse [56] and an explicit conducting of subject populations ([36,47] cf. [84]). This aimed to professionalize regantes and their knowledge base, not just a policy of the populating territory, reflected in the ideal regante subjectivity of the late dictatorship (Table 2). As seen in credit policies that hegemonic frontier territories experienced positively, regantes look back at this period as one where the minifundia model allowed them to make a living for their families. The minifundia model is also present in hegemonic and counterhegemonic territories, but this period is remembered in the hegemonic territory of Totana for the unjust distribution of water through private wells. The arrival of the TSA coincides with the beginning of scalar policies, including the EU, which, alongside hydraulic policy, prescribed ideal visions of regantes, which included the modernization of their plots (the 1985 water law) to rationalize water use and their professionalization and importance in fixing populations and leading a rural regeneration (the 1995 law on modernization of agrarian units). It is in the democratic regionalization period that the policy focus on modernization, professionalization, and rejuvenation of regantes deepens, establishing multiple roles and Water 2024, 16, 192 13 of 21 heightening contradictions between the ideal and actual regantes. Revisiting Figure 2 highlights the multiple scales of authorities and their policy actions that prescribe the ideal regante when confronting the challenges of modernization, professionalization, and rejuvenation in all territories. The push for hegemonic principles [22] as normative moral frameworks [13] collides in different ways in hegemonic, hegemonic frontier, and coun- terhegemonic territories. The multiple scales of authorities also imply that the frames of reference to which regantes are subject and respond to [25] multiply. While EU policy does not discursively build a clear regante subject, national and regional policies build various ideals. At the EU scale, the common agricultural policy provides the financial means for territorial transformations through the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Develop- ment since 1999, dedicated to modernization, agri-environmental, and rural develop- ment measures [85]. At the State level, the 2000–2006 Regional Development Program, the 2002–2008 National Irrigation Plan, the 2007–2013 National Strategic Plan for Rural Development, and the 2014–2022 National Rural Development Program lay out broad visions for regante ideals. As seen in Table 2, it is at the regional level that policies articulate somewhat different roles for the ideal regante. While the ideal Murcian regante focuses on mastering various knowledges, mobilizing various waters, and exporting internationally, the ideal Machegan regante is to modernize their fields, aid in saving water, and mobilize further land to put under irrigation where possible. The realization of ideal regantes in hegemonic and frontier hegemonic territories lays bare several contradictions and struggles in attaining this realization. First, when regantes perform the ideal regante subject [25,86], they experience precariousness and a loss of autonomy [13] that contributes to perceptions from regantes that their children do not want to follow in their parents’ footsteps. Dependence on service providers, pressure to adopt technology and knowledge upgrading, competition and search for markets, increasingly demanding certification processes, and the uncertainty of water provision in sufficient quantity (through the TSA in hegemonic territories) or quality (from the Tagus in part of the hegemonic frontier territories) are all factors causing stress and contributing to the generational handover crisis, since older regantes cannot or choose not to keep up. Second, policy drives have led to a principal contradiction over regante subjects. Local large agribusinesses in hegemonic territories and investment funds in hegemonic frontier territories have caused land prices to rise, and new, young farmers cannot enter the sector. Ironically, the realization of ideal subjects in the contemporary period occurs in contexts where it is feared that agrarian communities will die out, and in their place, ideal subjects strive for an individualized but dependent existence where other human relationships are increasingly mediated through the paid services mentioned above (and increasingly, paid natures for new water sources such as desalinated and treated wastewater), echoing, in part, Harris’s argument on subject individualization in neoliberalized natures [32]. Finally, inter- and intra-community land size differences and tensions emerge in hegemonic and hegemonic frontier territories, linked to access to subsidies, water, land, and to the roles of reproducing rural life. Contentious relations between smallholders and large businesses in hegemonic territories reflect the dissonance between lived histories and struggles over securing water resources. In Totana, histories of the local irrigation with muddy waters and the extractive control of groundwater by local elites in the pre- TSA period that are remembered to this day are contrasted with the current attempts to recognize extinguished historical water rights that smallholders push to have recognized vis-à-vis large landholders and businesses that have water access. In the hegemonic frontier territories of Alberche and Alcolea, the irruption of investment funds purchasing land, and water concessions with it, change the social and administrative