integrating water resources and land use planning

7/29/2019 Integrating Water Resources and Land Use Planning

1/125

Utah State University

DigitalCommons@USU

Reports Utah Water Research Laboratory

1-1-1979

Integrating Water Resources and Land UsePlanningJim Mulder

Kirk R. Kimball

Dean T. Larson

L. Douglas James

Lance R. Rovig

See next page for additional authors
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/water_rephttp://digitalcommons.usu.edu/waterhttp://digitalcommons.usu.edu/waterhttp://digitalcommons.usu.edu/water_rephttp://digitalcommons.usu.edu/


2/125

Authors

Jim Mulder, Kirk R. Kimball, Dean T. Larson, L. Douglas James, Lance R. Rovig, Dave Labau, and KenSizemore


3/125

INTEGRATING WATER RESOURCES AND LAND USE PLANNING

byJim MulderKirk R. KimballDean T. LarsonL. Douglas JamesLance R. RovigDave LaBau

Ken Sizemore

The work upon which this report is based was supportedby funds provided by the Department of Inter ior Office ofWater Research and Technology as authorized under the WaterResources Research Act of 1964, P.L. 88-379, Project NumberC-6279-Utah, Contract Number 14-34-0001-5227.


4/125


5/125

ABSTRACT

Information and recommendations were developed pertaining to thein tegrat ing of water resource and land us e planning a t a conceptuall eve l . In the accomplishment of th i s aI , the repor t ac ts as aveh ic le of information t r ans fe r to fac i t a t e recogni t ion of thein terrelat ionships between land use and winter resources planning bypract i t ioners in both areas. The approach that was used includes sixbasic components: 1) the clar if icat ion of current planning theory asit per ta ins to both water an d land use planning, 2) ana lys is andreview of h i s to r i ca l and curren t land use planning prac t ices , 3)analysis and review of his torical and current water planningt i ces , 4) ident i f icat ion of problems and concepts which would athe integration of land and water planning, 5) the design of a con-ceptual framework (the IRUM model) which would f ac i l i t a te the in tegra-t ion of land and water planning, and 6) a case study of a selectedplanning region fo r small scale appl icat ions of th e I RUM model. Inconnection with the case study, a general population survey was takento i d en t i f Y soc i a 1 an d en vir 0 n men t a l val u e s , 1and an d wa te r usepreferences, and other conditions which would af fec t an integratedplanning ef for t . The recommendations developed in the report coverins t i tu t iona l issues such as cul ture, law, and organizational arrange-ments, and also methodological i ssues such as conceptual frameworkdevelopment and procedural problems which wil l confront actual ef for t sto integrate land and water resource planning.


6/125

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research wa s supported with funds provided by the Departmentof the I n t e r i o r , Off ice of Water Research an d Technology, underP.L. 88-379, Project Number C-6279-Utah, Contract Number 14-34-0001-5227.

The author s wish t o exp ress a p p r e c i a t i o n to the s e c r e t a r i a ls t a f f a t the Utah Water Research Laborato ry , and espec ia l ly to KathyHobbs who cheerfu l ly endured the heav, iest typing burden. Thanks area l so in order for the e d i t o r i a l e f f o r t s of Donna Falkenborg, an d forthe continued encouragement an d suppo,rt of Mardyne Matthews an d theUtah Center for Water Resources Research.


7/125

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTIONStudy ObjectivesProcedures

PART I : EVOLVING PRACTICES AND APPROACHES IN WATER RESOURCES

112

AND LAND USE PLANNING 32 REVIEW OF WATER PLANNING PRACTICES 5

3

Water Planning ApproachesSingle PlanningMultiple-purpose Planning . . .Single Objective to Multi-objectiveSpatial Planning .Water Quality PlanningMarket Planning . .Water Rights Markets .Water Quality Markets

Water Planning ToolsBenefit /CostSystem ofQuantitat ivePublic

Water Planning Problems and IssuesLAND USE PLANNING PRACTICES

5666911131314

14141516161821


8/125

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

ChapterPART I I : CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCESAND LAND USE PLANNING 37

39394041

4

5

6

THE IDEA OF PLANNING AND ITS CHANGING CONTEXTChanges in the Planning ContextEmerging Planning Perspec t ives .Conceptualizations of Integrated Planning

