SLTERNATIVES IN WaterManagement

IATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAl RESEARCH COUNCIL

- .o

ALTERNATIVES IN Water

Management

A REPORT OF THECOMMITTEE ON WATER

DIVISION OF EARTH SCIENCESNATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCESNATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

PUBLICATION 1408

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES -NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

WASHINGTON, D. C. 1966

Library of Congress Card Catalog Number 66-60097

Committee on Water

HARRISON BROWN, California Institute of Technology

JOHN W. DYCKMAN, University of California

WILLIAM E. HIATT, U.S. Weather Bureau

VICTOR A. KOELZER, Harza Engineering Company

LUNA B. LEOPOLD, U.S. Geological Survey

RAY K. LINSLEY, JR., Stanford University

THOMAS F. MALONE, The Travelers InsuranceCompany

MORELL B. RUSSELL, University of Illinois

HARRY A. STEELE, U.S. Department of Agriculture

GEORGE S. TOLLEY, U.S. Department of Agriculture

EUGENE W. WEBER, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(retired December 1965)

LEON W. WEINBERGER, U.S. Department of Health,Education and Welfare

GILBERT F. WHITE, University of Chicago, Chairman

M. GORDON WOLMAN, The Johns Hopkins University

J. HOOVER MACKIN, Chairman, Division of EarthSciences, NAS-NRC, Ex Officio

EARL F. COOK, Executive Secretary, Division ofEarth Sciences, NAS-NRC

Preface

The Committee on Water was appointed in 19G4 byFrederick Seitz, President of the National Academyof Sciences. The Committee was to examine in somedetail the important interactions between expandingknowledge concerning water resources and water usein the physical sciences, the social sciences, andengineering on the one hand, and increasingly com-plex decisions of public policy concerned with water-resource management on the other. This charge is sobroad and the issues so extensive and complex thatit seems likely that several reports will be requiredto give the several related topics the treatment theirimportance warrants.

The objective of this first report is modest. Itidentifies several principles that, in the opinion of theCommittee, merit more attention than they are nowreceiving. In particular, the Committee, recogaizingthat the value of water varies among different groupsin different places and at different times, believes thatthe management of water resources has evolved to astage where planning should center upon the needs ofpeople rather than upon water per se. This viewpointimplies that a broad range of alternatives must beconsidered before a decision is made to develop awater resource. To deal effectively with the increas-ingly complex nature of the decision process, newinstitutional arrangements may be needed to takeaccount of intangible as well as tangible objectives.

Finally, the Committee recognizes that the futuredevelopment of water resources requires better useof existing knowledge, and that the decision-makingprocess itself must be responsive to advances inscience and technology - advances tnat not only

i _ _ a ..

increase the range of alternatives to be consideredbut also aid in evaluation of the alternatives.

The Committee hopes to develop more fully, insubsequent reports, several of the topics treated inthis first report.

The Committee expresses its sincere apprecia-tion to the National Science Foundation, the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Weather Bureau,the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, and the U. S. Department of Health,Education and Welfare, for their support.

Gilbert F. White, Chairman

May 1966

Contents

I MORE SCIENCE: BETTER WATER

2 CHANGING OBJECTIVES

2 The Tide of Empire3 The Basin Plan6 A Wider Concern

8 THE PLANNING PROCESS

8 Tangibles and Intangibles9 Hydrology, Society, Planning:

the Potomac13 Centering on Human Needs14 Improving the Process

16 OBJECTIVES AND ALTERNATIVES

16 Alternatives in Planning17 Effect of Policy: Pollution

Abatement18 Effect of Policy: Flood-Loss

Reduction19 Effect of Policy: Reclamation20 Restriction of Use: a Reasonable

Alternative?21 Benefits Foregone and Options Preserved23 Design for Consideration ot Alternatives

2r NOT ALL VALUES ARE MEASURABLEIN LK)LLARS

26 Water Values27 Guides that Mislead28 Precepts for Improvement

29 Market Values and Social Values:10 Balanced Recognition of Nonmarket Values

312 Tomorrow in Today's Planning

34 Distribution of Benefits

36 PERSONS, STATES, AND NATION

36 Levels of Planning37 Influences on Water Allocation40 Sharing Responsibility

41 POTENTIAL OF SCIENCE

41 Need for Better Information41 Water Budget of the Nation

42 Fields of Needed Research42 The Potomac Basin44 Other Illustrations45 Knowledge Needs

48 SUMMING UP

48 A New Emphasis48 Lines of Action49 Breaking with the "quick Fix"50 More Sensitive Evaluatiun50 Kinds of Information Needed

31 Retsarclh ab a Part of Management

52 REFFRENCES

More Science: Better Water

This report is not prompted by a national watershortage, for there is no nationwide shortageand no imminent danger of one. To be sure,there are serious regional shortages of usablewater, many of which are becoming criticalbecaus( of short-sighted planning or pollutionof fresh-water supplies. The question ofwater quality is as important today as thequestion of water shortage.

This report is concerned with the rapidlygrowing need for more intelligent applicationof science to the use of water in the UnitedStates. Within the limits imposed by thenatural distribution of precipitation, most ofthe pressing regional and local problems ofwater quality and distribution would be sus-ceptible to informed and imaginative s•!ution,not only in the United States but in other partsof the world.

While scie-,,e anti technology are enlargingthe range of possible alternatives in watermanagement, the nation's increasing affluencepermits it to consider intangible values, andthe need for doing so is widely recognized.But the nation lacks facility in dealing withintangible values. It also lacks facility inusing the resilts of scientific and technologicinvestigation to formulate alternative ways ofachieving multiple aims.

Changing Objectives

The Tide At the sound of a pistol shot on April 22, 1889, menof Empire in buckboards, on horses, on burros started a race

unique in American history. The race was uniquebut the force behind it was not. In the latter half ofthe nineteenth century a strong tide of empire wasflowing westward. The people of the United Stateswanted their West developed rapidly. To this endthey encouraged the farmer, the railroad man, andthe miner to develop the resources of the West,holding out gifts of land as inducements - to thefarmer, homesteads; to the first railroads, landgrants; and to the miner, exclusive enjoyment ofany mineral treasure he found and the land uponwhich he found it.

Even earlier than the Oklahoma land rush andthe Homestead Act, "internal improvements" hadbeen the theme, and such statesmen as AlbertGallatin and John Quincy Adams had urged the newnation to improve its natural waterways and to buildcanals as a means of joiring the country in com-merce and of breathing economic life into new re'-gions. Later, when it was believed that the key towestern development was water, the drafters ofthe Reclamation Act sought to make possible thedevelopment of small farms and communities byextending the help of the federal government infurnishing the vital water. Still later, in the darkdays of the 1930's, plans to transform the valleyof the Tennessee River were put into action toprovide a new way out of a regional economic mo-rass and massive investment was made in waterprojects in other parts of the country, as in theColumbia, the Missouri, and the Arkansas basins.

2

The Basin Plan While these major steps in land and water policywere clearly tied to economic growth and develop-ment, a host of laws and policies dealt with particu-lar resources or with particular places, disregardingpleas by federal commissions as early as 1907 forintegrated water development. Grazing permits onthe public domain, land-conservation programs foragriculture, regulation of hydroelectric power, andinvestment in flood control are only a few reflectionsof the national interest in resources. Despite con--centration on specific resources for single uses, itgradually became apparent that resources were inter-related, and a need was recognized for longer-rangeplanning that would include multipurpose systemsinvolving simultaneous development of several re-sources. If a dam could be built to retard floodwaters, could it not also store water for irrigation,or periodically release water to produce power?Hoover Dam became the prototype for multipurposewater regulation.

The view developed that comprehensive planscould be designed for a basin or a region, with wateras a unifying factor-basin plans which, if put intoeffect, would use resources more productively,with minimum waste and at minimum cost. Becausewater is widely distributed, is closely related to theutilization of other resources, and is usuallymanaged in visible construction projects, planningfor food, fiber, mineral, and land resources tendedto be seen as related to plans for water develop-ment. The Tennessee Valley Authority became thepopular prototype for comprehensive developmentof an entire drainage area; but similar systems orprojects were taking shape in the Columbia RiverValley, the Central Valley of California, and otherbasins.

To accommodate numerous federal and state in-terests, it became necessary to coordinate the ac-tivities of public agencies. National and basin pro-grams were promoted through the National Re-sources Planning Board, and later through inter-agency committees.

Unfortunately, planning and development of water

3

resources continued to be concerned mainly withspecific needs, such as navigation, irrigation, andflood control. The strength of the nation's interestin these and other problems varied widely fromdecade to decade. While the economic well-beingof communities, states, and regions may havebeen an underlying motif in investment policy,that motif often was buried within or masked be-hind specific laws and formulas designed to dealprimarily with natural resources as such; thepublic tended to lose sight of the fact that manyresource-development plans and policies werejustified originally for their contribution to economicgrowth.

By the 1950's federal agencies had done much toimprove and standardize methods of analyzingwater projects and developments. Congress, whichhad usually belied its expressed belief in compre-hensive planning by authorizing individual projects,took a giant step toward comprehdnsive nationalwater-resources planning when it authorized thereport of the Senate Select Committee on NationalWater Resources; that report, published in 1959-1961in 32 sections, emphasized the pressing water needsof the next few decades. Efforts to establish machin-ery for coordinating the diverse interests representedby a large number of federal, state, and local agen-cies culminated in the Water Resources Planning Actof 1965, which established a Water Resources Coun-cil and provided financial assistance to improvestate potentials for water planning. The Act furtherprovided for the establishment of river-basin plan-ning commissions made up of state and federalregional representatives.

The new Water Resources Council, composedof the Secretaries of the Departments of Interior,Agriculture, Army, and Health, Education andWelfare, and the Chairman of the Federal PowerCommission, has the two principal opportunities toformulate policies to be followed by federal agenciesin planning and developing water and related land re-sources and to review the plans developed regionally

4

for those purposes in cooperation with the concernedstate and local groups.

