WHAT DO WE MEAN BY “METROPOLITAN WATER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS?”

WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN VOL. 9, NO. 3 AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION JUNE 1973

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY “METROPOLITAN WATER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS?”~

Norman Wengert’

ABSTRACT. The term “institution” and several variants are used frequently in the literature on metropolitan water management. The state-of-the art investigation on which this paper is based revealed that 1) many uses of the term do not include careful definitions; 2) many users of the term seemed unaware of the general, theoretical literature on the subject of institutions; 3) there was little consistency among uses, either in the practical literature dealing with water or in the conceptual literature dealing with theories of institutions or institutionalization; 4) some usages were without significant meaning; 5 ) in many cases the term was used as a kind of “black box” to account for behavioral, societal, or managerial factors; 6 ) the term was often used as a synonym for “organization.” This latter use is frequently found in federal reports, including National Water Commission studies, and is most unfortunate because it tends to slight significant social-psychological factors. A suggested definition is: “An institution is the structured result or outcome of a process by which values are articulated, arranged, and communicated, having continuity over time, and influencing behavior of persons who did not necessarily participate in formulating those values (norms).” (KEY TERMS: behavior; institutions; institutionalization; metropolitan; management; norms; organization; social organization; urban; values)

INTRODUCTION

This paper is a summary review of a recently completed state-of-the-art survey on the topic “Institutions for Urban-Metropolitan Water Planning, Development, and Management” under- taken with the joint support of the Office of Water Resources Research and Colorado State University [Wengert, 1972, a,b,c] .

In planning this project, it was recognized that water research was increasingly focusing on metropolitan problems, since it is in these areas where growth problems are most severe, where social and economic stresses are most evident, and where the application of technology and management t o water problems will most likely have significant pay-offs. Moreover, judging from the frequent use of the term, it seemed apparent that “institutional” aspects of metropolitan water management are considered of particular importance by many authors. At the same time, early discussions of the terms “institutions,” and the several variants such as

Paper No. 73027 of the Water Resources Bulletin. Discussions are open until January 1, 1973. Professor of Political Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521.

512

METROPOLITAN WATER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS? 513

“institutionalization,” “institutional,” and “institutional factors,” began to suggest that usages and meaning were often unclear and uncertain.

The initial assumptions of this study were that while the meaning of the term “institutions” would not always be uniform, the research problem would largely be one of relating, reconciling, and clarifying. It was realized that searches would need to be made in the literature of sociology, economics, law, political science, public administration and management, and in certain engineering fields relevant t o water. And it was assumed that in management and in engineering literature, the term would to a large extent reflect conceptualization in other fields.

As the investigation proceeded, however, it became evident that there were many different usages of the term “institutions” and even more connotations. Often the term was not defined and meanings were ambiguous. But this situation seemed to give even a stronger justification for the utility of a state-of-the-art survey in order t o determine what was known on the subject and to analyze differences in uses of the term. Out of such an investigation, it was hoped, clarifications in meaning and concept might emerge, which would increase its analytical utility and precision.

The search for precision and specific intellectual content is not simply a semantic quibble, but reflects a basic premise of this paper that the term and its variants can have utility, and that this utility can be increased if the term is defined more accurately. It is recognized, of course, that words take on meaning, not by the command of the researcher, but through usage. It is recognized, too, that where difinitions are not clear o r vary greatly, there is a temptation, particularly in the use of social science terms to follow an “Alice in Wonderland” approach, giving such meaning to words and concepts as suits the convenience of the researcher, which generally adds t o the confusion. By avoiding this approach, perhaps the researcher can contribute to refining the meaning and alerting those who use the term to the need for precision, and the undesirable consequences of ambiguity and fuzziness.

Part of the difficulty with the word “institution” stems from the fact that it has been used in several disciplines. Sociologists use the term most frequently (and cannot themselves agree on its meaning and usefulness). Lawyers apply the term t o certain aspects of the legal system. In this category are water law doctrines and practices which influence and constrain approaches to planning, development, and management of water. Legal rules with respect to consumptive use priorities (particularly in the West) are important in this respect. Similarly, the common expectation in humid areas that water will be available in quantities demanded is an institutionalized value (both legal and economic) which determines water decisions.

The market and the price system (often regarded as institutions in economic literature) shape approaches to water problems. in the same category are values about interest and discount rates, accounting conventions and cost allocation practices.