structure of who works the land and of the rural communities embedded in the territory. These differences and tensions in both hegemonic and hegemonic frontier territories point to various issues that an ideal regante would resolve. However, this hegemonic ideal masks multiple issues that actually exist. Nonetheless, land size differences are also a reflection of power relations within the Water 2024, 16, 192 14 of 21 community, which limits the array of potential solutions and experiences [22,32,37] that are presented. This collapse of rural areas, combined with the issue of land and rural rejuvenation in hegemonic and hegemonic frontier territories in the current democratic regionalization period, reveals one of the principal contradictions in the development policies regarding the role of the ideal regante in constructing ideal territories. Namely, they are expected to be the motor of attracting and fixing populations in rural areas, which contrasts with what is really happening. These territories were singled out by policy and interventions from regeneracionismo through to the democratic restoration period, creating a minifundio model of smallholder and medium-sized farms in irrigation schemes that were able to support regantes and their families. While policies point to irrigation as being far more successful than rain-fed agriculture in attracting and fixing population in rural areas, irrigation community dynamics are leading to smallholders dying out and selling or leasing their land—land that is singled out for subsidies and that has potential water concessions when within the irrigable perimeter of the irrigation community. The demand for irrigable land and prices for its lease or sale often puts it out of the range of smallholders and encourages agrarian social differentiation. This is why regantes in hegemonic and hegemonic frontier territories foresee an end to smallholder agriculture and the rise of agribusiness and investment-fund-led land ownership in these areas. The policy ideals lay out the mechanisms by which hegemony spreads materially through the State, regional and regante action and through which regantes and spaces are co-constituted [20] in hegemonic and hegemonic frontier territories. As stated earlier, while there are variations at the regional level, the Murcian regante would ideally mobilize multiple waters, while the Manchegan regante would ideally modernize their plots and aid in spreading irrigated surfaces. The fact that the Murcian regantes in Totana and Carta- gena are using multiple water sources—TSA, surface water, desalinated water, and treated wastewater—links the physical acts and embodies regante subjects with the various water sources, and through this, they subject themselves to policy directives describing the ideal regante [25,35]. Manchegan regantes similarly embody the territories they live in through irrigation practices. Nonetheless, they present two conundrums. On the one hand, an emerging regante subject is the legally present and physically absent landholder regante who enters the community through investment fund purchase. Second, regantes are expected to modernize their on-plot systems to enable water savings that allow for the expansion of irrigated surfaces in the Tagus basin, which abstracts their relations with water and territo- ries well beyond the boundaries of their own lived communities. This abstraction likewise plays out the conflicts at the regional, national, and European levels of water management over the hegemonic hydraulic paradigm where drip irrigation is unquestioned, even if it brings its own problems and contradictions over water savings [77]. Frontier hegemonic ideal and existing regante subjects face contradictory movements where new regante subjects shake the foundations of existing ones and where moralizing strategies [13] lay bare policy contradictions between economic efficiency on the one hand—efficient irrigation farms maximizing resource use for cash crops—and rural community life on the other. 4.2. Alternatives to an Ideal Regante These policies also outline which regante deviates from this ideal. These are traditional regantes and the schemes they work with are considered obsolete, working with old infras- tructure or traditional earth channels and practicing flood irrigation. These regantes and their schemes are to be subjected to modernization drives, resulting in water savings, and trained in innovative practices for this purpose. The irony, compared to the performance of the ideal, is that regantes have not expressed precariousness and loss of autonomy. The TSA and supply expectations are imagined and experienced differently than intended in different territories [20], and subjects experience the inter-connected socio-ecological rivers through it differently as well [43,87]. There are concerns and worries linked to water availability or encroachment due to the “monster/hydra” that the TSA has produced in Water 2024, 16, 192 15 of 21 increasing water demand. In response to hegemonic moralizing claims [13,22], the choice for on-plot modernization is pursued ambivalently, compared to regantes in hegemonic territories declaring that flood irrigation should be abandoned. Drip irrigation is seen as another tool that can help the regante, just as flood irrigation does. However, the values ascribed to traditional irrigation systems that drip or flood go beyond a single (economic) premise [11,15,16]. The values of water that focus on maintaining an ecological balance, using enough to ensure downstream users can have water, or keeping