Federal assistance in a great array of resourceprograms led to concepts of comprehensive river-basin planning. At the same time, dealing piece-meal with individual resource issues fostered acomplex of laws, policies, procedures, and habitsof thought that make it difficult to consider thenation's broad interests and objectives in any co-herent scheme of policy and practice. Recommend-ations to solve water problems are made typicallyby agencies with responsibility for construction.Their appraisals understandably tend to lack breadth.It is difficult for the Bureau of Reclamation to beobjective about irrigation either as an aspect ofagricultural policy or as a justification for consump-tive use of water, or for the Office of Saline Wateror the Atomic Energy Commission to consider withtotal dispassion ways to meet water needs otherthan by giant desalting-power plants. The incentive toescalate agency programs is endemic. Moreover,there is always strong support for solutions thatinvolve large expenditures and employment, evenif temporary.

An important statement of federal water policies,standards, and procedures was printed in SenateDocument 97, 87th Congress, and approved byPresident Kennedy in 1962. These policies andstandards were intended to provide a commonbasis for federal agencies in the formulation,evaluation, and review of plans for the develop-ment of water and related land resources, andto reduce differences in practices. The standardsset forth in Senate Document 97 encourage acomprehensive long-range viewpoint in planning,with full consideration of all types of waterdemands and development possibilities, andthey stress the need to outline and present todecision-makers alternative solutions in orderthat variations in objectives, policies, timing,and other factors may be considered in adoptingplans for action.

5

A Wider Yesterday the nation's interest in water resources

Concern was variously centered on irrigation, navigation,winning the West, and lessening the burden of naturaldisasters. Today the nation's concern is wideningto include assurances that all regions share in thenational growth, that individuals have an opportunityto enjoy the pleasures and beauties of the naturalenvironment, and that the quality of that environ-ment be protected and enhanced as the nation grows.Consequently, recreation, pollution abatement,wilderness preservation, and water developmentfor Appalachia are important today. Protectionagainst floods and droughts, as well as productionof hydroelectric power and the promotion of navi-gation, must be examined anew in the light ofmodern America's demands and desires and itsability to pay for what it wants. Clearly, the list ofsocially desirable objectives in planning is growing.

A sharpened concern that all regions sharein national growth poses prickly problems ofallocating water among states and of allocating in-vestment funds among regions. Every decision tostore or transport water has implicit in it a setof judgments as to national and regional aims. Ifregion A is running short of water for irrigationand region B still has supplies exceeding its pros-pective needs, one solution is to seek a transfer ofwater from B to A with the federal government pro-viding financial support for irrigation, for power, andfor recreational features of the project. An alter-native is to support increased uses in region B,encouraging population growth there rather than in A.Putting aside knotty questions of contendingwater rights, it is difficult to disentangle fullythe web of consequences that would result frompursuing one solution rather than the other.

A similar problem arises where region C sufferschronic unemployment that might be relievedtemporarily by constructing new water projectslargely at federal expense. The benefits may beshort-lived unless the projects promote productivecapacity, and it may even be that such an invest-ment in public works will retard socially desirable

6

population emigration and economic adjustmentsthat otherwise would take place more rapidly.Again, a policy toward population relocation may beinherent in the building of a dam. Such decisionsand actions call for new consideration of nationalaims and, in turn, for deepened understanding ofthe effects of a change in water use on the wholefabric of society.

Momentous changes in society-rapid increasein population, in urbanization, in mechanization ofdaffy life, in leisure time, and in disposable in-come-are causing large increases in the use ofwater, are bringing about serious decreases in thequality of water, and are putting heavy pressureon planners and managers to incorporate therecreational and aesthetic values of water intotheir formulas and systems. Accumulatedexperience with their environment enablesAmericans to be more sensitive to the fulleffects of their manipulation of water, soil, air,plants, and animals. At the same time, theyincreasingly realize that they can now afford todo things beautifully as well as efficiently.

The Planning Process

Tangibles New dimensions of social and economic development

and Intangibles in American society, characterized by fresh hopes andrapid change, call for continuing appraisal of the ob-jectives and methods of planning for water resources.

While impressive advances broaden the outlook ofplanning and water management, present policy andpractice limit consideration of alternatives and em-phasize those aspects of development that are framedeasily in terms of economic production rather thanthose aspects in which nonmarket values dominate.With increased emphasis on the national store ofscenery, fish and wildlife, historic sites, and onother social values that cannot be expressed easilyin economic terms, planning processes must changeto take such factors into account.

During the past half-century the national desire foreconomic growth was concidered to justify full develop-ment of resources as soon as the direct economicbenefits could be demonstrated potentially to exceed thecosts. Planning was viewed as a method of consideringthe development of resources at individual sites or inspecific areas, of designing a feasible project orprojects, and of determining the economic benefitsand costs as measured by direct change in production.The best plan was one that provided the mosteconomical way of developing a specific resource.

The benefits to the nation of developments for power,flood control, navigation, and irrigation should byno means be overlooked in the future planning of theuse of water. Such developments have contributedmaterially to present productivity. However, at notime were the aims of public involvement solelyeconomic. Public power was seen by some of its

proponents as a means of regulating private producers;flood control on the Ohio in the late 1930's was in-fluenced strongly by determination to prevent loss oflife; and irrigation from tle outset of federal invest-ment was directed towarr building communities offamily-size farms.

Events of the recent past reveal that social objec-tives considered desirable by society have been signif-icantly broadened, and that certain objectives desiredby society may not be consistent with the most eco-nomically profitable use of resources. The publicinterest in recreation, quality of environment, andaesthetics implies a willin-ness to forego oppcrtunityor to spend money in a way that does not necessarilyyield the highest benefit-cost ratio as we are nowable to compute it: the public is willing to pay forintangibles. On the other hand, in order for the publicto know what intangibles are available at what cost,and thereby to determine what it is willing to pay (in-cluding foregone benefits) for those intangibles, allpracticable alternatives, including both tangible andintangible benefits and costs, must be presented.Consideration of such a broader range of alternativesimplies greater demands on science to predict notonly the immediate but the more remote consequencesof resource development.

Hydrology, Society, Recent deliberations over the future of the Potomac

Planning: River provide an excellent illustration of both theproblem cf exploring alternatives and the fundamental

the Potomac importance vi 6icg.e"l. physical, and social know-ledge that must inform such polltiua! discussion.

The Potomac is not a large river. With a meanannual flow of 11,000 cubic feet per second (cia),it is characterized by great variability, with late-summer flows as low as 800 cfs and spring floodsas high as 484,000 cfs. Much of the land of thePotomac basin remains open, as yet free of inten-sive development. Not only does the basin containmany monuments of the nation's history, includingthe Chesapeake and Ohio Canal which parallels theriver for a hundred miles from Georgetown toCumberland, but near Washington, D.C., the river

9

passes over the spectacular Great Falls and throughan impressive colorful gorge. However. at andbelow the fall line where the free-flowing river be-comes tidal, the nation's capital is the center ofone of the rapidly growing metropolitan regions inthe United States. The demand for water supply andfor water to receive the effluent created by rapidgrowth has placed heavy demands on the availableflow in the river. For over 50 years, the tidalriver near Washington has been polluted; since1800, deposits of mud have plagued navigatorsand irritated residents and visitors who value thebeauty of the capital's waterfront.

Flood protection and water supply in the Potomacbasin have long received attention. One study by theCorps of Engineers, directed primarily towardwater supply and flood control for the Washingtonmetropolitan area, suggested construction of amajor dam a few miles above the city of Washington.More recently a report prepared by the Corps butrepresenting the collective efforts of severalfederal agencies addressed itself to broader objec-tives for the basin as a whole. That plan, presentedto the public in 1964, called for a dam a short dis-tance above Washington, for 16 storage reservoirsprimarily for low-flow augmentation to reduce pollu-tion, and for 400 smaller upstream reservoirs toprovide water supply and upstream flood protection.It left many questions unresolved about the aimsand methods of managing the waters of the basin.

Because of the erratic and low flows of thePotomac, if the river is to provide dependablelow flows for water supply and pollution control,storage must be provided somewhere. But a damnear the city would mar the woodland beauty of thegorge, drown a portion of the historical canal,and tius destroy a unique area. Moreover, reser-voirs that must be drawn down present an unsightlyappearance and reduce opportunity for recreation.It may be that low-flow augmentation is a relativelypoor tool for pollution abatement, and enhancedtreatment is a better answer.

If the water in the river is to be fresh for

10

swimmers and fish, it cannot receive untreated orpartially treated wastes as it does today. At lowflows, the level of waste treatment must be high,higher even than current standard treatments canprovide. In the tidal river and estuary a hig>.nutrient level promotes exuberant algae growth,despite the inhibiting effect o! high turbidity.

Many pressing scientific aid technical questionsremain unanswered in this Corps report. Most ofthem cannot be answered today. They include:

(1) Can waste-treatment technology be signifi-candy improved, thus lessening the need forstorage to provide low flows for waste dilution?

(2) How will stream biota react to varyingperiods of low flow?

(3) What is the recovery rate of desirablefish and flora subjecte"i to damaging diminutionof flows?

(4) Will impro-ved treatment lower the nutrientcontent of flows to the tidal river?

(5) Will algae growth decline proportionatelywith nutrient decline?

(6) Will the species of algae change withchanges in water quality?

(7) What is the quality of water contributedby agricultural, forest, and urban areas?

(8) Can sediment inflow from vast agriculturalareas and from urban lands experiencing construc-tion be reduced significantly?

(9) How much reduction will be required tochange the turbidity in the tidal river?

(10) Will algae multiply as turbidity declines,and in what ratio?

(11) Will urban storm run-off produce wastestl,_at impair the quality of water for swir.iming,even in the face of complete treatment of sanitarywastes ?