What may be called institutionalized patterns of urban life styles, such as the individual home surrounded by a lawn, influence urban water decisions. At the political level, the Federal system, together with a strong commitment to local power (localism), shape the agenda for metropolitan action, and determine the context for water decisions, just as institutionalized values with respect to public finance policy influence how metropolitan water development is paid for and by whom.

GENERAL FINDINGS

While it was not ass-umed at the start of the project that the topic would be neatly packaged, for then there would have been little justification for proceeding, it was assumed that some degree of structure and order would be found. But as investigations progressed, it became increasingly evident that:

Wengert 514

1. Many uses of the term, particularly with reference to urban-metropolitan water problems, do not include careful definitions;

2. Many users of the term seemed unaware of the general, theoretical literature (particularly in sociology) on the subject of institutions, and did not seem particularly concerned with what that literature may have said on the subject;

3 . There was little consistency among uses, either in the practical literature dealing with water problems, or in the conceptual literature dealing more generally with the theory of institutions;

4. Some usages of the term were in fact without significant meaning (e.g., one article reviewed suffered little when the word “institution” was systematically deleted!);

5. In many cases, the term was used as a kind of “black box” to account for behavioral, societal, or managerial factors which were recognized as being of possible relevance, but which the writer did not intend to analyze;

6. The term often was used, particularly in reports and documents produced by federal agencies, as a surrogate for “organization” in the narrowest sense of administrative structure,i.e., a unit on an organization chart.

The usage which equates institution with organization is unfortunate because it leads to misconceptions with respect to institutional development and social change, and implies simplistically that institutions, like organizations, can be altered, adapted, or abolished by legislative or executive command. But buch changes are often superficial, and may not prove viable, unless they are related to fundamental changes in attitudes, perceptions, and expectations of the affected citizens (including employees). Putting a uniform on a man does not make him a policeman. To start from the premise that orgnizational tinkering will solve urban-metropolitan water problems may lead to a serious misdiagnosis of the nature of the problems involved .

If ;Ln institution is no more than an organization, established by administrative or legislative fiat, then one of the very rich and significant dimensions of a sociological conception has been lost, for in sociological usage not all organizations are automatically “institutions.” Perhaps one might suggest that an organization becomes an institution when it begins to have a life independent of its creators or initiators.

But more important is the danger that when the distinctions between institution and organization is obscured, then it is easy to lose sight of deeply rooted social causes and interrelationships.

Many studies on water administration, such as those by the Advisory Commission on lntergovernmental Relations, [ 19621 have identified the fact that water functions are hi&ly fragmented in many metropolitan regions. There is evidence, moreover, that such fragmentation increases costs, creates a variety of problems, and may be generally dysfunctional. It is common, therefore, t o suggest that the solution to these problems is to eliminate fragmentation by establishing new area-wide institutions. In many cases, such a proposal by itself is too simple. It does not work because the fragmented system reflects deep rooted values, as well as long established traditions. Fragmentation has thus become institutionalized, and it is not sufficient simply to pass a law or issue an administrative order to overcome fragmentation.

The point to emphasize, is that the institutions are not simply the current organizational


pattern, but include socio-political values (norms) on which the exaggerated adherence to localism is based. Unless these values are changed, altering organizational arrangements will be neither easy nor effective.

Perhaps, it would be more useful to talk about institutionalization as aprocess, or to use the term institutional as an adjective. Thus, particular aspects of the law would not be described as an institution, but as the outcome of a process of institutionalization in which mores, values, and norms are made binding and effective for a segment or all of society because they are accepted. The local water agency is not an institution, but the collectivity or structure around which are clustered the institutionalized means for planning, developing, and managing water functions. The process of institutionalization is thus a process for firming up patterns of behavior and legitimating them.

Writing 40 years ago, Walton Hamilton [1932] caught the breadth and complexity of institutional processes when he wrote:

Institution is a verbal symbol which for want of a better word describes a cluster of social usages. It connotes a way of thought or action of some prevalence and permanence, which is embedded in the habits of a group or the customs of a people. In ordinary speech, it is another word for procedure, convention or arrangement; in the language of books, it is the singular of which the mores or folkways are plural. Institutions f ix the confines and impose form upon the activities of human beings. The world of use and wont to which imperfectly we accommodate our lives is a tangled and unbroken web of institutions.