Meanings of Planning .Regional and Comprehensive PlanningIntegrated PlanningThe Case for Integrated Resources Planning

CONCEPTUAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES AFFECTING LANDAND WATER PLANNING

42434445

47The Ecology of Land an d Water and Human Society 47Phi losophica l Perspec t ives Affec t ing Conceptsof Land and Water 49

Land 50Water 51Toward an Integra t ive Conceptual Perspec t iveof Land an d Water. 53

INSTITUTIONAL AND METHODOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS FORINTEGRATED LAND AND WATER PLANNING MODELS. 55

I n s t i t u t i o n a l Impl ica t ions 55Culture an d Individual Values, Atti tudesan d Behavior 56Background an d Knowledge Base of ResourcePlanners an d Policy Makers 57Ins t i tu t iona l /Organiza t iona l Arrangements 58

Rules an d Legal System. 59Methodological Implications 60


9/125

Chapter

8

9

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Integration and Coordination of Water Resourcesand Land Use in th e Uintah Basin 74Issues . 74Inst i tu t ions 75

Survey Results 77APPLICATION OF IRUM METHODOLOGY TO UINTAH BASIN

General Model DescriptionDerivation ofIrr igatedOil Shale Production .Water SupplyWater Supply

Methodological Considerations.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Cultureand Terminologyand TrainingCitizen Part icipat ion

Ins t i tu t iona l FactorsOrganizational Arrangements and FormsLaws and Regulations

Methodological IssuesImplementation

797982848485858789899090919191929292

REFERENCES 95


10/125


11/125

12

34

567

89

1011

LIST OF FIGURES

Semantic aspects of th e term "planning" .An example of possible between ecologicalor philosophical characteris t ics in determining wateruse .Ecological context of land and waterRelevance of philosophicalin the environment and man an d valuesBasic interre la t ionships among natural environment,technology and social environment .Perspectives of land concept as related to societaldevelopmentPlanning as an in tervent ion process to direct thebasic interre la t ionships among natural environment,language (culture) , and social ins t i tu t ionsIRUM domain and structureImpact matrices from IRUM usesvalues to usesLocation of study area

tems, relat ing

IRUM representat ion of planning issues

42

4848

4950

52

5463

657183


12/125


13/125

PREFACE

The i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y c h a r a c t e r o fplanning present s spec ia l d i f f i cu l t i e s fo r as tudy i n t o the prob lems with th e wa y th ep r oc e s s i s working and how t hose problemsm i g h t be a m e l i o r a t e d by more e f f e c t i v ei n t e g r a t i o n of p l ann ing a c t i v i t i e s . Th ebas ic d i f f i c u l t y i s t ha t the diverse h i s t o r i c a l , i n t e l l e c t u a l , and e x p e r i e n t i a l a n t e cedents of p lanners , who include a rch i t ec t s ,engineers , phys ica l an d soc ia l sc i en t i s t s ,systems t h e o r i s t s , an d other types of pro-f es s iona ls , are a major obs tac le to a commonu n d e r s t a n d i n g o f c r o s s - c u t t i n g planningproblems and even more o f an o b s t a c l e toreach ing a consensus for deal i ng wi th them.As a result, t h e very t e rm " i n t e g r a t e dplanning" has a var ie ty o f meanings, usual lyi l l - d e f i n e d , t ha t der ive from var ia t ions inplanner antecedents , concepts , assumptions,an d perspect ives .

The h e t e r o g e n i e t y o f t h e p l a n n i n gcommuni ty t h a t needs to work t o g e t h e r toimprove in tegra t ion of the planning processcauses problems in present ing the ana lysesand f indings of our study to diverse audi-e n c e s accus tomed to d i v e r se l ev e l s of i n qui ry . We have t r i ed to f ind a middle groundby organiz ing t h i s r epo r t so t ha t it ca n beusefu l to a l a rge number of dec i s ion makers,planning pro fess iona l s an d s tuden t s . There-