11

(12) If other solutions are available, should $100million be spent to treat and transport wastes froman estuary to make the area fit for swimming?

(13) Will the area meet the aesthetic and healthstandards after the money is spent?

(14) Mast dams be erected in t!he most magnifi-cent river gorges in a basin to impound water to beused to augment the trickle nature provides, if thattrickle is enough to keep most of the fish alive allbut a few years of every fifty?

(15) What is the minimum number of damsrequired today, tomorrow, and in the future?

These questions, and others, must be answeredbefore sufficiently informed decisions can be made.

In the face of the controversy over ends andmeans in the Potomac, President Johnson, empha-sizing the concern for natural resources expressedin his message on natural beauty, made the Secretaryof the Interior responsible for developing plans thatwould make the Potomac River a model of conser-vation for the nation. The Secretary establishedtask forces made up of federal personnel,appointed a committee of architects to consid~erland-planning aspects, and called a conference ofthe governors of the interested states who havethemselves established an advisory committee onthe Potomac. An interim rep,'n- by the federaltask force and state advisory committee was madein early 1966, wthout benefit of public discussionof its recommendations for extensive commitmentof resources or evidence that alternatives had beenconsidered in thtk light of long-range objectivesand possibilities.

Because the federal agencies have specificmissions defined by lau. and because, in addition.specific provisions of federal financing makecertain alternatives in water development. such asdam construction, more readily operable and oftenmort desirable in the eyes of local ben-ficiarics.the task of developing meaningful alternative, in

the Potomac basin is exceedingly difficult. Moreover,

12

objectives have not been well defined by Congress,planning staff has not increased in proportion tothe task, and basic studies have been hampered bydemand for speedy decisions.

The evolution of planning for the Potomac isevidence of a need for development of broaderviews of planning objectives and alternatives.Furthermore, it shows the necessity of betterfundamental scientific knowledge and improvedtechnology in exploring the alternatives and inweighing tt'e choices.

Centering on Up to now, most plans for water-resource develop-

Human Needs ment and management, in areas beyond the Potomac,have been tied to individual projects or to basindevelopment, and they have been narrowly concernedwith water per se. When New York sees its use ofwater approaching the limit of its supply, it typicallybegins looking for additional pure sources, and unlessthreatened by a crisis, it pays less attention to possi-bilities of reducing excessive consumption, reusingwaste water, or abating pollution of nearby streams.Planners tend to ignore alternatives that involvechanges in human habit, preference, or aspiration.In the case of individual projects, the considerationof valid alternatives often has been prevented by therigidity of the mission of the agency proposing theproject, by imperfect apportionment of costs, byneglect of nc .market benefits and social costs, andby a simple lack of awareness of available alterna-tives.

Although the drainage basin provides a coherenthydrologic unit relevant to water control, it is noWnecessarily, ur even usually, coincident wita theappropriate social, political, or economic regionwithin which society functions. Water planningshould relate more to man's activities, needs,desires, and ability to rrmanage water than to thewater itself. The drainage-basin master plan asoften practiced is focused on water.

The types of plans that have been developedover the yes-4 are becoming less us:ful, because ofthe broadenln, of objectives, the increase in actual

13

and potential uses, the realization that in planning,water should not be isolated from other resourcesnor regarded as indispensable in all its presentuses, and the growing recognition oi the necessityto maintain flexibility to meet future needs.

Improving In summary, the Ast century's experience and thethe Process prospect for science point to a need for water

planning that will maintain flexibility for the future,that will foreclose as few alternatives as possible,that will put new demands on science to predictconditions and consequences and to provide newalternatives for changing needs.

Several attributes are fundamental to theplanning of water resources if the full fruits ofAmerica's generous resource base and scientificcapacity are to be gathered. First, the processmust generate and evaluate alternatives for con-sideration by the people of the United States andtheir representatives. Second, it must reportand disseminate such alternatives and evaluationsfor the broadest possible discussion in the politicalarena. Third, it must strive to assay as well aspossible the values that all segments of societyplace upoi, specific uses, abuses, enjoyment, orappreciation of water resources. Fourth, theappraisal of values must include an attempt toascertain how values develop or degenerate withthe passage of time, either bctcause action is tooslow and advantage is lost or because action is soprecipitous that future opportunities are foreclosed.Fifth, the process must recognize that all concernedprivate, local, state, and national groups can andshould contribute to the planning and developmentof water resources.

After public discussion of alternatives hasbrought out the relative values placed by differentgroups on different objectives and on different socialor nonmarket costs and benefits, the administratorswho are concerned should be better prepared to act.In their recommendations to the Congress, a statecommission, a city council, or an industrial executive,they should know, far more fully than they now do,

14

which groups desire which objectives and, to agreater extent than formerly, what these groupsconsider to be the relative values involved.

Public discussion of alternatives, properly con-ducted, would tend to eliminate the problems thatarise when the public belatedly realizes the conse-quences of a decision already made. It also shouldprovide a healthy amelioration of the institutionalhardening atid the practice of dealing with a restrictedor local clientele that characterize some publicagencies. The difficulties of reconciling diverse aimswould still be immense, but whatever reconciliationis possible would be effected in a more rational andacceptable democratic framework than at present.

Much hinges on accurate prediction of conditionsand consequences. While the accuracy of predictionis greatly enhanced by studies of the effects of pastdecisions, there has been surprisingly little analysisof the effects of water-use decisions of the past.The full impacts of the Tennessee Valley Authorityon the productivity and life of that region are ex-tremely difficult to sort out from economic changesthat were shared more widely by areas outside theAuthority's program. And while the effect of damsupon stream flow is well known, their effect onwater quality, down-stream channel erosion, andbiota is less clear. It is important to state that nomajor water project in the United States has beenstudied with sufficient care and precision to deter-mine its full effects on the systems of water, soil,plants, and human activity which it has altered.Few smaller projects have been examined in enoughdetail to judge whether they have attained the purposesfor which they were intended. When a new technique,such as weather modificatioa or a powerful pesticide,is introduced there is a flurry of public concernabout the likely consequences and considerableinvestigation of them; but unconcern and ignorancecontinue to exist in regard to the effects of moreconventional measures.

More anilysis is needed of the effects, both onthe environment and on the economy, of actionstaken in the development of water resources.

15

Objectives and Alternatives

Alternatives There are several kinds of variable factors in water-

in Planning use planning, each of which requires consideration ofalternatives. They are:

Alternatives of objective: A canyon can beexploited as a reservoir site or preserved for itsscenic and recreational values.

Engineering alternatives: Flood control and powerproduction may be achieved in a certain reach ofriver by three dams or one large dam.

Management alternatives: Flood losses may bereduced by dams land reservoirs alone or by flood-plain regulation.

Institutional alternatives: Related to managementalternatives, they involve the political structurethrough which the resources are to be managed;irrigation waters, for example, may be managed bythe Bureau of Reclamation according to the relativestrength of individual water rights, or they may bemanaged through a conservancy district to which allrights are conveyed in return for proportionatewater allocations.

Timing and size alternatives (which are closelyinterrelated): Based on predictions of future condi-tions and needs, a dam constructed to the fullpotential of a site might provide facilities that exceedpresent needs. Alternatively, it might be possibleto construct an initial dam to a lower elevation, withprovisions for future raising, if needed. Such stageconstruction is to be preferred to overdesigning interms of near future needs, because the anticipateddistant needs may never develop. If stage develop-ment is not feasible, it may be better to delayconstruction until the need approaches the site

16

potential. With respect to timing alternatives,the best engineering, management, and institutionalalternatives today may not be the best tomorrow.Technological breakthroughs, value shifts, andgovernment actions may so change the priority ofalternatives that starting tomorrow may provewiser than starting today.

Alternatives of location: Each of these may leadto a different set of physical and social impacts onthe region affected.

Some alternatives may involve broad nationalpolicy, as reflected in federal statutes, regulations,and practices. In illustration, national policies inpollution abatement, reclamation, and flood-lossreduction are discussed briefly here in the contextof their effects on alternatives and choice in watermanagement.

Effect of The need to clarify the real objectives of privatePolicy: and public water management in order to elicit

alternative courses to achieve those objectives isPollution seen in two common elements of most water-

Abatement resources plans-pollution abatement and flood-loss reduction. In recent years the Congress hasagreed that storage may be provided in reservoirsat federal projects, without cost to local benefi-ciaries, for low-flow releases to meet pollution-dilution requirements The objective, of course,is cleaner water for domestic, industrial, andrecreational purposes. Clearly, however, thisapproach is not the only way to meet the objective.More effective treatment systems, elimination ofpollutants by manufacturing process changes, in-stream treatment, and relocation of waste dischargesare alternatives. An effective enforcement programcan be a very important element in pollution controland can determine the applicability of alternatives.It must be remembered that industry and localgovernments are responsible for waste disposalunder state and interstate regulation. Waste-waterreclamation would not only control pollution, butwould augment the supply of usable water. At thepresent time, however, not only does federal

17

financing lean heavily toward low-flow augmenta-tion, but river-basin planners are unlikely toconsider the other alternatives because they arenot within the "authorized tool kit" available atthe federal level. With planning oriented towardthe project rather than the purpose, planners tendto concern themselves more with "benefits" thatwill justify the project than with alternatives thatwill solve the problem. Needless to say, thistendency occurs in most water-project planning,not just in planning for pollution abatement.

Effect of Detailed studies have documented the fact that

Policy: flood damages continue to rise year after yeareven as expenditures for flood control climb.

Flood-Loss People live and work on flood plains for many

Reduction reasons, and those who live and work there viewthe flood hazard differently from the engineersdesigning works to control flood waters. Whilefederal agencies have been authorized to assistcommunities in evaluating flood hazard and indeveloping alternative methods of reducingunwarranted damages-methods such as flood-plainzoning, building codes, subdivision regulations,flood proofing, and warning systems-the financingprovisions for most federal participation favorcontrol measures such as dams and levees.