it visible for aesthetic reasons, do in part coincide with some of the policies’ aims, particularly the ecological ones. Likewise, the values of water coincide with different visions that require a community effort in cooperation and coexistence to maintain these [19,32]. However, the method of achieving ecological balance is anathema to the scarcity-related values of water prescribed as the driving focus of policies. Having mapped the space between ideal and actual regantes, we turn to the future and what the contradictions realizing these ideal regantes reveals. Hegemonic and hegemonic frontier smallholder regantes fear that smallholders will be replaced by an arrangement of agri-businesses and investment-fund-propelled arrangements by fund owners and service providers. This foretells a situation where regante subjects are legally present and physically absent and where regante labor is conducted by trained professionals to care and work irrigation systems and plots with no proprietary link to the land itself. What this means for the social fabric of rural areas is still unknown but evokes a familiar figure in Spanish agrarian history—the itinerant laborer. Alternative models such as cooperatives exist in hegemonic and frontier hegemonic territories; however, at least in hegemonic territories, they do not fully meet the multiple demands from their regante members and the demands from wholesalers and supermarkets. Alternative territories and socionatural arrangements exist in counterhegemonic terri- tories that point at more equitable and just arrangements for working with, conceptualizing, and visualizing water [48]. Whether it is open canals or a system of live and dead water, both require coordination and a divergence of ideal visions of institutions vested with power [34,37]. Similarly, the position of smallholders in hegemonic territories to strive for a more just water future has involved constant activism and the research into historical rights that are fought to be recognized as a way of maintaining a hydraulic and agricultural heritage that looks not only at economic viability but also at a community viability in rural areas that considers other dimensions such as social and environmental health care, reciprocity, co-created and entwining vernacular and modern knowledges, and multi-scalar alliances [11,19,88,89]. 5. Conclusions This article has laid out the historical construction of the ideal regante subjects and how they have been attempted to be realized, resisted, or ignored in various territories in- terconnected by the TSA. The territories and individuals are subjected and crafted together through power relations [34,37], emulating the ideal demanded by powerful interests or despite said ideal [19,38]. This hegemonic ideal has shifted over the long duration of Spain’s hydraulic and agricultural policies and political structures. Today, multiple levels of authority lay out differing visions, whether as hard infrastructure or soft governance [20], and this multiplicity also leads to multiple and often contradictory demands on regantes. As demonstrated throughout this article, hegemonic power is challenged through these con- tradictions, particularly when an overriding aim—water savings and modernization—is painted with a broad brush stroke to also coincide with the contrasting policy aims of maintaining social cohesion and rural vitality. In this revelation, the existing and new counterhegemonies offer alternatives against technocratic approaches. The intersection of constructed and interlinked hydrosocial territories [36] through IBWTs, the spread of new on-plot technologies, and the particular histories and relations with hegemonic practices that different territories are subjected to create different regante subjects. This article demonstrates the value of broadly examining multiple territories and Water 2024, 16, 192 16 of 21 interrogating multiple experiences of power to break down unquestioned subjectivities. By utilizing Longhurst’s [35] approach to understanding subjects, place, subject material acts, and the relationship between subjection and resubjection in relation to hegemonic discourse and policies, we have demonstrated that multiple subjectivities emerge that are embedded in territory and in relation to the regantes inhabiting them, as well as to regantes inhabiting other interconnected territories. Hegemony, as experienced through the implementation of hydraulic and agricultural policy, also embeds a moralizing discourse [13] to identify regante and practices that need to change. Nonetheless, the current hegemonic visions require ideal regantes to fulfil multiple and contradictory roles—job creators, private entrepreneurs, fixers of rural populations, quality assurers, and food producers. Intersecting issues of class and land—holding, generational handover crises, and youth in agriculture are all present in the interconnected territories but experienced very differently depending on how the hegemonic discourses are accepted. In that respect, the precariousness and individualization [32] of the regante in hegemonic and hegemonic frontier territories are not as salient in counterhegemonic territories, pointing to water just alternatives [43] and models that embody different and multiple values [88,90–98]. What does this mean for broader questions of water management in Spain and beyond? Above all, large-scale hydraulic infrastructure such as the TSA has impacts beyond water redistribution. It creates conditions, new subjects, and new relationships that governing institutions at