I would like to propose as an operationally useful and somewhat briefer definition:

An institution is the structured result or outcome of a process by which values are articulated, arranged and communicated, having continuity over time, and influencing or controlling behavior of persons involved with it, who did not necessarily participate in formulating those values (norms).

EXAMPLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Governmental Usage

It is, of course, impossible to review even a small part of all the government documents and reports in which the term “institution” occurs. But an examination of a number of federal government reports, leads to the conclusion, that most frequently, especially in dealing with water problems, the term is used simply as a synonym for organization - and organization in its simplest meaning of structure (organization charts), with little or no recognition of the behavioral emphasis found in modern organizational theory (i.e., people behaving in a work situation in relation one to another). Some samples are quoted below.

Federal reports dealing with water often stress river basins (larger than most European countries), and deal with government units with budgets and staff of tremendous size. In this macro-context the social-psychological aspects of the situation may often be slighted.

The Water Resources Council. As the top federal water policy coordinating organization, with membership from agencies with a major role in water activities and with relationships with State and regional agencies, the federal Water Resources Council is an important spokesman on many water issues. Its views with respect to institutions are reflected in a report entitled Alternative Institutional Arrangements for Managing River Basin Operations [ 19673 . This report, prepared by a Council Task Force made up of agency representatives, regards institutional arrangements as synonymous with organizational arrangements, using the phrase “administrative patterns” as the equivalent of organizational arrangements, and equates these

516 Wengert

with institutions. The report lists and describes eight organizational arrangements, which are regarded as institutional alternatives. In fact, the report loses none of its meaning if, where the word “institution” or “institutional arrangements” appears, one were to substitute the words “organization” or “organizational.”

7ke Great Lakes Basin Commission. This Commission, collaborating with the Committee on Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone (of the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development) issued a report entitled, Great Lakes Institutions: A Survey of the Institutions Concerned With the Water and Related Resources in the Great Lakes Basin [I9691 . This survey also equates institutions with organizations, stating in the introduction:

The purpose of this review is to prepare a contemporary survey of institutions having responsibility for or interest in the Great Lakes which can be used as a tool by these institutions to aid in reducing confusion and improving communications and coordination . . .”

The report is a catalogue of agencies and a description of their programs as related to the Great Lakes, and as such, i t might well have been a part of the U. S. Government Organization Manual.

Office of Science and Technology. The Energy Policy Staff of the Office of Science and Technology issued a report entitled Electric Power and the Environment 119701, prepared in cooperation with the Atmoic Energy Commission, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the Department of the Interior, the Federal Power Commission, the Rural Electrification Administration, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Council on Environ- mental Quality. Two chapters are titled: “Present Institutional Arrangements and Standard Setting Considerations” and “New Institutional Arrangements.” But again the term organization could be substituted for institution without changing the sense or meaning of the discussion.

Although this report does not deal with water as such, it is significant that most of the participating federal agencies are also concerned with water and thus this report reinforces the idea that the term “institutional arrangements” is regarded as simply organization and reorganization - a shuffling of boxes on organization charts.

m e National Water Commission. The statute [P.L. 90-5151 creating the National Water Commission specified that the Commission was to:

consider economic and social consequences of water resource development including, for example, the impact of water resource development on regional economic growth, on institutional arrangements, [emphasis added] and on aesthetic values affecting the quality of life of the American people; . . ”

The specific reference t o “institutional arrangements” in the statute initially led the Commission to establish a “Panel on Institutional Arrangements,” one of six panels designed to provide expert, independent review and guidance. Later this panel was renamed the “Panel on Decision Making Arrangements.”

Like most federal commissions, the National Water Commission has supported a substantial number of studies, some conducted by its own staff, others under contract with consulting firms, and still others by individual consultants.

Two of these reports which explicitly deal with “institutions,” are Metropolitan Water Institutions by Orlando E. Delogu [1971] and Institutons for Water Planning by Gary W. Hart [1971], Two others are also significant: Metropolitan Water Management by Urban Systems


Research and Engineering, Inc. [197 I ] , and Public Participation in Water Resources Planning by Katharyn P. Warner [1971].

At least three other reports have some relevance, although they do not include the term “institution” in their titles: The Federal-State Regional Corporation by Richard A. Solomon [1971]; Interstate Water Compacts by Jerome P. Muys [1971]; and The New England River &sins Commission by Helen Ingram [ 19711 . In addition, nine of the 26 studies available as of January 20, 1972 dealt with various problems of water law, and have legal/institutional significance? These various studies do not reflect the Commission’s conclusions, but provide background information for its deliberations.