r ep o r t fo r t he i n s i g h t s t hey p rov ide toimpor tan t theore t ica l and conceptual i s sues .Many p r a c t i c i n g p l a n n e r s a r e in e f f e c td i s c l a i m i ng " theo ry" as they e x e r t littlee f f o r t to f ami l i a r i ze themselves with theor e t i ca l developments in planning. I t i s notd i f f i c u l t to show t ha t many avoidable f a i l ures of planning prac t ice are occur r ing du eto th e r e su l t i n g i n a d e q u a t e t h e o r e t i c a lunders t and ing or p e r sp e c t i v e . The t he o r e t i c a l knowledge on how to s u c c e s s f u l l yunder take an d implement in tegra t ive planninge f f o r t s i s extensive. Pract ic ing plannerscan only ignore such knowledge a t a very highc o s t to the publ ic . The f u l l con t r ibu t iont h a t good planning can make to be t t e r publ icdec i s ion making w i l l simply not be r e a l i z e d .

The f indings of our study are presentedin t h r e e p a r t s . P a r t I , c o n s i s t i n g 0:Chapters 2 and 3, reviews water and land usep lann ing p r ac t i ces and a c t i v i t i e s r e s pe c t i v e l y . Both chapters begin by i den t i fy ingplanning too ls , methods, and approaches t ha thave c ha r a c t e r i z e d each type o f p l a nn i ng ,focus ing p a r t i cu l a r l y on more r e c e n t exper iences . Then the major problems an d i s suest h a t are assoc ia ted with the r espec t ive typesof p lanning a re i d en t i f i ed and a n a l y z e d .Las t , recommendati.ons for improved planninga re presented .


14/125

associated with land and water planning.Then a summary analysis is presented of th ebasic concepts tha t have affected at t i tudesand uses concern ing n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s .The chapter concludes by showing how variousconceptions of land an d water r e la te to someo f the ways resource problems are definedan d approached an d discusses the re levan ti m p l i c a t i o n fo r an i n t e g r a t e d plann ingperspect ive.

Chapter 6 examines the implications ofth e m a t e r i a l pr e sen ted in the p rev iouschap ter s for a be t t e r in tegra ted land an dwater planning perspect ive. Major method-o l o g i ca l concerns are discussed in termsof the methods and procedures that need to beimplemented to meet resource anni needs.Th e s o c i a l an d i n s t i t u t i o n a aspec s t h a taf fec t th e development and implementation ofan integrated planning approach are discussedw i t h i n a broader e c o l o g i c a l f ramework.Recommendations concerning possible method-ological and ins t i tu t iona l improvements inthe planning process are presented. Chapter6 concludes by describing how th e conceptsneeded in in tegrated planning are incorpor-ated in the In tegra ted Resource Use Model(IRUM). The v a r i ab l e s an d equat ions ofIRUM are int roduced and i t s data requ i re-ments are presented.

Part I I I describes the development andappl icat ion of I RUM. Chapter 7 provides a

prof i le description of the Uintah Basin ofEastern Utah selected for a pi lo t appl icat ionof IRUM an d summarizes the land and waterplanning his to ry of the area . After thediscussion of regional basel ine information,past and present resource planning ac t iv i t i e sare reviewed an d re la ted to the types ofplanning problems an d i s sues examined inPar ts I and I I . The chapter concludes with asummary of personal interview an d survey datat h a t were co l lec ted for use as inpu t in toIRUM.

Chapter 8 descr ibes the pi lo t appl ca-t ion of IRUM to analyze planning problems ofconcern to res iden t s of the Uintah Basin .The discuss ion and analys i s emphasize themethodological issues and procedures which. are l ikely to be encountered by a decisionmaker who implements IRUM.

Chapter 9, the f ina l chap ter o f t h i srepor t , presents th e findings and conclusionsfrom a l l t h r ee p a r t s o f the s tudy withpar t icular emphasis on the c r i t i c a l ins t i -tu t ional problems. Some re levant specula-t ions concerning the general di r ec t ion ofresource planning are made and re la ted topossible extensions and improvements of IRUM.The chapter conclud es wi th recommendationsconcerning the app l ica t ions o f models o fcom pre he n s i v e pIa n n i n g pro b1 ems, foe u sin gpa r t i cu l a r ly on i s sues o f implementat ionand use.


