3.1. Broader Setting: trials reveal value for social issues
Against a background of economic instability and marked social classes, trials reveal a specific consideration for the most vulnerable. For instance, the mention of a “poor-people” litigator appears in the documents. In a trial involving a recent widow who had been deprived of her water allowance, this specific kind of lawyer was the one in charge or representing her, because of her poor economic and social position (Josefa Maldonado against Juan Infante, Royal Hearing 1820-1822, Vol. 1690). This is not new and, according to González [
34], the poor had the right to represent themselves at these courts without paying. However, this was the only case where this “poor-people” litigator is mentioned, at least in trials regarding water issues.
Even though contact with the Spanish kingdom is scarce in the documents, when it appears, it shows a sense of care towards the new colonies. For example, despite the fact that water was scarce and already considered valuable, Indigenous communities were protected and prioritized in using it, at least under the Royal Hearing trials. This is demonstrated throughout the case of 1705, where Luisa Parras was in charge of a group of “Indians”, but was deprived of water (Melchora Mena against Luisa Parras, Royal Hearing 1705, Vol. 1690). Relevance to these Indigenous group and their importance for the kingdom was stated, and thus, their caregiver was given a secured water provision. Here, the care for the Indigenous communities can be contextualized as a patrimonial consideration, and not because of cultural recognition. For example, although Castilian Law established that waters are common goods and, thus, they should be treated as common to all the neighbors, these neighbors were
Indian hosts and not natives themselves [
11]. Thus, the trials show that social aspects were relevant and considered by judges during colonial times, notwithstanding the fact that Indigenous communities were not directly included as such.
3.3. Guiding principles, topics of conflicts and rulings adapted towards local needs
The rules were broad and adapted to fit local and social needs. For example, there are rulings favoring local issues, such as social matters in terms of food production. The example of the trial between José de Ureta and Juan Antonio Araos, favored local needs by approving the construction of a wheat mill near Araos’s vineyard estate affecting his harvest, justified on the basis that bread was a more important asset for Santiago than wine (Royal Hearing 1768, Vol. 1275). Also, there are several decrees in the Cabildo sessions that were instated for the City’s needs. Examples of these are rulings regarding water scarcity measures (Cabildo session 1742, Vol. 31; and 1772, Vol. 24) and sanitation matters (Cabildo session 1729, Vol. 19; 1761, Vol. 33; and 1778, Vol. 34). In all of them, specific rulings are made favoring giving water for the cities and towards a better sanitary management.
The search for a new water source for the main city of Santiago, as well as for having water intakes in the cities for human use, are a constant preoccupation. In the Cabildo discussions, arguments towards building water canals and improving current infrastructure invoke a lack of drinking water for certain areas and potential fatalities expected from drinking poor quality water (Cabildo sessions 1742, Vol. 31, page 38). In one of the trials, the main argument of the session was the potential demise of a whole neighborhood because of water uncertainty (Cabildo session 1729, Vol. 19, page 29). Here, the relevance towards safe and secure drinking water is evident and prioritized. In the Royal Hearings, the same argument is used in a case of dispossession of water (Josefa Maldonado against Juan Infante, Royal Hearing 1820-1822, Vol. 1690). Even in privately held trials, the social worry of the population´s heath due to their access to water was present, and the rulings favored this sector.
In three of the cases studied, part of the proceedings included the definition and delimitation of the water source. For example, there is a conflict between Juan Baptista de las Cuevas and Manuel Ramírez and the construction of a pipeline on behalf of the latter during 1774-1777. The trial revolves around defining the hydrological source of the water intake to determine to whom it belongs. Although Ramírez appealed to tradition as an argument, since he had been using the water for many years, the Royal Court ruled against him, since it was discovered that the water came from a different source (Royal Hearing 1774). Even though it is a decisive element for collective governance, the definition of the waterways appears as a conflictive matter in the trials. Thus, the definition of the water source was an issue and already considered a relevant piece of information at the time.
3.4. Actors, the decision-making process and their interactions
The Real Audiencia (Royal Hearings) contain the lawsuits between private parties that disputed the use of a water source, as well as the motives, arguments, and interests that substantiated the demands for water rights. The judges or hearers were the ones who delivered and made proclamations on the different conflicts at these Hearings. They were the last step for conflict resolution in the colonial lands, so they were highly efficient in the sense that most trials were solved within the first hearing. There are specific cases where the trial lasted for longer, but the majority lasted two years. There is one outlier case that lasted 24 years because it included several sub-sequent trials (Comuneros de acequia de Aedo, Domingo Santiago, Pedro Jose de Prado, Royal Hearing 1804-1828, Vol. 1879, page 172), but in general, it was a highly efficient and resolutive process.