Nowhere in these reports is there a definition or a discussion of the meaning of the term “institution” or “institutional arrangements” to use the language of the statute. Throughout, the writers seem t o assume that readers will know what institutions and institutional arrangements are. Actually, most of the time when the terms institution or institutional arrangements are used they serve as general synonyms for organization. In a number of cases where these words are used, they can in fact be stricken without changing the meaning of the sentences involved. To illustrate, Delogu [1971] states:

The institutional answer to metropolitan water problems does not seem to lie in the formation of new general-purpose metropolitan government . . . the answer may lie, however, in the development of metropolitan regional entities formed for the sole purpose of handling water supplies and sewage disposal.

Clearly, the word “institutional” can be dropped without changing the meaning of the sentence, or one might also substitute “organizational” for “institutional,” without altering the sense.

The use of the term institution as a synonym for organization (institutional arrangements for organizational arrangements) is so frequent that one cannot fault the authors of the Water Commission reports, but it would have represented a more significant contribution, if terms had been defined, and an effort made t o determine whether any particular or specialized meaning might appropriately be given to them.

The Literature of Sociology

The literature of sociology dealing with institutions and institutional processes is perhaps the most extensive among the social sciences. At the same time, even in this field, there is disagreement as to what the term means and how it should be used.

Thomas W. Martin [ 19681 wrote:

The concept of social institution is perhaps one of the oldest and most widely used terms in the vocabulary of the social sciences . . . Today, despite its continued wide currency, the term social institution has become the object of severe criticism regarding both its present theoretical importance and its operational utility. The question has been raised: What does the concept mean; and, if it means anything, how can it be used to test social reality? That institution means something is evident when one examines current basic texts in sociology and anthropology, for here is found an abundance of explanations and applications of the term. So too its utility is apparent in that most behavioral scientists continue to commonly employ it to order segments of social reality . . .

One study by Allan Schmid has not been available for review.

518 Wengert

. . . Noteable absent , . . is a clear and up-to-date definition of the concept institution, at either a theoretical or, significantly, operational level. Rather, it seems that the concept has steadily come instead to serve as a catchword, an heuristic device, or a ‘primitive term’ to be used as a means for generalizing specific research findings to the level of system operation . . .”

The Literature of Other Social Sciences

Although those who write about institutions in sociology are by no means in agreement as to its meaning, they do recognize the importance of the term, and the need for trying to make it operational by deliberate analysis and conceptualization. But this need is less well recognized in the literature of other social sciences, where a similar diversity exists, but where attempts to clarify the term are rare.

In economics, the term “institutional” Has been applied t o a school of economic thought which originated during the first quarter of the 20th century under the leadership of Thorstein D. Veblen, John R. Commons, and Wesley C. Mitchell. Professor Allan G. Gruchy, himself an institutional economist, has written [1968] :

Institutional economics is very largely an American intellectual product . . . The term ‘institutional’ was applied . . . because it examines the economic system as a part of human culture, which is a complex of many institutions. The concept of an ’institutional school’ can be used only very loosely - in the sense that the members of this school have the same philosophical orientation, the same broad cultural approach to economic studies, and the same way of viewing the American economic system.

Allen V. Kneese, an economist who has made important contributions t o the literature on water pollution, seemed to suggest that institutions are significant by the title,Managirzg Water Quality: Economics, Technology, Institutions [1968]. Part IV of this study is entitled “Institutional and Organizational Approaches to Regional Water Quality Management.” The fact that institutional and organizational are both used in the title would lead to an expectation that distinctions would be drawn between these two terms. But this is not the case. Although the organizations discussed involve complex interrelationships, the description is largely in terms of legislating new organizations, with only occasional references to social processes by which organizations become institutions. The proposed organizations would be vitally “affected with the public interest,” but there is little discussion of the nature of the relationships to the public, either in the sense of constituency, or in the sense of legitimizing organizational actions. The normative functions of the organizations are not discussed, and one is left with the feeling that the authors believe rational decisions will automatically create consensus, and that such decisions will emerge from the creation of organizational order.

A more explicit approach, is taken by Jerome W. Milliman in an article entitled “Economic Considerations for the Design of Water Institutions” [1965]. He states: “The water problem, then, is not primarily one of water but instead is one of institutions, management, and of economic principles.” He deals with law as an institution (i.e., a normative system affecting and controlling human behavior) and with the economic market as an institution. His recognition that institutions are not equivalent to organizations is indicated in his discussion of the functions of public agencies.