15/125

CHAPTER 1I NTRODUC TION

The of planning i s to co l lec t andpresent r evant information so that decisionmakers can weigh th e facts . One very fundamental issue tha t planners must resolve indoing t h i s job i s the de te r mina t ion o fwhat information i s re levant . What fac t sneed to be obta ined because they t r u lycontribute to more informed decision making;and what facts are not worth the ef fo r t ofco l l ec t ing? The obvious answers are t ha tef fec t ive planning must presen t the fac tst h a t br ing out di f fe rences in the des i r ab i l i ty of the al ternat ives , and ef f ic ientplanning does not waste time on col lect inginformation of l i t t l e concern to th e decisionmakers. Obvious answers, though, are oftene a s i e r to give than to app ly . In t h i scase, the answers may even yield inconsistentresu l t s : decision makers may be concernedwi th information unrelated to di fferences,l eav ing planners to choose between e f f ec t iveness and efficiency.

When the water resources planner t r i e sto be ef fec t ive , he f inds tha t many hy-dro log ic , economic, eco log ic , an d soc ia ll i n k a g e s c l e a r ly cause water r e sour ce sdevelopment and management programs tohave major effects on land use. Conversely,land ef fec t on water re-

separa te approaches to water planning an dland use planning, and to examine the im -pl i ca t ions for a more in te rated planningap p r o ach , p a r t i c u l a r l y w h r e s p e c t toi n s t i tu t iona l arrangements , o rg an i za t i o n ,an d procedures . As par t of th i s goal , amethodology for in tegrat ing land and waterresources planning would be developed an dappl ied in the Uintah Basin, located inNortheastern Utah. The proposed object ivesof th e study were as follows:

1. In a selected planning r io n suchas that of the Ashley Va ey CUintahBasin in Northeastern Utah), reviewand compare past water resources andland use planning prac t ices , measuring the ex ten t of separa te aswell as integrated resource planningby c o n c e p t u a l l y a n a ly z i n g th ewater resources and land-use planning systems perspec t ives separately .2. Define the conceptual and method-01 0 i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s t h a t havet r t i ona l ly charac ter i zed waterplanning systems, r e la t ing these toan in tegra ted planning approach.3. Define the conceptual and method-


16/125

needed . F i r s t , a broad r esou rce p l ann ingc o n t e x t and background needed to be e s t a b l i sh e d because the s m a l l amount o f r e sea rch in t h i s a r e a has not deve loped theneeded framework. Second, var ious method-o l o g i c a l a l t e r n a t i v e s were examined indeveloping a pr a c t i c a l model to be adopted byplanners in coordina t ing the use of water andland resources . Third, a de ta i l ed case studyof the Uintah Basin wa s implemented to t e s tand e v a l u a t e t h e c o n c e p t s and m et hodsdeveloped in the o t he r par t s of the s tudy.The r e s e a r c h f i nd i ngs o f t h i s s tudy a rein tended to con t r ibu te to improved in tegratedresources planning procedures through t r a in i ng o f p l ann ing per sonne l a t a l l l ev e l so f government.

Because planning involves both conceptsan d act iv i t i e s , the f i r s t major s tage of thestudy focused on an in -depth revie\V of thel i t e r a t u r e to t r ace the conceptua l deve lop-ment o f planning i de a s and pa s t planningp r a c t i c e s in the land and wat e r r e s ou r c e sareas t ha t might be r e l evan t to in tegratedpI anning. One ob jec t ive of t h i s f i r s t s tagewas to i d e n t i f y a c o n c e p t u a l f r ameworka p p r o p r i a t e fo r i n t e g r a t e d p l a nn i ng . Asecond purpose \Vas to f ind out as much asp o ss i b l e abou t the e xpe r i e nc e s o f o t h e r s ,p a r t i c u l a r l y t hose e xpe r i e nc e s t h a t wereinnovat ive an d r ecen t .