multiple scales may not be able to react to quickly enough or have existing powers entrenched in [9,99–104]. Likewise, the spread of on-plot irrigation modernization has become a silver bullet in policy, but different subjects react to it in very different ways, producing not only varied imaginaries but, with them, different territories. Most importantly, water governance and water policies have to be seen in conjunction with other policies and sectors, particularly agriculture, since water subjectivities are entwined, embodied, and placed in lived and loved territories [105–107]. This argument opens various possibilities for future research. From a theoretical standpoint, the combination of feminist understandings of subjectivity with that of hy- drosocial territories points to fruitful engagements in other empirical material. Second, this article engaged with multiscalar empirical material that hydrosocial territorial literature can expand on. While sacrificing richness of detail, interconnections open new avenues of interrogation that stand-alone case studies cannot engage with. Furthermore, deeper questions on the implications of looking at multiple interconnected territories hegemoni- cally and the subjects created because of or in spite of hegemony opens inquiries into scalar impacts on water governance and institutional forms of irrigation that the policies may try to flatten or simplify. Finally, there is a focus on the regantes obviated attention to these same subjects’ other and equally important, multiple identities, including particular gender, class, and ethnic relations and modes of belonging. Next, they interact with other subjects of agrarian life—e.g., (migrant) laborers or small-scale entrepreneurs. Investigating their roles as both subjects and inhabitants of hydrosocial territories would provide important dimensions to understand the changing and interconnected irrigation systems. Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:// www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/w16020192/s1. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.B., R.B. and S.V.-T.; methodology, N.B., S.V.-T. and R.B.; software, N.B.; validation, N.B.; analysis, N.B., R.B. and S.V.-T.; investigation, N.B.; resources, N.B.; writing—original draft preparation, N.B.; writing—review and editing, N.B., R.B. and S.V.-T.; visualization, N.B.; supervision, R.B. and S.V.-T.; project administration, N.B.; funding acquisition, N.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 764908. It was also supported by the ERC European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program [Riverhood, Grant Number 101002921], and the Spanish Department of Science and Innovation [RECOUNT, Grant Water 2024, 16, 192 17 of 21 Number CNS2022-136060]; see also https://www.wegoitn.org/ (accessed on 27 November 2023) and www.movingrivers.org (accessed on 27 November 2023). Data Availability Statement: Two original data sources were used for the preparation of this article. The first set of data presented in this study is available with the first author. The second set of data is based on extensive interviews with human subjects. All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, and the protocol was approved by the data protection officer of the Autonomous University of Barcelona on 20 July 2020. According to this protocol and following ethical restrictions behind anonymization and pseudonymization, this data set is not rendered public. Acknowledgments: First and foremost, we thank the interviewees who contributed their time and patience for this study. We also thank the participants in the Rivers, Commons, Movements seminar held between 17–19 June 2022 at the Polytechnic University of Valencia for providing feedback and ideas for this article. Last but not least, we thank Javier Rodriguez Ros for sharing ideas and feedback on initial ideas for the article. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Borras, S.M.; Scoones, I.; Baviskar, A.; Edelman, M.; Peluso, N.L.; Wolford, W. Climate change and agrarian struggles: An invitation to contribute to a JPS Forum. J. Peasant Stud. 2022, 49, 1–28. [CrossRef] 2. Zagata, L.; Sutherland, L.A. Deconstructing the “young farmer problem in Europe”: Towards a research agenda. J. Rural Stud. 2015, 38, 39–51. [CrossRef] 3. Swyngedouw, E. Liquid Power: Water and Contested Modernities in Spain, 1898–2010; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 1–301. [CrossRef] 4. Ortí, A. Política hidráulica y cuestión social: Orígenes, etapas y significados del regeneracionismo de Joaquín Costa. Agric. Y Soc. 1984, 32, 11–107. 5. Fernández Clemente, E. De la utopía de Joaquín Costa a la Intervención del Estado: Un siglo de Obras Hidráulicas en España; Universidad de Zaragoza: Zaragoza, Spain, 2000; pp. 1–65. 6. Boelens, R.; Post Uiterweer, N.C. Hydraulic Heroes. The ironies of utopian hydraulism and its politics of autonomy in the Guadalhorce Valley, Spain. J. Hist. Geogr. 2013, 41, 44–58. [CrossRef] 7. Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación. Encuesta Sobre Superficies y Rendimientos Cultivos (ESYRCE): Resultados de años Anteriores. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas-agrarias/agricultura/esyrce/ resultados-de-anos-anteriores/ (accessed on 18 August 2023). 8. Gómez Valenzuela, V.; Holl, A. Growth and decline in rural Spain: An exploratory analysis. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2023, 1–24. [CrossRef] 9. Bourguignon, N. Connected and disrupted hydrosocial territories: The making of modern socionatures through inter-basin water transfers. J. Political Ecol. 2023, 30, 241–273. [CrossRef] 10. Swyngedouw, E.; Boelens, R. And Not a Single Injustice Remains: Hydro- Territorial Colonization and Techno- Political Transformations in Spain. In Water Justice; Boelens, R., Perreault, T., Vos, J., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2018; pp. 115–133. [CrossRef] 11. Duarte-Abadía, B. Ríos, Utopías y Movimientos Sociales: Reviviendo Flujos de Vida en Colombia y España; Abyayala: Quito, Ecuador, 2022; p. 331. 12. Remmers, G. Agricultura tradicional y agricultura ecológica: Vecinos distantes. Agric. Soc. 1993, 66, 201–220. 13. Sanchis-Ibor, C.; Boelens, R.; García-Mollá, M. Collective irrigation reloaded. Re-collection and re-moralization of water management after privatization in Spain. Geoforum 2017, 87, 38–47. [CrossRef] 14. Pérez, A.S.; Remmers, G.G. A landscape in transition: An historical perspective on a Spanish latifundist farm. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1997, 63, 91–105. [CrossRef] 15. Remmers, G. Towards a theoretical understanding of the generation of diversity in rural areas. In Local Responses to Global Integration; eBook, Ed.; Kasimis, C., Papadopoulos, A.G., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 41–62. 16. Mirhanoğlu, A.; Özerol, G.; Hoogesteger, J.; Broeck, P.V.D.; Loopmans, M. Socio-Material Bricolage: (Co)Shaping of Irrigation Institutions and Infrastructures. Int. J. Commons 2023, 17, 69–86. [CrossRef] 17. van der Ploeg, J.D. The Virtual Farmer. Past, Present, and Future of the Dutch Peasantry; Royal Van Gorcum: Assen, The Netherlands, 2003; p. xii-412. 18. van der Ploeg, J.D. The New Peasantries: Rural Development in Times of Globalization, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 1–324. [CrossRef] 19. Duarte-Abadía, B. Utopian River Planning and Hydrosocial Territory Transformations in Colombia and Spain. Water 2023, 15, 2545. [CrossRef] Water 2024, 16, 192 18 of 21 20. Hommes, L.; Hoogesteger, J.; Boelens, R. (Re)making hydrosocial territories: Materializing and contesting imaginaries and subjectivities through hydraulic infrastructure. Political Geogr. 2022, 97, 102698. [CrossRef] 21. Villamayor-Tomas, S. Cooperation in common property regimes under extreme drought conditions: Empirical evidence from the use of pooled transferable quotas in Spanish irrigation systems. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 107, 482–493. [CrossRef] 22. Bourguignon, N. Tracing (un)common senses in irrigation communities: Hegemonies and counter-hegemonies across Spain’s Tagus-Segura Interbasin Transfer complex. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space 2023, unpublished manuscript submitted. 23. Lau, J.D.; Scales, I.R. Identity, subjectivity and natural resource use: How ethnicity, gender and class intersect to influence mangrove oyster harvesting in The Gambia. Geoforum 2016, 69, 136–146. [CrossRef] 24. Morales, M.C.; Harris, L.M. Using subjectivity and emotion to reconsider participatory natural resource management. World Dev. 2014, 64, 703–712. [CrossRef] 25. Nightingale, A. Fishing for nature: The politics of subjectivity and emotion in Scottish inshore fisheries management. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2013, 45, 2362–2378. [CrossRef] 26. Galt, R.E. From Homo economicus to Complex Subjectivities: Reconceptualizing Farmers as Pesticide Users. Antipode 2013, 45, 336–356. [CrossRef] 27. Butler, J. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, 10th anniversary ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1999; p. xxxiii-221. [CrossRef] 28. Nightingale, A. The nature of gender: Work, gender, and environment. Environ. Plan. D Soc. Space 2006, 24, 165–185. [CrossRef] 29. Crenshaw, K. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanf. Law Rev. 1991, 43, 1241–1299. [CrossRef] 30. Nightingale, A.J. Bounding difference: Intersectionality and the material production of gender, caste, class and environment in Nepal. Geoforum 2011, 42, 153–162. [CrossRef] 31. Nightingale, A.J.; Ojha, H.R. Rethinking Power and Authority: Symbolic Violence and Subjectivity in Nepal’s Terai Forests. Dev. Chang. 2013, 44, 29–51. [CrossRef] 32. Harris, L. Gender and emergent water governance: Comparative overview of neoliberalized natures and gender dimensions of privatization, devolution and marketization. Gend. Place Cult. 2009, 16, 387–408. [CrossRef] 33. Foucault, M. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977; Gordon, C., Ed.; Pantheon Books: New York, NY, USA, 1980; p. xii-270. 34. Ekers, M.; Loftus, A. The power of water: Developing dialogues between Foucault and Gramsci. Environ. Plan. D Soc. Space 2008, 26, 698–718. [CrossRef] 35. Longhurst, R. Introduction: Subjectivities, Spaces and Places. In Handbook of Cultural Geography; Anderson, K., Domosh, M., Pile, S., Thrift, N., Eds.; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2003; pp. 283–290. [CrossRef] 36. Boelens, R.; Hoogesteger, J.; Swyngedouw, E.; Vos, J.; Wester, P. Hydrosocial territories: A political ecology perspective. Water Int. 2016, 41, 1–14. [CrossRef] 37. Sneddon, C. Water, governance and hegemony. In Contemporary Water Governance in the Global South: Scarcity, Marketization and Participation; Harris, L.M., Goldin, J.A., Sneddon, C., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 10–22. [CrossRef] 38. Harris, L. Hegemonic waters and rethinking natures otherwise. In Practising Feminist Political Ecologies—Moving beyond the ‘Green Economy’; Harcourt, W., Nelson, I.L., Eds.; Zedbooks: London, UK, 2015; pp. 157–181. [CrossRef] 39. Flaminio, S.; Rouillé-Kielo, G.; Le Visage, S. Waterscapes and hydrosocial territories: Thinking space in political ecologies of water. Prog. Environ. Geogr. 