Dr. Warren Trock, an economist at Texas A & M Water Resources Institute, indicating reliance on the literature of sociology particularly the writings of Kimball Young, has set forth his concept of institutional factors as follows I19711 :

The development and use of land and water resources has been and will continue to significantly affected by institutions-legal, cultural, cconornic, political, and religious. Institutions are the


organizing and directing mechanisms by which we achieve an organization of resources in productive activities which satisfy human needs. They are essential to individual and collective activity and thus must be understood and managed to achieve our purposes.

Among the Social Sciences the terms institutional and institutions are perhaps used with least discrimination and least consistency in political science. Articles or books using these terms rarely define them although they are used with ease and frequency.

As a part of its independent research program, the Institute for Defense Analysis released a report entitled An Analysis of Alternative Institutional Arrangements for Implementing an Integrated Water Supply and Waste Management Program in the Washington Metropolitan Area, by Paul S . Hughes [ 19711. He states that his study will direct attention to institutional mechanisms and will focus on “integrating water supply and waste management programs” and he proposes to examine “several existing and proposed institutional arrangements for achieving such integration” and suggests an alternative model. But his study is simply an examination of alternative organizational devices including a variety of coordinative arrangements such as the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Maryland Environmental Services, the Potomac River Basin Commission, and the Metropolitan Washington Waste Management Agency.

An exception to the situation in political science is an article (and report) by Edward R. Kaynor and Irving Howard [1971], dealing directly and explicitly with the concept of institutionalization, examinging such topics as the fee system for counsulting engineers, the funding for certain agencies, the institutionalization of equity concerns, overrepresentation of special interests, and incompatibility of agency goals, which are attributed, in part, to broadly based value orientations of American society, such as its pragmatic traditions. Their concern is with social processes (institutionalization) and human behavior, and in this connection they state:

Institutional analysis rests on the assumption that there is order and regularity in human behavior akin to that found in the natural world. To the extent that human behavior is not patterned, it is unpredictable. Much behavioral science theory is directed at justifying the proposition that significant behavior is indeed patterned and regular ( is . , institutional), hence subject to (a) classification, (b) variable analysis, and (c) prediction, If, in fact, significant human behavior was based on whim or circumstantial accident, theory would be a futile exercise in logic and deduction, and would bear little relationship to the real world.

CONCLUSION

Earlier in this paper I suggested a brief definition of “institutions,” which I felt would prove operationally useful, and would contribute to a better understanding of the societal process important t o metro water planning, development, and management. I quoted a number of definitions of the term which I considered of limited usefulness, as well as some which moved in the direction I felt desirable. I want to conclude this paper by refering to and quoting from two studies which suggest the richness of the concept of institutions and institutionalization, and indicate how a more specialized and developed meaning of the concept may contribute to understanding, or alternately t o defining tasks requiring further research.

The first of these studies, representing the results of a faculty seminar sponsored by Old Dominion University Research Foundation and the National Space Administration was entitled Clean Water: Affluence, Influence, and Effluents [ 197 11 . Discussing the problem of water institutions, this study asserted that:

520 Wengert

. . . our political, governmental, and legal structures are merely institutional embodiments of socictal attitudes, which in turn are a product of our historical traditions and cultural values. These latter are important, for in the area of natural resources use and allocation, there are very deep historical, cultural, and societal values which place definite limitations on our freedom to bring about changes in the area of water resources management. . ,;thus, any recommended adjustments of a political or legal nature must be worked out within the constraints of these more fundamental attitudinal determinants.. . Water institutions, like other aspects of our culture, have emerged through the convergence of a number of forces, including ethnic traditions governing water use, circumstances in the natural environment, plus a most basic feature of our culture - the ethos defining man’s relationship to nature . . . In short, the roots of American water institutions are very deep, and under these circumstances the process of change is very difficult to perceive. Indeed, water rules do not appear simply as a matter of snap decision, by accident, by deliberate rational process, or by the force of tradition, but rather out of a convergency of all these forces. It is a gradual process, and one that is undergoing constant change.

Unfortunately, few studies of urban-metropolitan water problems reveal such scope in understanding institutional dimensions.