The federal reimbursement policy on floodcontrol in effect transfers part of the cost of floodsfrom the direct beneficiaries to the taxpayers of thenation. Other opportunities for individuals to useflood plains without heavy public cost or for publicagencies to encourage recreational and wildlifeuses often are neglected. Because many communi-ties, given the option, will choose the alternativethat costs them least and is readily available,alternatives to structural measures of flood controlrarely receive serious consideration by those whohave the power to initiate them, despite the fact thatengineering structures can never guarantee completeprotection. To minimize efficiently losses fromfloods requires land-use planning as well as water

planning, and it calls for helping individual property

18

owners to assess their hazard and possible ways ofdealing with it. Although flood insurance has been

proposed as an additional means of deterring flood-plain occupancy and of reimbursing losses, it hasyet to receive a thorough trial on a national scale.Federal agencies now are moving toward a broaderview of possible means of foEtering wise use offlood plains.

Adoption of a full-alternative method of planningfor flood-loss reduction would he advanced by amore searching evaluattoni of the reasons whypersons choose to locate on flood plains, and ofthe probable effects of various ways of providiugincentives to adopt a'ternatives, other than struc-tural or control measures, for reducing lossesfrom floods.

Effect of Irrigation in the West may have substantial impactPolicy: on the nation's agriculture, yet the reclamation

policy may run counter to the agricultural income-Reclamation support policy. Though it is often pointed out that

reclamation costs are reimbursable and that, inthe long run, the water user repays the federalgovernment for its investment, it is not alwaysunderstood that there is an important subsidyassociated with the reclamation legislation (as thereis with flood-control, navigation, and soil-conser-vation legislation). First, the capital investmentmade by the federal government for irrigation isrepaid over a period of many years without interest.The capitalized value of this interest is in effect asubsidy of about one half the cost of putting water onthe land. Furthermore, the sale of electricityproduced by reclamation dams, and even by damsthat have no utility for water control, providesrevenue that helps pay the costs allocated toirrigation water.

These subsidies were an inducement to settlementand development of the West, and added to the agri-cultural production of the United States. In addition,Congress limited to 160 acres the size of land-ownership units that could receive irrigation waterfrom reclamation projects; this limitation reflected

19

a desire to people the land with independent farmerson family-size farms.

Although these were laudable objectives for theReclamation Act when it was passed in 1902, overthe years since that time they have led to somecurious conflicts. In some instances, crops grownon irrigated acreage subsidized under the reclama-tion program have been supported under governmentprice-support programs. Elsewhere irrigatedacreage simply has added to the agricultural pro-duction capacity.

Not only is the necessity for the subsidy to bequestioned, but it must also be recognized thatirrigated crops place heavy consumptive demandson the water resources in a region of relativescarcity. Last, it is increasingly apparent thatin many regions improved technology and prevail-ing prices for agricultural products are making itimpossible for a farmer to earn a living on 160acres.

In view of these changes and the fact that theirrigation subsidy on federal reclamation projectsgreatly influences decisions on uses of water inthe West, the Committee believes that a review ofthe federal reclamation policy as part of a generalreview of water policy, in the light of present andfuture competing needs for water and agriculturalproducts, is a critical requirement. Such a reviewwould examine cost-sharing and reimbursement asthey shape public interest in different water uses.

Restriction Conservation of use, in the sense of plannedof Use: restriction of water use, often has been regarded

as a desperation measure rather than a reasonablea Reasonable alternative. This attitude is largely the result ofAlternative? many years of thinking of water as a free good.

The free-good concept combines with a tradition ofpromotional rates to produce the pricing policiespeculiar to water-policies whereby the consumermay pay only a fraction of the cost of deliveringwater to him.

Restriction in use of water could be effectedthrough more rational pricing, and by restricting

20

or controlling devices or practices that wastewater. In the pricing policy, surcharges mightbe considered for peak use (in some cities peakdemand for lawn watering in the summertime isfive times the mean use). As an aid to improvedplanning, modification of the laws and charges onwater should be considered, so that individualswould have an incentive to economize. Changesin water-using equipmenzi and user behavior canbring significant improvement in the use of water.

Benefits Foregone In a rapidly changing society, in which the specific

and needs of the future are impossible to forecast and

Options Preserved where technology provides many alternatives, aprimary tenet of planning should be to maintainflexibility for the future. This statement is notdefense of inaction. Reasoned delay may bebetter than action for which the need has not beendemonstrated thoroughly and the effects of whichhave not been evaluated adequately. Becausechoice is preserved at the cost of immediatebenefits, the reasoning behind this view needs tobe stated clearly.

First, reservoir sites and specific natura'environments are finite in number, fixed inposition, increasingly scarce, and irreplaceable.

Second, the values placed on the several usesare continually changing while the competitionamong users is increasing, which is another wayof saying that needs chr-ige with time.

Third, most decisio... except those that requirepreservation of the status quo, once implemented,are irreversible.

Fourth, there are instances in which inadequatedesign information and inability to predict conse-quences of construction make delay desirable. Wecreate great reservoirs that stop the migration offish and then provide costly fishways, hatcheries,and other devices to maintain the fishery, and withno certainty of success. We impound water with-out knowing the effects of that impoundment on itsquality. We build an irrigation project and thenfind salinity increasing dangerously in the river

21

a~

downstream. We eliminate high-flood peaks byreservoir storage, but downstream from somereservoirs we see unpredicted erosion, sedimen-tation, bank-cutting, and other effects, even unto,as in California, the loss of beaches along theseacoast, starved of their supply of sand.

Finally, new engineering, management, andinstitutional alternatives will continue to appear,offering new and perhaps better ways of meetingneeds. The pace of scientific research andtechnological application is quickening. It mayhave been reasonable in 1920 to assume in design-ing pollution-abatement works that both waste andthe technology of its treatment would remain littlechanged over 25 years (and indeed, municipal waetetreatment did improve only modestly over thatperiod). But it now seems realistic to assume thatthe composition of waste will become immenselymore complex and that radical improvements willoccur in biological and chemical methods fortreating waste.

Decisions as la whether to proceed with water-resource development should be based on a thoroughcomparison of the need for action with the dangersof undesirable changes in the environment and thevirtues of retaining options for the future. Ifundertaken, the development should be designed tomaintain the widest practicable choice for futureaction. Partial development should be recognizedas one means of preserving options. In rea( hing

for decision, we should not delude ourselhes thatbenefits foregone are unreal; every effort shouldbe made to evaluate such benefits. We shouldlikewise try to ensure that decisions made nowwill minimize deleterious effects and will not

induce cost dislocations that might have beenavoided had decision been deferred or madein such a way as to retain flexibility for futureaction.

The choice of lands to be reserved asnoncompetitive with other types is not an easyone and the decision as to whether to proceed ordelay may be painful. Present organizational

22

arrangements are not satisfactory for this purpose:persons whose interest lies in preservation ofscenic areas, recreational activities, and similarpursuits are not adequately represented at thefederal level when compared with those whoseinterest lies in irrigation, flood control, andpower development. Consequently, the formerrely primarily on Congressional hearings andappeals through public media. Institutionalchanges are required to correct the imbalance.However, care should be taken to assure thatinstitutional changes do not create an imbalancein the opposite direction: unilateral judgments bythose interested in preservation of scenic attrac-tions should not be the sole basis for reservationof such sites.

Wherever feasible, the experimental approachshould be tried, before an irreversible decisionis made, as with pilot projects in irrigation orin combined disposal of urban storm and sanitarydrainage.

Design for Formerly a full-development plan usually was based

Consideration primarily on economic and financing considerations,

of with limited examination of alternative use of theresource for other purposes and with little publicreview of the alternatives available. institutional

and conceptual constraints often precluded consider-ation of certain of the better alternatives. Now theideal would be to present the public with informationabout practical and coherent alternatives, both indevelopment and objectives, so that the people mighthave a chance to discuss those alternatives and,through their representatives, to express theirpreferences before a final choice is made.

The ordinary procedure for bringing a proposedsewer extension to a city council is for the respon-sible engineering staff or consultant to 'canvasspossible solutions and to recommend the projectthat appears to be most economical or effective.Even for a single sewer extension for an isolatedtown the considerations in choosing betweendifferent routes and between a public sewer and

23

private septic tanks are bound to be complex.The engineer or planner resolves in his singlerecommendation a whole series of judgmentsof the facts of community growth and values withrespect to the quality of the community and itslandscape, which in the final decision may beobscured from the view of the public representa-tives.

In the future, two distinct phases will need tobe cultivated. In the first phase, the public wouldbe presented with a number of technically feasiblealternatives for meeting particular objectives andthe related costs and benefits, both tangible andintangible, for each alternative. In the second phase,the course of action would be decided in the publicarena. Each of these phases influences the other.

Although no specific organizational change isrecommended by the Committee, a mechanism forformulating a range of practicable alternatives andof presenting them dispassionately to the repre-sentatives of the public for evaluation needs to beevol, d in each agency charged with decisionsconcerning water. At the regional level, the newWater Resources Council and its federal-stateregional commissions could play such a role.Hearings would be a useful mechanism to developand present water-use alternatives, and to airconflicting views on aims, alternatives, and values.

Inevitably, the more dtffictdt and acute issues willfind their way into the political arena. At the federallevel there will be hearings and investigations,Congressional rnd other. At that stage, theissues should be sharply defined and the relevantevidence shculd be at hand; i, addition, agencyor i.astltutlonal bias would be revealed.

After a reasonable time for public considerationof alteraatives, the second phase might begin. Inthis phase, decision would be reached on whatneeded to be done then and what possible coursesof acti m could and should be preserved for futuredecision. In large basins, the two phases woulddevelop concurrently as one project reachedconstructlun and others were first reviewed.