2022, 1, 33–57. [CrossRef] 40. Pfaffenberger, B. Fetishised objects and humanised nature: Towards an anthropology of technology. Man 1988, 23, 236–252. [CrossRef] 41. van Teijlingen, K. Minería a gran escala, pluralismo territorial y contención: Un mapeo de encuentros y desencuentros en la amazonía ecuatoriana. Estud. Atacameños 2019, 63, 275–299. [CrossRef] 42. Foucault, M. Governmentality. In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality: With Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault; Burchell, G., Gordon, C., Miller, P., Eds.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1991; pp. 87–104. 43. Boelens, R.; Escobar, A.; Bakker, K.; Hommes, L.; Swyngedouw, E.; Hogenboom, B.; Huijbens, E.H.; Jackson, S.; Vos, J.; Harris, L.M.; et al. Riverhood: Political ecologies of socionature commoning and translocal struggles for water justice. J. Peasant Stud. 2023, 50, 1125–1156. [CrossRef] 44. Del Moral Ituarte, L.; Hernández-Mora, N. Nuevos debates sobre escalas en política de aguas: Estado, cuencas hidrográficas y comunidades autónomas en España. Ciudad Y Territ. Estud. Territ. 2016, 48, 563–583. 45. Swyngedouw, E.; Williams, J. From Spain’s hydro-deadlock to the desalination fix. Water Int. 2016, 41, 54–73. [CrossRef] 46. Ženko, M.; Menga, F. Linking Water Scarcity to Mental Health: Hydro–Social Interruptions in the Lake Urmia Basin, Iran. Water 2019, 11, 1092. [CrossRef] 47. Hommes, L.; Boelens, R.; Bleeker, S.; Duarte-Abadía, B.; Stoltenborg, D.; Vos, J. Water governmentalities: The shaping of hydrosocial territories, water transfers and rural–urban subjects in Latin America. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space 2020, 3, 399–422. [CrossRef] 48. Owens, K.; Carmody, E.; Grafton, Q.; O’Donnell, E.; Wheeler, S.; Godden, L.; Allen, R.; Lyster, R.; Steduto, P.; Jiang, Q.; et al. Delivering global water security: Embedding water justice as a response to increased irrigation efficiency. WIREs Water 2022, 9, e1608. [CrossRef] Water 2024, 16, 192 19 of 21 49. Maurice, J.; Serrano, C.J. Costa: Crisis de la Restauración y Populismo (1875-1911); Siglo XXI Editores: Madrid, Spain, 1977; pp. 1–246. 50. Gómez Benito, C. Joaquín Costa resituado: Populismo, tradición campesina y materialismo hidráulico como definidores de su pensamiento social agrario. An. De La Fund. Joaquín Costa 1994, 11, 7–22. 51. Mateu González, J.J. Política hidraúlica e intervención estatal en España (1880–1936): Una visión interdisciplinar. Rev. Española De Estud. Agrosociales Y Pesq. 2002, 197, 35–61. 52. Ministerio de Fomento. Real Decreto, de 14 de Diciembre de 1907 (13 de Diciembre de 1907), del Reglamento Provisional Para la Ejecución de la ley de Colonización y Repoblación Interior; Gaceta de Madrid, núm. 348, 14 December; Ministerio de Fomento: Madrid, Spain, 1907; pp. 975–976. Available online: https://www.boe.es/gazeta/dias/1907/12/14/pdfs/GMD-1907-348.pdf (accessed on 18 December 2023). 53. Ministerio de Fomento. Ley de 7 de Julio de 1911 (8 de Julio de 1911) Sobre Construcciones Hidráulicas con Destino a Riegos; Gaceta de Madrid, núm. 189, 8 July; Ministerio de Fomento: Madrid, Spain, 1911; pp. 98–101. Available online: https://www.boe.es/ buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-1911-5500 (accessed on 18 December 2023). 54. Ministerio de Obras Públicas. Ley de 14 de Abril de 1932 Declarando que el Estado Acomete la Realización de los Trabajos Necesarios Para la Puesta en Riego de las Zonas Dominadas por las Obras Hidráulicas que se Indican; Gaceta de Madrid, núm. 105, 14 April; Ministerio de Fomento: Madrid, Spain, 1932; pp. 337–339. Available online: https://www.boe.es/gazeta/dias/1932/04/14/pdfs/GMD-19 32-105.pdf (accessed on 18 December 2023). 55. Ortega Cantero, N. Las propuestas hidráulicas del reformismo republicano: Del fomento del regadío a la articulación del plan de obras hidráulicas. Agric. Y Soc. 1984, 32, 109–152. 56. Barciela, C. La Contrarreforma Agraria y la Política de Colonización del Primer Franquismo, 1936–1959. In Reformas y Políticas Agrarias en la Historia de España: (De La Ilustración al Primer Franquismo); García Sanz, A., Sánz Fernandez, J., Eds.; Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca, y Alimentación: Madrid, Spain, 1996; pp. 351–398. 57. Roiz Célix, M. La persistencia del campesinado en la estructura social española. Doc. Soc. 1983, 51, 55–77. 58. Congost, R. Tierras, Leyes, Historia: Estudios sobre ‘la Gran Obra de la Propiedad’; Editorial Crítica: Barcelona, Spain, 2007; pp. 1–347. 59. Oliva, J.; Camarero, L.A. Shifting Rurality: The Spanish Countryside after De-peasantisation and De-agrarianisation. In Europe’s Green Ring; Granberg, L., Kovách, I., Tovey, H., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2001; pp. 219–237. [CrossRef] 60. Jefatura del Estado. Ley de 26 de Diciembre de 1939 (25 de enero de 1940) para Colonización de Grandes Zonas; Boletín Oficial del Estado, núm. 25, 25 January; Jefatura del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 1940; pp. 628–634. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc. php?id=BOE-A-1940-879 (accessed on 18 December 2023). 61. Jefatura del Estado. Ley de 23 de Febrero de 1940 (6 de Marzo de 1940) sobre Devolución a sus Propietarios de las Fincas Ocupadas por el Instituto de Reforma Agraria con Arreglo a las Leyes de 1932 y 1935; Boletín Oficial del Estado, núm. 66, 6 March; Jefatura del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 1940; pp. 1638–1639. Available online: https://www.boe.es/gazeta/dias/1940/03/06/pdfs/BOE-1940-66.pdf (accessed on 18 December 2023). 