Th e second s tage of the study focused onthe c o l l e c t i o n of wat e r an d l and planning

in fo rmat ion about th e Uintah B a s i n . Ana t t e m p t was made to i ndependen t ly examineland p l ann i ng a c t i v i t i e s and water p l a n n in g prac t ice . By examining each pI anningarea separa t e ly , we could then determine whatd i f fe rence could be achieved i f i n t eg ra t edp l a n n i n were i m p l e m e n t e d . T h i s phaseinc lud an a n a l y s i s o f i 1 i s t o r i c a l da taas wel l as pred i c t iv e information. To car ryo u t t h i s p a r t of the s t udy , r e c o r ds wereexamined, planning an d other publ ic o f f i c i a l si n t e r v i e w e d , and a s u r vey o f t he pub l i cconducted.

The t h i r d s t a ge of the s tudy was concerned \Vith development of a model t h a t couldf a c i l i t a t e i n t e g r a t e d r e s ou r c e s ann ing .A c r os s - i m pa c t mat r ix model \Vas e v e l o ~ e d t h a t emphasized va lues , uses , an d planningcons t r a in t s or condi t ions . The input da tawere t hen c o l l e c t e d , and th e mode l wasappl ied to ob t a i n e v a l u a t i v e i n f o r m a t i on .Th e in tegrated resource use model (IRUM) t ha twas developed appears to have cons i de r ab l eheur i s t i c value and i s fa i r ly eas i ly uncer -s tood.

Th e research approach t ha t wa s adoptedc on t r i bu t e d to examining the problems o fin tegrated planning in a comprehensive y.Our f i nd i n s a re somewhat broad , bu t theyhave s ign i an t rami f ica t ions for resourcep l a n n i n g activities a t al l l e v e l s . Webe l i eve , t he re fo re , t h a t the research r e su l t sr epor ted here can be of use to many in d iv idua l s .


17/125

PART IEVOLVING PRACTICES AND APPROACHES IN WATER

RESOURCES AND LAND USE PLANNING

Until recent ly, relat ively 1 i t t le ef fo r t had been made to in te-grate water resources and land use planni The pract ices employedin the two types of planning evolved separ Yi and even within eachtype fragmented conceptu 'al izat ion an d implementat ion has been aproblem. Flood control problems are considered se ately from waterqual i ty issues , and the reclamation of spoi l banks e f t from mining i snot coordinated with land us e decisions in nearby towns. During thepas t severa l year s , however, accumulated r esearch f ind ings an dpract ica l experience have demonstrated important in teract ions of waterand land resources use and development. Consequently, the need forintegrated planning ha s become general ly recognized, and the concepti s widely endorsed.

Unfortunately, implementation of proposals for in tegrated pI an ning has not m ~ 2 s u r e d up to expectat ions. One reason for th e slownessappears to be a fai lure to appreciate the implicat ions of the separateins t i tu t iona l development of the new areas of planning expert ise thatneed to be involved. Ind iv idual emphasis on pa r t i cu l a r resourceproblems has lead to the development of planning approaches an dperspect ives adapted to individual problems but perhaps not well suited to other problems. The resul t ing var ty of planning perspect ives leads to both 1) a common endorsement of integrated planning asplanners of each specia l ty perceive the impacts of other resource useson the implementation of the i r own plans, and 2) a lack of agreementon the pr ac t i c a l meaning of " in tegra ted water an d land r esourcesplanning" because each i a l ty conceives the need from the perspec-t ive of i t s own planning s and background.

In order to promote the bas1c agreement on fundamental planningconcepts t ha t i s required for improvement of in tegra ted resourcep lann ing , the necessary f i r s t step i s to address the ques t ions :


18/125


19/125

CHAPTER 2REVIEW OF WATER PLANNING PRACTICES

Th e evolution of water planning pract icep a r a l l e l s th e i n c r e a s i n g c o m p l e x i t y insociety as a whole. Nost ea r l i e r planninge f f o r t s developed an engineered de s i n toaccompl ish s p e c i f i c p h y s i c a l ob j e c ves.Whereas these e a r l y des igns were analyzedlargely from the viewpoint of the benef ic ia r ie s ( those providing the f inancing) , l a t e rapprOaches, confronted with more severe andmore widespread adverse consequences to thi rdp a r t i e s , had to d e a l with i n c r e a s i n g l ycomplex r e l a ~ ~ o n s h i p s c r ea t i n g those con-sequences . I, t i s only in recent years , assoc ia l and environmental in te r ac t ions havebecome i n c r e a s i n g l y complex and t h e i rconsequences increasingly severe , t ha t theneed for more sophis t ica ted planning has beenrecognized by the passage of new federal an ds ta te water planning l eg i s l a t ion . Th e r e su l thas been the development of more comprehen-s ive planning concepts and more sophis t icatedmethods to provide a "systems" approach fo ra t tempt ing to comply with these new requirements.