24

Just how and where decision would be reachedwould depend to a considerable degree upon thenature of the mechanism established. At alllevels the adoption of a sequence of planning thatincludes public presentation of a full range ofalternatives is more important than the questionof where in the planning structure the decision isreached on what to present to the municipal,state, and national legislative body. It should beemphasized that the Committee is not recommend-ing a plannitg mechanism that would produce one"perfect" plan for legislative adoption or rejection;the leading alternatives, tempered and perhapsordered by public discussion, would be presented.

25

Not All Values areMeasurable in Dollars

Water Values In a democratic society, the political processweighs incommensurate values and makeschoices. Throughout the nation's historydifferent weights have been given to differentvalues in water-resource development. Whenmuch of the country was still wilderness andwhen all the nation sought economic advantage,priority in the halls of Congress, as in theminds of the people, was given to land settle-ment, navigation improvement, and theexploitation of tangible resources. Now thatthe wilderness has all but disappeared, nowthat many of the people have both comfort andleisure, there is a greater appreciation of,and a willingness to pay for, certain qualitiesof the environment which formerly were morecommon and therefore less valued than theyare today.

The change in concept of the naturalenvironment from that of a workshop to thatof a temple and the conflicting existence ofboth concepts presents tne resource plannerwith his most sensitive task: drawing a linebetween workshop and temple, or attemptingto merge them.

Current approaches to analysis and evaluationof resources employ sophisticated processes fordetermining the combination of projects thatcan be constructed with optimum net economicbenefits. The alternative measures that areproject ingredients are programmed for a

computer, and various combinations arecompared in a search for the combination that

26

-- ----

best reflects an agreed-upon set of economicobjectives. These mathematical approachesprovide important new techniques for analyzingthe available information. Valuable as they areas planning aids, they will not, by themselves,provide a philosophy for dealing with the socialbenefits and costs fundamental to water-resourceanalysis. In other words, a computer alone willnot solve all our resource problems. It may,however, through its requirement of a precisestatement of values, force a clearer definitionof what society prefers.

Cuides The value of water is infrequently its selling

that Mislead price. Almost everywhere in the United States,it is unierpriced in relation to what an industryor an individual would be willing to pay for it.What this "mount is can be determir ad, however,oniy if pitfalls are avoided in the calculation.Do we meap the maximum vmount that would bepaid for the total amount of water used? No,the value needed for planning is what would bepaid by a user for an extra gallon of water.But thi!j payment depends on the amount ofwater being taken. As an example in whichquantity available is fixed, it may be possibleto get an idea of the market value of a canyonview by che amount of earnings the public iswilling to forego if a dam is not constructed onthe site. But a reliable method is seldomavailable for estimating what this amount is.Because water is critical in life processes onour planet, there is a tendency to view waternecds as physically determined. Yet purelyphysical requirements cannot be separated fromsocial and economic demands.

The absence of an effective market mechanismin the allocation of water leads to many unreasonableclaims of "need". How, for example, can irrigatedagriculture in the West "need" more water when itcannot bear the full cost of its delivery? Oncepeople "need" to live in Los Angeles they "need"water, but to what extent does the nation need to

27

subsidize the delivery of water to Los Angeles?The aim of resource planning is a maximum

social value, which unfortunately remainsdifficult to put in quantitative terms. In practicea categorization of objectives often takes placebecause the benefits and costs which are readilymeasurable are those that can be expressed inmonetary terms. The nonmonetary costs andbenefits, though admitted to be real, are therebyrelegated to a lower priority.

Even where monetary values are assigned torecreation and to fish and wildlife, these valuesmay not reflect the essential element of quality.Faced with these difficulties, especially if weare impressed with the desirability of preservingthe natural environment, it is easy to take theview that nonmonetary benefits should be over-riding. There is an illogical schism betweenthose who tend to place sole reliance on eithermarket or nonmarket values. Both types ofbenefits exist and are important. What isneeded is a balancing among benefits. We needto get on with the task of finding satisfactory waysof deciding among objectives, of determining

values that should be placed on them, and ofcomparing and contrasting values and objectives.

Precepts Much progress has been made in devising objective

for measurements of water-project effects in dollar

Improvement terms. These measurements have affected signifi-cantly decisions about individual projects, andthey have influenced the general direction of waterpolicies. A first precept is to maintain and build

on this progress, carefully using dollar marketvalues to the full extent to which they areappropriate.

With increasing importance attached to leisureand aesthetics as the nation develops, the neglectof effects not accurately reflected in market valueshas become more serious. A second precept,already stressed, is that neither zero nor infinitevalue should be placed on these nonmarket effects.Rather, methods should be explored for weighing

28

explicitly nonmarket benefits together with bene-fits for which dollar market values are available.

Because of the long life of most water projects,time is a major consideration in water planning.(A key factor in good planning is the selection ofan appropriate rate of discount for comparingvalues in different time periods.) A third preceptis that more thorough exploration of alternatives,giving explicit consideration to the long-lastingeffects of water decisions, is needed. This ex-ploration of alternatives should reflect concernwith how uncertainty about the future may affectthe most desirable course of action, as well ashow account should be taken of irreversibleactions.

The effects of water decisions considered thusfar have to do with the total net benefits to society,regardless of who receives benefits or who isadversely affected. A different dimension, toolong neglected as a matter of systematic analysis,has to do with the distribution of benefits amongpersons and among areas. A fourth precept isthat there should be explicit consideration of Lhedistributional effects of water decisions.

Below, the meaning of these precepts isconsidered more fully.

Market Values Corn is corn, and it is grown in every state. When

and the product of water is something that is commonly

Social Values producible in a market setting-as are agriculturalcrops-the value of providing the water can beestimated with confidence by relying on observeddollar magnitudes. Most often, the net benefitsfrom producing marketable commodities is thesaving made possible by being able to produce thecommodity less expensively with the water providedthan it can be produced elsewhere. The use ofmarket values can be applied validly and widely towater decisions, especially those taken at thefederal level. Notably amenable to this approachis production made possible by flood control,reclamation, hydroelectricity, and navigation.

Market valuations can sometimes be used even

29

when the outputs made possible by water manage-ment are difficult to value. They can be used byestimating benefits as the saving in costs of pro-viding Ihe output by a proposed project instead ofprovidig it by the least-cost alternative. Oneprovisc, necessary if this approach is to be used,is that the output by the alternative means wouldin fact be economical or otherwise justifiable toprodu. . Another proviso is that an earnestsearch be made among the alternative ways tofind the means that costs the least. These provisosare violated if the benefits from pollution abate-ment provided from low-flow augmentation by adam are estimated as the savings in treatmentcosts if those treatment costs are in fact higherthan would be considered justifiable. Similarly,the provisos are violated if benefits from additionalwater to Los Angeles are estimated to be the savingsin costs over bringing in water by barge from theNorth Pacific Coast if this means would not beconsidered feasible.

Balanced Shortcomings of relying solely on market values,

Recognition indispensable as they are for a wide range of bene-

of Nonmarket fits, have already been noted. The list of

Values shortcomings could be extended greatly. Untilrecently, we have assumed it was worth doing littleabout unsightly, foul-smelling, or unhealthynuisances ir the environment, unless someonecould conveniently collect bills for doing so fromthose being harmed. Decision-making still givesundiscriminating weights to property values regard-less of whether this weighting is to the benefit ofsociety at large. Such weighting is likely to beparticularly unfortunate when sizeable enhancementsin land values will result from water decisions, andthe land happens fn be owned by persons importantin a political power struct.re.

On the other hand, the absence of objectivecriteria for evaluating nonmarket benefits has ledoccasionally to decisions which overvalue non-market effects. The zeal for controlling waterrunoff to prevent soil erosion in some cases has

30

led to an installation without analysis of whetherit is worthwhile. It is simply assumed that allactivity of this kind produces market and non-market benefits in excess of costs. Carefulanalysis might lead to the conclusion that expensiveterracing often is not worth its cost, especiallywhen a less costly alternative may be availablefor conserving the soil-such as allowing thenatural growth of pine trees, an example pertinentto large areas of the South.

In short, failing to do a better job of scruti-nizing objectively nonmarket benefits has led toinconsistent behavior, most often to under-estimation of the importance of nonmarket effectsbut sometimes to overestimation of them.

Lake Tahoe will turn from blue to green unlesscosts are borne to stop sewage from being dumpedinto it. Let us find out how great the costs arebefore prejudging that it is or is not worth lettingthe lake turn color. If it will cost $5. 00 per hourof viewing time for anyone who will ever see thelake to keep it blue, one may conclude that thereare better alternatives for these expenditures.But if the cost would amount to only a fraction ofa cent per person visiting the lake and if the costof alternative means of disposal of the sewagewould raise the cost of living of the polluters onlyslightly, one might rationally conclude that itwould be a wise action to keep the lake blue.

The fact that the aesthetic uplift and physicalimprovement of the individual recreationist cannotbe expressed easily in monetary terms does notdiminish the fact that they represent a value tosociety, and one which may be peculiarly diminishedin quality as recreational areas become overcrowded.

Scenic gorges, river valleys, fish-spawninggrounds, and wildlife habitats present difficultproblems in valuation. In attempting to placea monetary value on a resource, we arc con-cerned often not only with the costs and benefits,but with identification of the beneficiaries andthose who should share the costs. It should bcnoted, however, that inability to identify or

31

assess beneficiaries does not indicate an absenceof benefits. For example, the migratory habitsof fish and game birds pose exceedingly complexproblems in designating the beneficiaries ofhabitat protection; yet the difficulty of the taskshould not cause us to conclude that because thebenefits are diffuse and difficult to appraise, theyare negligible.