62. Jefatura del Estado. Ley de 21 de Abril de 1949 (22 de Abril de 1949) Sobre Colonización y Distribución de la Propiedad de las Zonas Regables; Boletín Oficial del Estado, núm. 112, 22 April; Jefatura del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 1949; pp. 1805–1812. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-1949-4120 (accessed on 18 December 2023). 63. Jefatura del Estado. Ley de 3 de Diciembre de 1953 (4 de Diciembre de 1953) Sobre Declaración de Fincas Manifiestamente Mejorables; Boletín Oficial del Estado, núm. 338, 4 December; Jefatura del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 1953; pp. 7149–7152. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-1953-15530 (accessed on 18 December 2023). 64. Jefatura del Estado. Ley 21/1971, de 19 de Junio (22 de Junio de 1971), Sobre el Aprovechamiento Conjunto Tajo-Segura; Boletín Oficial del Estado, núm. 148, 22 June; Jefatura del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 1971; pp. 10115–10116. Available online: https: //www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-1971-778 (accessed on 18 December 2023). 65. European Commission. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 of 15 July 1991 on Improving the Efficiency of Agricultural Structures; Official Journal of the European Communities, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 1991; pp. 1–21. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/1991/2328/oj (accessed on 18 December 2023). 66. European Commission. Notice to Member States: Laying down Guidelines for Integrated Global Grants for Which Member States Are Invited to Submit Proposals in the Framework of a Community Initiative for Rural Development (91/C 73/14); Official Journal of the European Communities, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 1991; pp. 33–37. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:JOC_1991_073_R_0033_01&qid=16158918 74787&from=PT (accessed on 18 December 2023). 67. Jefatura del Estado. Ley 29/1985, de 2 de Agosto (8 de Agosto de 1985), de Aguas; Boletín Oficial del Estado, núm. 189, 8 August; Jefatura del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 1985; pp. 25123–25135. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A- 1985-16661 (accessed on 18 December 2023). 68. Jefatura del Estado. Ley 19/1995, de 4 de Julio (5 de Julio de 1995), de Modernización de las Explotaciones Agrarias; Boletín Oficial del Estado, núm. 159, 5 July; Jefatura del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 1995; pp. 1–21. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act. php?id=BOE-A-1995-16257 (accessed on 18 December 2023). 69. Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación. Real Decreto 678/1993, de 7 de Mayo (3 de Junio de 1993), Sobre Obras para la Mejora y Modernización de los Regadíos Tradicionales; Boletín Oficial del Estado, núm. 132, 3 June; Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación: Madrid, Spain, 1995; pp. 16687–16689. Available online: https://www.boe.es/eli/es/rd/1993/05/07/678 (accessed on 18 December 2023). Water 2024, 16, 192 20 of 21 70. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Libro Blanco Del Agua En España; Centro de Publicaciones, Secretaría General Técnica, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente: Madrid, Spain, 2000; pp. 1–197. Available online: http://www.cedex.es/CEDEX/LANG_CASTELLANO/ ORGANISMO/CENTYLAB/CEH/Documentos_Descargas/LB_LibroBlancoAgua.htm (accessed on 18 December 2023). 71. Jefatura del Estado. Ley 46/1999, de 13 de Diciembre (14 de Diciembre de 1999), de Modificación de la Ley 29/1985, de 2 de Agosto, de Aguas; Boletín Oficial del Estado, núm. 298, 14 December; Jefatura del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 1999; pp. 43100–43113. Available online: https://www.boe.es/eli/es/l/1999/12/13/46 (accessed on 18 December 2023). 72. Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación. Real Decreto 329/2002, de 5 de Abril (27 de Abril de 2002), por el que se Aprueba el Plan Nacional de Regadíos; Boletín Oficial del Estado, núm. 101, 27 April; Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación: Madrid, Spain, 2002; pp. 15558–15566. Available online: https://www.boe.es/eli/es/rd/2002/04/05/329 (accessed on 18 December 2023). 73. Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación. Justificación de un Plan Nacional de Regadíos. Available online: https://www. mapa.gob.es/es/desarrollo-rural/temas/gestion-sostenible-regadios/apartado1_tcm30-150092.pdf (accessed on 22 September 2023). 74. Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación. Plan Estratégico Nacional de Desarrollo Rural 2007–2013; Secretaria General de Agricultura y Alimentación; Dirección General de Desarrollo Rural y Política Forestal, Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación: Madrid, Spain, 2012; pp. 1–191. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/desarrollo-rural/temas/ programas-ue/PENv3%2023-05-12_tcm30-131140.pdf (accessed on 18 December 2023). 75. Martínez-Fernández, J.; Neto, S.; Hernández-Mora, N.; del Moral, L.; la Roca, F. The role of the water framework directive in the controversial transition of water policy paradigms in Spain and Portugal. Water Altern. 2020, 13, 556–581. 76. De Stefano, L.; Hernández-Mora, N. Multi-level interactions in a context of political decentralization and evolving water-policy goals: The case of Spain. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2018, 18, 1579–1591. [CrossRef] 77. Lecina, S.; Isidoro, D.; Playán, E.; Aragüés, R. Irrigation modernization in Spain: Effects on water quantity and quality-a conceptual approach. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2010, 26, 265–282. [CrossRef] 78. Costa Cifuentes, M. (Comunidad de Regantes Trasvase Tajo-Segura de Totana, Totana, Murcia, Spain). Personal communication, 2022. 79. Costa Hernández, F. (Comunidad de Regantes Trasvase Tajo-Segura de Totana, Totana, Murcia, Spain). Personal communication, 2022. 80. Martí, P.; García-Mayor, C. The huerta agricultural landscape in the spanish mediterranean arc: One landscape, two perspectives, three specific huertas. Land 2020, 9, 460. [CrossRef] 81. Torres Fontes, J. Documentos de Alfonso X el Sabio; Real Academia Alfonso X el Sabio: Murcia, Spain, 2008; pp. 1–386. 82. Mazón Balaguer, M.P. (Juzgado Privativo de Aguas de Orihuela, Orihuela, Alicante, Spain). Personal communication, 2022. 83. López Juárez, L. (Comunidad de Regantes Las Fuentes de Letur, Letur, Albacete, Spain). Personal communication, 2022. 84. Mills-Novoa, M.; Boelens, R.; Hoogesteger, J.; Vos, J. Governmentalities, hydrosocial territories & recognition politics: The making of objects and subjects for climate change adaptation in Ecuador. Geoforum 2020, 115, 90–101. [CrossRef] 85. Lillemets, J.; Fertő, I.; Viira, A.H. The socioeconomic impacts of the CAP: Systematic literature review. Land Use Policy 2022, 114, 1–17. [CrossRef] 86. Butler, J. The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection; Stanford University Press: Redwood City, CA, USA, 1997; pp. 1–228. 87. Dupuits, E.; Puertas, C.; Balsiger, J. Knowledges co-creation and water conservation in the Global Souths: An introduction. J. Political Ecol. 2023, 30, 359–370. [CrossRef] 88. Villamayor-Tomas, S.; García-López, G.A. Commons movements: Old and new trends in rural and urban contexts. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2021, 46, 511–543. [CrossRef] 89. Götz, J.M.; Middleton, C. Ontological politics of hydrosocial territories in the Salween River basin, Myanmar/Burma. Political Geogr. 2019, 78, 102115. [CrossRef] 90. Vos, J.; Boelens, R.; Venot, J.P.; Kuper, M. Rooted water collectives: Towards an analytical framework. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 173, 106651. [CrossRef] 91. Dupuits, E. Water community networks and the appropriation of neoliberal practices: Social technology, depoliticization, and resistance. Ecol. Soc. 2019, 24, 20. [CrossRef] 92. Hidalgo-Bastidas, J.P. Understanding Anti-Dam Resistance Politics: A Historical and Territorial Study of Two Megadams in Coastal Ecuador. Water 2023, 15, 4132. [CrossRef] 93. Ross, A.; Chang, H. Socio-hydrology with hydrosocial theory: Two sides of the same coin? Hydrol. Sci. J. 2020, 65, 1443–1457. [CrossRef] 94. Whaley, L. Water governance research in a messy world: A review. Water Altern. 2022, 15, 218–250. 95. Paerregaard, K. Power in/of/as water: Revisiting the hydrologic cycle in the Peruvian Andes. WIREs Water 2017, 5, e1270. [CrossRef] 96. Hoogendam, P. Hydrosocial territories in the context of diverse and changing ruralities: The case of Cochabamba’s drinking water provision over time. Water Int. 2018, 44, 129–147. [CrossRef] 97. Ricart, S.; Rico-Amorós, A.M. Can agriculture and conservation be compatible in a coastal wetland? Balancing stakeholders’ narratives and interactions in the management of El Hondo Natural Park, Spain. Agric. Hum. Values 2021, 39, 589–604. [CrossRef] Water 2024, 16, 192 21 of 21 98. Basel, B.; Hoogesteger, J.; Hellegers, P. Promise and paradox: A critical sociohydrological perspective on small-scale managed aquifer recharge. Front. Water 2022, 4, 1002721. [CrossRef] 99. Seemann, M. Inclusive recognition politics and the struggle over hydrosocial territories in two Bolivian highland communities. Water Int. 2016, 41, 157–172. [CrossRef] 100. Aubriot, O. The history and politics of communal irrigation: A review. Water Altern. 2022, 15, 307–340. 101. Baumann, M.D. Examining land rental markets’ linkages to land and water control in Colombia’s irrigation megaprojects: Integrating the political economy of agrarian change and the political ecology of vulnerability. J. Peasant. Stud. 2022, 50, 1975–2001. [CrossRef] 102. Flaminio, S.; Reynard, E. Multipurpose use of hydropower reservoirs: Imaginaries of Swiss reservoirs in the context of climate change and dam relicensing. Water Altern. 2023, 16, 705–729. 103. Birkenholtz, T. Geographies of big water infrastructure: Contemporary insights and future research opportunities. Geogr. Compass 2023, 17, e12718. [CrossRef] 104. Mirhanoğlu, A.; Loopmans, M.; Özerol, G. Social Head-Enders: Access and Authority in Irrigation Governance. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2021, 35, 185–203. [CrossRef] 105. Hulshof, M.; Vos, J. Diverging realities: How framing, values and water management are interwoven in the Albufera de Valencia wetland in Spain. Water Int. 2016, 41, 107–124. [CrossRef] 106. Goodwin, G. The problem and promise of coproduction: Politics, history, and autonomy. World Dev. 2019, 122, 501–513. [CrossRef] 107. Yates, J.S. “Guides of water”: Indigenous water justice and pastoral management beyond adaptation to climate change. In Indigenous Water and Drought Management in a Changing World; Sioui, M., Ed.; Current Directions in Water Scarcity Research; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; Volume 4, Chapter 9, pp. 167–187. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.