The d i f f e r en ces in p a t t e r n s of av a i l ab i l i t y and manner of use between land andw a t e r have led to s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n tins t i tu t ional iza t ion of ownership and manage-ment re spons ib i l i ty , an d these dif ferenceshave in turn led to subs tan t i a l d i f fe rencesbetween land and water planning prac t ices .

more water ava i l ab le more of ten for benef i c i a l use. Since most a l t e rna t ives for doingso requi re engineered fac i l i ty const ruct ion(dams, c a n a l s , e t c . ) , water planning hast r ad i t iona l ly looked fo r the idea l s t r u c tu r a ld e s i g n . Only r e c e n t l y has it begun toencompass nons t ruc tu ra l e f f o r t s t ha t wouldalter use r a t h e r t han s upp l y p a t t e r n s .

As water u se r s had to go g r e a t e r d i s t ances to f ind su f f i c i en t water to meet t he i rneeds and consequently ha d to ra i se a grea tdeal of capi ta l to pa y fo r t h e i r pro jec t s ,water p l ann ing acqui r ed a broad r e g i o n a lemphasiS. As land use planning was largelyregulatory in nature an d loca l communi t i e stend to guard very jealously t h e i r r igh t tocont ro l t h e i r own des t in ies , land use plan-ning acquired a r egu la to ry , cont ro l -or ien ted ,l o c a l emphasis . As the a rea of r e g u l a t e dland use (urban areas) became large enough toa f fec t runoff quanti ty an d qua l i ty , the needto coordinate land with water planning in at o t a l systems approach has become manifes t .

Th e var ious di f f e r ences in the two typesof planning as they have evolved wil l be madee v i d e n t in th e rev iew o f w a t e r planningprac t ices in t h i s chapter . However, it wi l lalso be e v i de n t t h a t th e scope of the tw oe f f o r t s have now reached the poin t where oneac tu a l l y a f f ec t s the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the


20/125

envi ronmenta l , and s o c i a l f eas ib i l i t y t e s t shave on e by one been added to the requi rementof a sound engineer ing des ign.

During th e e a r l y p a r t of i t s h i s t o r y ,the United Sta tes had a t rad ing economy withsome l i g h t manufacturing and a large agr i c u l t u r a l base. Th e country was receiv ing anever i n c r e a s i n g i n f l u x o f immigrants , expanding in area , and making l a rge r marketsava i lab le to i t s i ndus t r i e s . At t h i s t imepr imi t ive roads an d waterways were the majorform o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , so t h a t even thenw a t e r r e l a t e d p lan n in g was n e c e s s a r y .For example, it has been sugges ted t h a t thefamous r epo r t of Alber t Gal la t in (1808) onroads an d cana ls could be cons ide red thef i r s t "comprehensive" water planning studyr ep o r t . G a l l a t i n surveyed th e ex i s t i na r t e r i e s o f t r an s p o r t a t i o n in the Uni tS t a t e s and proposed sys temat i c deve lop ment of addi t iona l roads an d cana l s so t h a ta g r i c u l t u r a l produce could be p r o f i t ab lymoved more than a fe w miles from farm tomarket .

Thus the impetus for ear ly water planning and development wa s the d e s i r e fo r agrowing and expanding economy. In t hosedays, an improved t r anspor ta t ion system wasth e key to economic e x p a n s i o n . W at e rre sources p lann ing dur ing the ea r ly andmiddle 1800s focused on improvements to thena t ion ' s navigat ion system. It was duringt h i s per iod t h a t th e r o o t s of a p lann ingideology were being e s t a b l i s h e d , an d th es t r e s s was on economic growth and development. I t wa s also during t h i s period t ha tsuch c lass i ca l economists as Smith, Marshal l ,and W e l l i n g t o n d e v e l o p e d th e b a s i c andappl ied economic t oo l s t h a t made the economicc o m p a r i s o n o f e n g i n e e r i n g a l t e r n a t i v e sposs ib l e .