Tomorrow Perhaps nowhere is the lack of consideration ofin Today's alternatives in water planning greater than in

Planning provision for future water uses. A great amountof attention to the choice of a proper discountrate, needed to compare present and future

benefits, has obscured other considerations re-lating to the future. Discount rates should bemore uniform among water-planning agencies atvarious governmental levels. There is questionabout the federal discount rate; however, better

provisions for the luture can be accomplishedeven if discount-rate procedures remainimperfect.

One need is to convert all possible futureevents to a risk basis and to reach decisionsabout the amount of risk reduction to be under-taken. Every decision related to the modificationof the timing or magnitude of events in thehydrologic cycle involves an appraisal of risk.Risk, insurable, is distinguished from uncertainty,not insurable. Risk in water development involvesfrequency of drought and floods; uncertaintyinvolves, for example, the time such events willoccur, the rate of population growth, and techno-logical breakthroughs. Repeatedly above, theprinciple of flexibility has been recommended in theface of uncertainty. Preservation of wildlandsand urban open spaces and delay in building largestructures apply this principle. But a surprisingamount about the future can be quantified in termsof probabilities and can be subjected to preciserisk analysis.

A decision to provide storage sufficient tosustain a metropolitan region through the severest

32

drought on record without resort to rationingplaces an exceedingly high value on not running outof water. Values must be placed on reducing therisk by making the water system capable ofmeeting a very unusual drought or the flood controlworks capable of protecting against floods expectedonly once every few centuries. In both situations,it must always be recognized that we probablycannot provide a New York water supply adequateagainst all possible droughts or flood control atChattanooga to protect against all conceivablefloods. In each case, a value is placed upon therisk taken or not taken. There is a substantialsubsidy and a very high social cost if we try toprotect everyone absolutely. By applying proba-bilities, the expectation of occurrences can becalculated and an explicit rational decision as tothe benefits from risk reduction can be made.

Implicit in decisions to develop or to manage awater resource are projections and assumptionsconcerning future trends in demand and in thequality of the resource. Not infrequently suchprojections determine the level of public concernand the direction and magnitude of public invest-ment in management and research. Explicit state-ments of the assumptions underlying both decisionsand projections are essential if proper evaluationsof future alternatives are to be made.

Irreversibilities abound in water-developmentplans. They too, exemplify the lack of considera-tion of alternatives precluded by the one-and-onlyplan usually presented for consideration. Considerthe failure to reserve land as wildlands or openspaces in and near cities. Often little expenseresults from deciding to reserve lands before-hand. Yet the benefits of reservation precludedby a planning decision ordinarily are not mentioned,much less quantified. The benefit.s do not haveto be great to make reservation of laMd worthwhile,if the lands have not been committed to other uses.But if they have been committed, undoing thecommitment and restoring them is likely to betoo costly to justify.

33

Distribution In pursuing the purpose of water policy to contribute

of Benefits to the well-being of people, franker considerationshould be given to whose well-being is affected.Traditionally, the effects on people of differentincomes has not been a concern in decisionsabout water. In view of the recognition now givento combatting poverty, there is special need toinitiate the practice of estimating effects of waterproposals on people of different incomes.

The importance of the geographical dimensionhas long been recognized. Prominence is givento secondary benefits that show the increases inincome from a project to a local area and,incidentally, fail to show how much of the incomeis simply taken away from the rest of the economy,thereby bringing losses to other localities.Calculation of secondary benefiLs is consistentwith the aim of fostering a desirable pattern onactivity spatially. However, secondary benefitsinadequately measure the contribution of waterprojects to this aim.

To the extent that water-development projectsemploy persons who would otherwise be unemployedor underemployed and to the extent that low-incomepeople are benefittcd, there is no problem ofreconciling the regional and national points of view.But deciding to construct a project usually constitutesa choice between amounts of development indifferent regions, and it does so in a way that affectsthe over-all growth of the national economy. As anation, we have been slow to face the regionalchoice openly; one of the results has been thatwe have acted inconsistently. On the one hand,for many policies (such as defense spending)it is pretended that geographical impact is amatter of no concern at all. On the other hand,slavish concern with secondary benefits inpublic-works projects implies that the impactin one particular region is all that matters.

The geographical distribution of economicactivity does matter, particularly when someregions are in decline. Aside from the highincidence of low incomes and low productivity

34

in declining regions, public services, particu-larly education, tend to be inierior there.Children growing up in these regions and adultswho are ill prepared to move do noKt haveopportunities equal to those enjoyed by mostAmericans.

Primary benefits approximate the contributionof projects to production of goods and servicesof the nation, irrespective of who receives thebenefits. Choices may be made to trade offsome primary benefits to contribute to adesirable distribution of benefits among personsof different incomes and among regions. To doso rationally will require enunciation of a nationaleconomic-development policy which among otherthings spells out income-distribution andpopulation-distribution objectives. Water planningshould be integrated with this national economic-development policy, and benefit measures shouldbe redesigned to show the contributions of specificprojects to the national aims.

Up~-

Persons, States, and Nation

Levels In discussions of the water resources of the nation

of Planning there is a tendency to assume that the federalgovernment holds full sway in this domain. Thisassumption is not true, nor would the nation beserved well if it were.

The federal government can and does exercise apowerful influence in water development and manage-ment, largely by virtue of its sovereignty over navi-gable waters and those rising on public lands as wellas its predominant interest in protecting the wei' fareof the people and promoting the development of thecountry. Nevertheless, the greater part of theplanning, construction, operation, and supervisionin relation to water resources is done by privatecorporati, ns and by state and local governments.More than half of the hydroelectric-power capacityof this country has been developed by projectsfinanced by private capital. The federal budgetfor water development is currently abo, t $2I-dlion, while the nonfederal water-developmentbudget is about $10 billion. Although the discus-sion in this report of planning principles dealschiefly with the federal government, the Committeeemphasizes that these principles apply at allgovernmental levels.

From the day federal planning begins, state andlocal representatives should be involved on a con-tinuing basis. Such involvement will requirestaffs that some 4 the states do not now have. Itis not enough to be able to review or even veto rreport. It is far more important to have a sa%on what is studied and how it is studied.

Because of its heavy support of hilateral-aid

3 G

programs and the participation of its experiencedpeople in other overseas resource-developmentprograms, the United States has a significantinfluence upon the quality of water management insome other countries. Auy improvements inmethod or organization in this country will affectplanning and operations in other parts of the world.In turn, we can learn from the work of other nationsways of handling water at large dams, in smallprojects, on the land, and in the city. New researchprograms should be designed both to aid and to bene-fit from overseas activities.

Influences Although economists long have emphasized the im-

on portance of the market in mediating competing

Water Allocation claims upon resources, there is no industrializedsociety in which a free market in water is organizedor tolerated. Pricing is only one of the means bywhich choices arc made.

Pricing could be used much more widely as adevice of water management. It has been found thatlevying water charges can induce people not towaste water, without imposing hardship on them.The traditional market functions of prices are toration demand and constrain the allocation of re-source to production within the bounds of socialvaluation of the product. Pricing of water inpractice, however, seldom rations either demandor supply. Fixed prices, not always set to recoverfull costs, are a characteristic feature of watersupplies. The cost of major supply insta.'ationsfrequently determines price, and the institutionalstructure of supply is such that it may be difficultto determine whether costs are lully covered bycharges. Critics of large-scale water projectssponsored by the Corps t.. Engineers, Bureauof Reclamation, and certain state agencies insist.for example, that the true cost of capital is notnow charge(I ". the projects.

At best, tUe markets for water will be localized.Users of large amomnts of water will tend to movetoward the water, where they can purchase wateron local-supply terms. Unevenly distributed by

37

hydrologic events, water will have varying supplyprices at different locations. There will be, then,a number of nested markets rather than a singlemarket in which all preferences are resolved bya price system. The managemrent of the entiresystezr, -)n a national scale, will continue to bean administrative task.

While the possibility of achieving better use ofwater through greater reliance on user charges isresisted needlessly, pricing of water is not apanacea. Although installation of water metersis important if one is to establish a pricing policybased on use, and, if certain losses in a distribu-tion system are to be detected, simply installingmeters will not solve our water problems. Itwill be neither feasible nor desirable to dependentirely upon prices to determine use.

In tha public allocation process it is unlikelythat society will welcome widespread and strictallocation of water. Water is regarded as abirthright of Americans - a common holding inwhich there are common stakes. Other commodi-ties are riot so regarded; water is singled out forspecial consideration. Therefore the planners mustdevise acceptable guides to allocation.

The administrative guides of the planners aretheir standards. The components of standardsinclude technical analyses of requirements,estimation of social norms and acceptability,codification of previously acceptable practice, andprofessional regard fox "better" practice. In thecase of municipal water supply, for example,standards are set partly on grounds of healthprotection (scientific analysis of the tolerance ofhuman beings to disease-producing organisms andtoxicants), partly on estimates of the acceptibilityof aesthetic factors (color, taste, and odor),partly on costs of obtaining quality goals throughavailable methods of treatment, and partly out ofa desire to continuously upgrade the product.

The usefulness of zonmag Lv control flood-plainoccupance was mentioned earlier. The technique

of zoning is also appropriate to many cases

38

involving nonmarket values. National parks,monuments and wilderness areas have beenestablished in recognition of special aesthetic,historic, and wilderness characteristics. Con-sideration is being given to the preservation of wildrivers. In view of the disappearance of naturalareas and the increasing value that people areplacing on them, further reservation of landsand rivers is surely appropriate.

Land reservation or zoning must be viewedas a way of achieving certain values. Con-trary to much public misunderstanding, preser-vation does not preclude management. Thecurrent plight of the Everglades National Parkunderscores this point; the land area was re-served, but insurance of the fresh-water supplyon which the uniqueness of the Park depends wasnot provided. At the same time, it is truethat to make the best use of a unique or strikingscenic, historic, or wilderness area, use mustbe structured and controlled.