There are indications of the creation of a "nested" conflict resolution system over the course of the colonial period, because later trials consider and mention previous local trials and judicial resolutions. Also, in the judicial branch, below the Royal Hearings and local Judges, the
Juez de Aguas (Water Judge) would initially review initial cases regarding water distribution and management (
Cabildo session 1772, Vol. 34). At first, the functions of this Water Judge were more operational than regulatory, and with time the position came to acquire a remarkable stability [
21]. This institution even continued after colonial times, surviving the uncertainties that accompanied the independence process and all the political, economic and social changes that came with it [
35]. The judges of the Royal Hearings then settled disputes that were not solved by the Water Judge, as well as received the appeals from local judges decisions [
11]
3.
An interesting figure, and an element that appears in several trials, is the
Alarife. This person oversaw the water distribution among users and monitored the compliance with local rulings [
11]. For example, the
Alarife was in charge of monitoring the obligation of urban water users to clean the ditches [
21,
35]. Each neighbor and resident of the city was supposed to make available a worker with a shovel or hoe on a designated day, and the
Alarife would be in charge of following the cleaning process [
35]. This person, as the "eyes" of the water community, would be later used as the means of proof during water trials that would stand out above all other evidence, and would support the work done by the Water Judge [
35]. Thus, not only were there local institutions "nested" in higher forms of conflict resolution institutions, but there was also an operational branch, for surveilling and assuring the regulations are accomplished on-site, thereby strengthening the institutional system surrounding water conflict resolution.
Any issue regarding water also reached the
Cabildos. The
Cabildos were municipal corporations created by the Spanish kingdom for the administration of the cities. They were a legal representative of the city, similar to the City Council, that is, the municipal body through which neighbors discussed judicial, administrative, economic and military problems. From the first years of the colony these institutions constituted an effective representation mechanism for the local elites against the Spanish royalty and its bureaucracy [
11]. With the evolution of the water management system, the
Cabildos positioned themselves as the first step for solving water disputes between neighbors, and they annually chose the Water Judge.
Although the
Cabildo was the institution that should have defended and acted as a representative of the people, it appears that at least at the beginning of colonial times, it played a weak role. First, the
Cabildo did not consider the land’s original water users, usually called natives or Indians, during trials; moreover, several times, the
Cabildo not only favored the Spaniards, but protected the elite of the colony [
11]. Also, participating in trials or hearings of the
Cabildo was expensive, and few could afford it at the time, meaning that it was exclusive [
35].
However, the Cabildo was the one who brought to light water matters and proposed solutions at a city level, so it was involved in issues that concern the whole city as a community. In the Cabildo, the discussions to bring water from the Maipo River started only once the main source for the city was proven uncertain (Cabildo session 1729, Vol. 19, page 29; a map of the city of Santiago surrounded by the Mapocho and the Maipo Rivers can be seen in Annex 1). Here, the figure of the Corregidor, appears for the first time as a figure bringing voice and support to the people.
Also, civil society was considered in trials, at times, as witnesses. For example, in an early trial, the Royal Hearing proposed the creation of a structured interview that the parties should administer to neighbors (Juan Baptista de las Cuevas against Manuel Ramírez, Royal Hearing 1774-1777). It must be noted that neighbors were usually considered and mentioned throughout the cases reviewed.
In different cases, the work done by the Cabildo was respected and even supported by other political figures. For example, during a drought that occurred in 1729, communal institutions such as the Corregidor facilitated the work done by the Cabildo by taking a vigilance role. In this case, it even hired guards to keep a safe eye over the city canals (Cabildo session 1729, Vol. 19). On a second occasion, the Corregidor helped the Cabildo by evaluating the supply and distribution of water in the city, as well as executing action plans based on their diagnoses. Also, in other sessions, the figure of the Corregidor is seen endorsing previous settlements (Cabildo session 1742, Vol. 31). In a second example, in 1763, there was a debate to bring water to Santiago from a parallel river, Estero de Ramón, and the Governor himself proposed that prisoners under his watch could be used for building the canals (Cabildo session 1763, Vol. 33). Thus, the function of the Cabildo, as well as the other communal authorities, was respected by the rulings of the Royal Hearing, as well as supported by the Corregidor and the Governor.