The possibilities are suggested (as an example) in a report of the National Academy of Sciences entitled A Strategic Approach to Urban Research. . . . [1969] which described a framework for institutional research in the following terms:

Finally, overlaying territorial units are various institutional networks differing from place to place in composition and in number. Every urban unit, of course, has its governmental structure with its many agencies. That structure is disconnective and duplicative in the metropolitan area with ad hoc linkages here and there. Less obvious are other networks, One, for example, is that involving lending agencies, builders, realtors, municipal planning agencies, and the courts, which regulate housing and land development policy. Another consists of private welfare agencies, and so on, which administer aid. . . . Still another is formed of Chambers of Commerce, Associations of Manufacturers, City Clubs, businesses, and industrial establishments, which influence, if not regulate, labor and wage policy. These networks are illustrative, not exhaustive. The point is that such networks exist and exercise important influence on how an urban unit operates.

Research into problems of urban metropolitan water management in such a frame of reference would have great utility, but to move in this direction requires a rejection of simplistic and often meaningless uses of the term “institution,” seeking greater precision and intellectual content for analyses along the lines outlined in this paper.

LITERATURE CITED

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1962. Intergovernmental Responsibilities for Water

Delogu, Orlando E. 1971. Metropolitan Water Institutions. National Water Commission, Legal Study No. 16. Great Lakes Basin Commission and Great Lakes Panel of the Committee on Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone,

National Council on Maine Resources and Engineering Development. 1969. Great Lakes Institutions: A Survey of Institutions Concerned with the Water and Related Resources in the Great Lakes Basin.

Gruchy, Allen G. 1968. Institutional Economics in The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Crowell-Collier-MacmiUan.

Hamilton, Walton. 1932. Institution in Encyclopeadia of the Social Sciences. Hart, Gary W. 1971. Institutions for Water Planning. National Water Commission, Legal Study No. 13. New

York: Macmillan. Hughes, Paul S. 1971. An Analysis of Alternative Institutional Arrangements For Implementing an Integrated

Water Supply and Waste Management Program in the Washington Metropolitan Area. Washington, D. C.: Institute for Defense Analysis.

Supply and Sewage Disposal in Metropolitan Areas.

Ingram, Helen. 1971. The New England River Basins Commission. National Water Commission study.


Kaynor, Edward R., and Irving Howards. 1971. Institutional Patterns in Evolving Regional Programs for Water Resources Management. Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts, Water Resources Research Center.

Kneese, M e n V., and Blair T. Bower. 1968. Managing Water Quality: Economics, Technology, Institutions. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Martin, Thomas W. 1968. Social Institutions: A Reformulation of the Concept. Pacific Sociological Review, 11 : 100.

Millar, Albert E. (ed.). 1971. Clean Water: Affluence, Influence, Effluents. Norfolk, Va.: ASEE-NASA Langley Research Center and Old Dominion University Research Foundation.

Milliman, Jerome W. 1965. Economic Considerations for the Design of Water Institutions. Public Administration Review, 25:284.

Muys, Jerome C. 1971. Interstate Water Compacts. National Water Commission, Legal Study No. 14. National Academy of Sciences. 1969. Urban Research and Development: Social and Behavioral Science

Office of Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President. 1970. Electric Power and the

Solomon, Richard A. 1971. The Federal-State Regional Corporation. National Water Commission, Legal

Trock, Warren L. 1971. Institutional Factors Influencing Water Development in Texas. College Station,

Urban Systems Research & Engineering, Inc. 1971. Metropolitan Water Management. National Water

Warner, Katherine P. 1971. Public Partipation in Water Resources Planning. National Water Commission

Water Resources Council. 1967. Alternative Institutional Arrangements for Managing River Basin Operations. Wengert, Norman. 1972 (a). Urban-Metropolitan Institutions for Water Planning, Development and

Management: An Analysis of Usages of the Term “Institutions.” Colorado State University, Environ- mental Resources Center.

Wengert, Norman, and Fred Hogge. 1972 (b). Searching the Social Science Literature on Water: A Guide to Selected Information Storage and Retrieval Systems. Colorado State University, Environmental Resources Center.

Wengert, Norman, (ed). 1972 (c). Institutions for Urban-Metropolitan Water Management: Essays in Social Theory. Colorado State University, Environmental Resources Center.

Considerations.

Environment.

Study No. 15.

Texas: Texas A & M University, Water Resources Institute.

Commission Study.

Study.

Documents

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY “METROPOLITAN WATER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS?”