Lega! rights to water will continue to play animportant role in determining water use. Themethods commonly used to buy and sell land andrights to its use can and should be applied towater. The task is only somewhat more complicatedby the effects on third parties, that is, persons suchas downstream users who are not involved in a

transfer or contractual arrangement of two partiesupstream but are nevertheless affected by the up-stream use. This general type of situation arisesfor land, too. For land transfers, courts havemanaged to develop principles of adjudication. Inshort, a desirable direction for water law - con3traryto many current trends and requiring careful study -

is toward market salability of water rights withreasonable security against unforeseen adverseconsequences to those directly or indirectly involvedin water use.

There is auother way in which legal improvementsare needed in connection with water. Years of delayin obtaining court decisions have led to developmentof costly alternative sources of supply and other

39

departures from good water use, which could beavoided if court procedures were streamlined toarrive at prompt decisions.

Sharing Planning carried out in concert - if not always in

Responsibility harmony - among federal, state, local, and privateinterests would not only provide a larger input ofdiverse views but would as well encourage responsi-bility for decision. The states, had they fullyexercised their voices in development decisions andhad they not allowed themselves to be bypassed byfederal agencies, might have enlarged and upgradedthe staffs and programs of their water agencies, andimproved their performance in regulation. Fullparticipation by local governments, especially ifcost-sharing reforms come to pass, might reducethe tendency to look for federal and state "handouts."Greater participation by the private sector could resultin better planning and more responsible criticismof public projects.

Earlier references to deficiencies in the waywater is managed for reclamation, pollution abate-ment, and flood control point up the fact that federalemphasis on a particular kind of water use or for asingle way of solving a water problem skews planningtoward those conventional alternatives that will beleast expensive to the beneficiaries, although thosealternatives may not be the ones that would be leastexpensive to the nation in the long run.

Public measures affecting the course of waterdevelopment extend far beyond investment policy.Direct federal regulation of navigable channels andpower sites, state regulation of public water suppliesand waste discharge, and city regulation of land useand drainage exercise powerful constraints on newdevelopment. The whole fabric of water law sets the

terms on which water may be transferred, allocated,and priced. The kind of technical assistance thatis available to towns or individuals will influencetheir capacity to put down new wells or to preservenatural stream courses. The quality Pnd scope ofscientific research set the limits of their opportunitiesfor action and the horizons of their aspirations.

40

Potential of Science

Need for This report is predicated upon the proposition that

Better Information change is the most predictable feature of futuredevelopments in the field of water resources. Whilethe prediction of rapid change has become almost aclich6, it is true, nevertheless, that changes in theinterest and demands upon the water resource bysociety, coupled with changes in scientific knowledgeand technology, place continuing pressure upon boththe natural and social sciences to provide betterinformation and understanding not only on how thenatural water system works but on how society canreconcile the system and its demands.

Water Budget We are not facing a countrywide shortage of water.

of the Nation A national average, of course, does not reflectthe fact that there are some areas in which thelocal supply may be insufficient to support thedemand. Similarly, the growing interest in thequality of water within rivers and lakes is notreflected in volumetric estimates of supply anddemand. Water-quality deterioration may placepressures upon users and observers despite thefact that the quantity of water available is sufficient.To cope with regional shortages in quality andquantity of water, and to improve planning for useand preservation of water in an environmentalsense, an expansion is needed in our knowledge.This needed knowledge consists of the results ofconventional research in the physical, biological,engineering, and social sciences, as well asinformation d,_'rived from discussions amongscientists, engineers, public officials, andinformed citizens.

41

Fields of Simply stated, there are three fields in which researchNeeded in the natural and social sciences and improvements

Research in technology bear upon the problem of defining andconsidering alternatives in water management. TheCommittee uses the word research in a broad sense-to include a variety of studies designed to result innew knowledge of facts, data, actions, views, and pro-cedures related to water planning and development.

(1) Research on the behavior of the water re-source and the way in which changes in the environ-ment, including such wholesale factors as reductionin evapotranspiration or increasing urbanizationof large land areas, affect the resource itself.

(2) Research on new technology in suchprocesses as waste treatment, desalting, coolingwater, industrial and other uses, including sub-stitutes for water.

(3) Research on the decision process, includingresearch on the economic characteristics and socialbehavior fundamental to planning in a democracy.An important direction of such research is towardestimates of broad trends and the shape of probablechanges in our society, including wholly new tech-nologies and changes in human demands.

The The significance of a local or regional waterPotomac Basin problem is well illustrated by the Potomac

Basin described earlier in this report. Researchin both the natural and social sciences is essentialto the solution of most problems on the Potomac.An informed decision on future uses of the estuaryof the Potomac is dependent upon the emergenceof new knowledge about the behavior of biologi-cal organisms under changing conditions ofnutrients, light, and circulation in a complextidal river.

Governmental agencies must be developed thatcan provide the framework for reaching desiredobjectives. As with rivers in most metropolitanregions, the Potomac at Washington, D.C., is aconcern of a number of county governments, ph.nning

42

groups representing adjacent counties, several states,and the federal government. Proposals to reservereservoir sites for possible future use, as well asproposals for joint operation of public works facilities,require administrative mechanisms that are bothadministratively sound and responsive to democraticand voter control. Metropolitan authorities, interstatecompacts, federal agencies, and private developmentare among the many devices that are appropriate tospecific areas and problems. Machinery for stimula-ting and recording the feedback of public opinion aswell as conventional analysis in the social sciencesis essential to the evolution of appropriate admin-istrative and political framework.

The Potomac example illustrates also how thevarious alternatives have not been delineated orperhaps even thought of. At least they have notbeen elucidated publicly in equal detail. Some choiceshave been made and announced without the public beingmade aware of the range of choice and associatedcosts, effects, and implications. No period of publicdiscussion of possible alternatives was provided.Furthermore, choices were made in the face of ourpresent inability to forecRst the results that willstem from the large expenditures implied by thechoices. Thus, the Potomac example illustratesa major theme of the present report: the need forpublic discussion of alternatives before choices aremade.

The problem of value is central to the analysis ofwater use and development. In the Potomac thepressures for development, on the one hand, andpreservation or reservation, on the other, must beresolved in making decisions for future uses of thewater resources and lands. Unique scenic gorgesprovide scenes unmatched in the valley and, at thesame time, provide attractive sites for dams andstorage reservoirs. Better econometric techniquesare needed to help in appraising the relative im-portance of such diverse demands as well as in evalu-ating the magnitude of benefits to be received and inidentifying beneficiaries and their location.

Alternative pollution-abatement techniques

43

also must be evaluated both economically andtechnologically. Analysis is needed to determinethe circumstances in which new techniques willbe adopted and how beneficiaries who are widelydistributed along the river might best reimbursethose who incur the cost. Not infrequently, asin the case where wastes are carried downstreamfrom a town or industry, those who pay may not,indeed, be the direct beneficiaries. Until suchevaluations can be made, it is difficult to consideradequately the best means for achieving a set ofobjectives.

Other Another set of problems calling for somewhat

Illustrations different emphases in research is presented by thesouthwestern United States where water suppliesare, indeed, short of demands at prevailing prices.Here research in engineering costs and alternativescan help to clarify the terms of public choice. Sup-plies can be increased by transporting water fromareas such as Northern California or the PacificNorthwest, by local desalting works in favorableareas, or supplies might be increased to some users

by making less water available to others in the samearea. Here again, new knowledge from the naturaland social sciences can contribute to choice ofsolutions that are efficient and acceptable.

In deciding upon alternatives at the simplest level,for example, the choice of supply, it ;s necessaryto know costs of desalting compared with costs oftransport. Obviously, as techniques for desaltingare improved, or vs pumping and transmission arealtered, the weighting of these alternatives i.,,altered. At the same time, research in the methodsof appraising the relative importance of such divt' rsedemands, in evaluatirng benefits to be received andin identilyvng beneficiaries and their location isessential.

On the Colorado River and elsewhere in thenation, technological improvements in the pzwluc-tion of power may affect both the value of hydro-electric power and the alternative value of pow. rgenerated from coal or atomic fuelb. As the

44

significance of hydroelectric power changes, this inturn may affect markedly the evaluation of thecosts of developing the river for other uses. Toassume that comparative power techniquos willnot change is to ignore both the prospect and theopportunity to shape it.

Conversion from one water use to another isstrongly i-Adluenced by both the legal frameworkand the valuation of the resource made byindividual users. Much inquiry is needed intothe way in which complex legal frameworks oflocal, state, and federal law nfluence decisionsin water management. Some evidence suggeststhat unduly restrictive laws tend to retard desir-able changes in water use and valuation whererapid social and economic change would make suchtransformations particularly important.

In such disparate hydrologic regions of theUnited States as the Northeast and Southwest,research is needed into social values as well astechnologic possibilities. Further, an openinquiry into the appropriate administrative andjudicial framework for the relocation of waterfrom a given source during recurring periods ofscarcity should be encouraged. The recent droughtin the Northeast posed fundamental problems int0 e distribution of water among claimants from theDelaware River. These same problems haverepeatedly arisen in the allocation of the limitedwaters of the Colorado River.

Knowledqe We need to know more about the regional effects

Neeos of water development. Regional water-resourcedevelopment may promote relative economicgrowth or decline as well as population redistribu-tion. New tools of social-scienee research areevolving which can help to provide mcasures of theprobable extent of the regional changes that willaccompany varying amounts of investmeint andI•s;els of development in different regions. Suchmeasuring toul.-, will again broaden the range ofalternatives that may be considered whcn ldecisionsare maihe zo achieve specific economic and social

45

goals for various parts of the popolation dwellingin different regions. Usually, the aims are mixed:relief often is linked with long-term development.If objectives are stated clearly, it may well be thatpublic investment in sectors as diverse as education,highways, or recreation, in fact, may be substitutesfor or partners with investment in water resourcesin achieving economic and social well-being.