3.5. Trial results: Contradictions, innovations and sanctions
In most trials, the results follow the previous stated rules, giving high priority to traditional uses as well as food production and social concerns. However, there are some cases where contradictions appear. In one case, even though historical use was generally upheld in trials, judges prioritized that the water source was located in the property of the one using it regardless proving it was used historically (Juan Baptista de las Cuevas against Manuel Ramírez, Royal Hearing 1774-1777).
As a second example, the judges decided towards equal distribution of water among parties in the case of Magdalena Negrete versus Antonio de Carvajal, Vicente Carrión, and Gonzalo de Córdova (Royal Hearing 1694, Vol. 755, pages 113-191). However, in another similar situation, the trial concluded towards the distribution of the water, not equally, but according to how much each of them farm (Josefa Maldonado against Juan Infante, Royal Hearing 1820-1822, Vol. 1690).
Regarding innovative solutions, in different trials, workers are used by the parties involved as a surveillance mechanism. Even though for a more proper monitoring system to be implemented these elements would need to be permanent, it worked in eventual situations. In 1729, for example, a drought hit Santiago city, and guards were hired to look out for neighbors manipulating the river flow (Cabildo session 1729, Vol. 19). In the same drought, there was a proposal for hiring guards for a year. However, the idea was abandoned as soon as the drought was over. Thus, they developed a monitoring system carried out by users. These systems did not work permanently and just appeared sporadically along with droughts.
Also, creative and low-cost solutions were put in place for conflict resolution. Often, the use of field laborers is chosen for the surveillance or construction of projects, as well as other solutions where costs are shared. The aforementioned case of prisoners being used to build a water canal for the city of Santiago provides an example (Cabildo session 1763, Vol. 33). Using prison labor in this way was justified by the fact that there was a proportionally high population of criminals who committed minor crimes and were not able to be sent to Spain to serve their sentence. These prisoners were seen as “idle” and could help for free. This excuse was also used in 1772, to build a water passage to the main square of San Isidro village, in Santiago (Cabildo session, 1772, Vol. 34).
Regarding sanctions, many times high or very strict sanctions were used in response to a first offense. There is just one identified case when a warning is mentioned, but the warning came together with a fine. The case sought to demand that residents clean their own irrigation ditches because canals had filled with dirt during a serious drought that affected the city of Santiago (Cabildo session 1748, Vol. 32). More commonly, sentences found in these transcripts are the opposite, and misdemeanors such as being disrespectful were sanctioned with jail time. Such is the case of Domingo Frías, who was found guilty after members of the Cabildo noted that he had not complied with a mandate, and when hitting the table with rage, he was sent immediately to prison (Royal Hearing 1775, Vol. 1044).
3.6. Post-trial analysis: lack of evaluation
There are no perceived instances of post-trial reflections or a formal process for evaluating the performance of the conflict resolution system. Across all documents reviewed, the modifications that took place, such as the incorporation of new actors for the strengthening of the institutional framework, came from sustained petitions from organized sectorial groups (mainly farmers) at the Cabildo meetings.
Thus, as a general reflection, resolutions of colonial conflicts started out as small village trials, where the judges knew the people in question and settled issues accordingly. These institutions could take action supporting specific areas of interest for the city, such as food and water security, and could provide assistance in areas of social concern. Over time, the colonies’ water problems became more complex because cities started growing and water scarcity issues became more serious. Here, contextual factors were crucial in forming the institutional scheme that developed during colonial times. The appearance of the
Alarife and the empowerment of the Water Judges as a primary conflict solver shows a response to the need of a more solid institutional system. This evolved into a “nested” conflict resolution scheme, allowing these roles to continue to manage conflict at small and local trials. The same happened with the role of the
Governador and the
Corregidor, as supporters of the
Cabildo rulings. Both gained strength and became more active members of trials and discussions, as the colonial process developed. With a stronger institutional system and with local roles supporting higher level conflict resolution, despite the fact that colonial norms had room for interpretation, the judges and their rulings were respected, sanctions were imposed, and different members of the citizenry participated in them. Altogether, generally, this was a socially validated conflict resolution system and a robust model. These results, together with the study of each of the components reviewed under the adapted IAD, can be seen briefly in
Figure 3.
Here, it must be stated that this analysis did not consider the conflicts between the Spanish colony and local Indigenous communities. Even though there are cases where these communities were protected, the Spaniards in charge of them benefited most. Original Indigenous communities were not directly represented and were not included in the colonial system.