We need to know more about how society adoptsnew technology. While considerable emphasistoday is placed upon technological change indeveloping countries, it is equally clear thatthe process of technological change needs tobe better understood in our industrializedsociety. Research is needed, for example, on thecircumstances under which industries alter boththe volume of water needed in their operationsand the character of the waste products dischargedto natural water courses. Expenditures by industryfor water in Pittsburgh or Chicago constitute asmall proportion of total expenditures in productmanufacture. In attempting to predict future waterdemands and water condition, it is especiallyimportant to understand those forces that willlead to changes in water use and waste treatmentin the metals, petroleum, chemical, food, andpulp and paper industries. Here again, technologyis intimately associated with political process.Erforcement of pollution-control measures islinked with the costs to users, with their percep-tion of alternative ways of handling waste, andwith the value that local areas place upon theimportance of particular industries to the economy.Effective regulation of pollution is predicated ondetailed knowledge of the technology of use andtreatment, the economic evaluation of benefitsand costs, and the likely responses of those whodischarge waste and thobe who look for clean water.

We need to know more about how people makechoices. The process of decision making involvesthe accumulation of information, evaluation ofalternatives, and finally, judgment in weighingalternatives having values that may appear

46

stubbornly incommensurate. Regardless of thelevel of scientific understanding or technology,judgment in selection of choices will always berequired, and in the face of diverse and conflictingdemands. Responsibility for water-use decisionsin the United States is spread over a large numberof people and agencies, ranging from farmerswho decide quite independently to put down a newwell to legislators who delicately reconcileregional interests in setting a new pollution-abatement policy. While the types of decisions arewell known, there is little precise understandingof the circumstances in which people make theirchoices and of the factors that affect their decisionto overirrigatc a crop, or to permit a stream tobecome unsafe, or to drill to a fresh supply of groundwater. Because public policy often is based uponbelief as to how such decisions are made, a betterunderstanding of their determinants and rationalecould assist in the formulation of sound policy.

We need to improve the decision process. Thepresent report does not present in detail all the waysTp which research might improve consideration ofalternative actions. Much more can and should besaid on this matter but adequate treatment of thesubject is beyoind the scope of this report. TheCommittee wishes to emphasize that there 4s aconstant interaction of changing technology withhuman needs and desires. The planning processneeds to be brought abreast oi knowledge that isnow available, and it needs to be altered toward theend of encouraging new knowledge and utilizingthat knowledge as it becomes available.

Essential to this progress is cultivation of thedistinct phases mentioned earlier. In the firstphase, the alternatives need to be studied ingreater depth thian they are in present practice.Alternatives need to be explained in eutial detail.They should be prescited to the public so theycan be considered. In a :econd. later, phasethe course of action or choices among alternativeswould be made, reflecting public reaction to thtearlier presentation.

47

Summing Up

A New Emphasis A review of current efforts to manage water to servethe needs and desires of man reveals that all aspectsof water management would be improved by planningthat would maintain flexibility ior the future, fore-close as few choices as practicable, and put fresh de-mands on science to predict consequences and toprovide alternatives to meet changing needs. Speci-fically, such an emphasis would call for applying moreintensively present knowledge of the behavior of water,land, and man in two ways: first, by identifying allavailable alternatives for coping with water problemsand taking systematic steps to disco%(r new alterna-tives; and second, by improving methods of recogniz-ing the social as well as the physical consequences ofwater management and of weighing alternatives.

Lines of Actio0n The Committee sees need for action along three maj)orlines. First, all organizations, public and private,engage, in planning for the use of water, should giveincreased attention to alternative approaches andcourses of action, to the appraisal of social costs

and benefits, And to the use tof research as one of therants b\ N which new effective solutions could •e

reached. These aims will Le achieved only as fastas the men who pre'pare new water-(klvelopmvnt plaitsfor private antw public urgani..ations aqlhpt and prac-tice a |roaxtkned view.

Some rrtorganitati-on of public agencies for wat,.rplanning will Ib m,ne-cssarv to translate the shiftedemphasis and new knmlcdge into studies and plans.The Committee do.s nut proptose sipecfic %)rgani/a-tional changes; but withuut some changes the qu:alitxof rv.e-•ir.h and planning will suffer. The present

4,.

framework for decision, although revised in recentyears, still leaves much to be desired. The gap be-tween scientific knowledge of optimal methods andtheir application by farmers, manufacturers, andgovernment officials is large and widening. Min'sability to forecast streamflow, store water, trans-port it long distances, alter its quality, and extractit from great depths is growing more repidly thanhis skill in fitting the improved technology to hisneeds und aspirations.

Second, concerned citizens' groups and theelected representatives of the public should be en-couraged to ask that practicable alternatives be pre-sented for their consideration and evaluation. Thepublic, through its representatives, should maintainresponsibility for the value judgements inherent inwater-use decisions. Both the "single best plan"and the "quick fix" should be shunned.

Third, the scientific community should recognizethe need "or extension of its research efforts into abroad an(; diverse group of physical, biological, andsocial problems related to water. The scope ofresearch should expand to identify and evaluate thefactors that influence water-resource decisions, andto seek answers to questions that emerge from studiesof alternativt, solutions to water problems.

Breakinq There is little need to repeat the descriptions 4f water

wtth the supply, d'strikition, and requirements that "lppear in

"Quick Fix" publishc'd reports. The essential facts now are be-coming well known, and the basic hYdrologic pt oblemshave been defined. Still lacking is a broad recognitionIv scientists .and engieer; *s well as po!li'c, makersthat adv'nces in the krnowledge of water and its possibleuses not o,'v have changed the character of waterproblems. but ha,, madke it possible to deal with theseprt,,!.ms in a ,-.iter -ariete of wavs and m,,re effec-tinv'l than in the past. Such reco.nit ,,,n k vniineers,administrators, and cituzens crganizaitions uoulk,change the character of ri: car-h, .,f planninig studies.and 4f he pblic 'hiiiuss .on | prkcr: . ai 0t. pini% W1,

Ttri, broadvaing ,4 thkJught and ac.ion rectommetn,.diý% tmt (C'on-mittt'e would 1be a tunitLarntn!al hruai, A ith

.t:'

the rigid technological ("quick fix") outlook that hasdominated U. S. water planning and management overthe past century. In many instances, that outlook hasbeen justified, because economic growth was a majoraim. In other cases, this approach has been of

questionable validity. The technological tradition hasits most recent and dramatic expression in the heavyemphasis upon improving the production of freshwater from salt water. Typically, it answers theproblem of impending water shortage by seeking more

water at least cost-from a distance, from underground,from the clouds, or from the sea-and it encourages

commitment to a single engineering solution to theexclusion of other alternatives. The Committeerecognizes that a cheap, reliable method of desaltingwould provide another option to those responsible forincreasing the supply of water. However, it is con-

cerned lest too heavy a commitment to a single engi-neering solution may tend to exclude other alternatives.

The outlook that better expresses man's growingsensitivity to his environment and makes use of his

expanding scientific insights is one that calls forcareful weighing of the whole range of devices, bothtechnologic and social, that are open to him to supportand refresh his body and spirit.

More Sensitive The values that we put on water cannot be expressed

Evaluation entirely in dollars. We value water for the life it sus-tains, for its role in our economy, and for the lift itmay give our spirits. We look upon it differently at

different times and in different places. It has bothtangible and intangible, both market and nonmarket,values. If we are to be good stewards of the nation'swater resources, we must search for ways of real-izing values held in varying esteem by different peoplein different places. As these values increasingly re-flect a concern for improving the quality of our envi-

ronment, the process of evaluating and of incorporatingthem into water-use decisions becomes more difficult.

Kinds of Wise solutions to water problems require accurate in-

Information formation about water and the immense diversity of

Needed conditions under which it occurs and is used; they call

50

for clarity in judging the value of water and associatedresources. These solutions can be reached only whenthe organization of planning permits balanced consider-ation of the choices and values involved.

Information needed is of three kinds: (1) informationon the behavior of water and on the ways in which en-vironmental changes affect water as a resource; (2) infor-mation on new and more efficient processes of wastetreatment, desalting, and water use; and (3) informa-tion on user behavior, on the planning and decision pro-cesses, and on probable cLanges in water use as a resultof changes in our technology and in our style of life.

There is much information on how water moves inthe hydrologic cycle, and on how to construct dams,canals, and purification works. Less is known of thebiological and social effects of such constructions.Much remains to be learned of the way water-usedecisions are reached at the various levels of govern-ment and in the private sector. We especially needinformation that will help increase the number offeasible alternatives and improve water-use decisions.

Research as Even though enough water is available to the nation to

a Part of meet present and foreseeable requirements, the de-

Management mands on that water necessitate thorough planning andefficient management. Beneficial management in turndepends upon sound planning; sound planning dependsupon accurate prediction of conditions and consequences;and accurate prediction depends upon good records andperceptive analysis of past experience. The process iscontinuous and unending It calls for scientific exami-nation of the way decisi( ns are made (why a farmerknowingly chooses to overirrigate, for example, orwhy a city chooses to build another dam instead ofmetering water), of the tools that can aid in reachingdecisions (how awild river is valued or how accountis taken o. drought risk), and of the physical andbiological possibilities for new methods of management(how the loss of water from soils could be altered orhow toxic wastes could be eliminated). Imaginativeresearch, as an integral part of the management pro-cess, can expa-d immensely the nation's ability tohandle water for the ptblic good.

51

References

1. Report of the Select Committee on NationalWater Resources, 87th Congress, 1st Session,Senate Report 29 (1961).

2. Committee on Natural Resources of the Nation-al Academy of Sciences - National ResearchCouncil, Natural Resources: A Summary Re-port to the President of the United States, NAS-NRC Publication 1000 (1962).

3. H. H. Landsberg, L. L. Fischman, and J. L.Fisher, Resources in America's Future, JohnsHopkins Press, Baltimore, Md. (1963), Chapter14, Water.

52