Planning approaches may be divided intos ix main areas : s in g l e purpose, mul t ip le

wise . P r a c t i c a l l y , enginee r ing judgmenthas of ten been subs t i tu ted for more detai ledplanning in the dec i s ion making.In the ear ly 1800s, water supply , flood

c o n t r o l and d r a i n a g e , and waste d i sp o sa ln e e d s c o u l d be met by very s m a l l l o c a lp r o j ec t s or even by the e f f o r t s o f s i n g l ei n d i v i d u a l s who did no t under take formalplanning because any ind iv idual investmentwa s too smal l to be worth the t r ouble . Theonly type of investment in water resou rcesdevelopment to meet a widespread publ ic needand l a rge enough to be brough t i n to th en a t i o n a l p o l i t i c a l arena (because des i r edpro jec t s of ten crossed s t a t e boundar ies) wasthe development of waterways to meet bas ict r anspor ta t ion needs.

The f i r s t l eg i s l a t ion implementing tr,es ing le purpose approach to water planning ona nat ional scale an d subsequent ly i v i n g : t aco n s t r u c t i o n , or p r o j ec t or ien a t i o n , occurred in 1824 (Nat iona l Water Commission,1973) . At tha t t ime the f edera l governmentgave the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers a smalla p p r o p r i a t i o n to remove o b s t a c l e s whichin te r f e r ed with naviga t ion on the Miss i ss ippiand Ohio Rivers .The s t a t e s a l so adopted t h i s s ing lepurpose const ruct ion or ien ta t ion an d betv;een1789 an d 1837 b u i l t 2500 miles of cana l s andauthor ized $6 0 mil l ion of c r e d i t advances forf u r th e r deve lopment (Dworsky, 1962) . Th esubsequen t events which put an end to thes t r o n g e m p h a s i s on n a v i g a t i o n d id n o t ,however, put an en d to the concept of s ing lepurpose pro jec t or ien ted planning .In the western U.S. , the passage of the

Wright Act in Cal i fo rn i a (1887) s ignaled thebi r th of the i r r iga t ion d i s t r i c t as a l oca lwater agency with a Single purpose or ien ta t ion . However, as the conf l i c t over waterr igh t s genera ted inc reased l i t i g a t i o n , the


21/125

implementing agency, the U. S. Army Corps ofEngineers , i n s t i t u t iona l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c stha t continue to af fec t nat ional water policyto the presen t day. According to HogganCl974}:

The ear ly involvement of theCorps of Engineers in water re sources development ha s had import an t impl ica t ions fo r water re sources planning in t ha t it hasgiven the Corps a prominent role ,and has contr ibuted to the dominance of engineers in the f ield ofwater planning. Engineers , re f lect ing the i r t raining and background, have bas ical ly approachedplanning problems as professionalb u i l d e r s . T h e i r t r a i n i n inengineering, mathematics, thenatural sciences ha s resul ted in atendency fo r them to adopt anax iomat ic approach to problemsolving t ha t ra re ly led to quest ioning of fundamental postula tes ,p a r t i c u l a r l y with r e s p e c t tohuman b eh av i o r . Consequen t ly ,water plann ing has c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y emphasized s t r u c t u r a lsolut ions that were calculated tobe the most ef f i c i en t phys ica l lyand economical ly. Mounting c r i t i cism of th i s type of planning inr e c e n t y ea r s has been t h a t itdoes not include the considerat ionof non-economi c values , such asa e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y and s o c i a lwelfare . But a much more fundamental an d c r uc i a l c r i t i c i sm i stha t few planner s ever cons iders o c i a l s o l u t i o n s to p l a n n i n gproblems. The present response tothe energy c r i s i s i s perhaps thef i r s t on e ca n

drain , i r r i g a t i o n , an d hydroe l e c t r c power f a c i l i t i e s , it i sremarkably free from experimentat i o n with a l t e r n a t i v e mean s .I t is largely impervious to doubtsas to economic j u s t i f i c a t i o n .One type of construct ion came to beassociated with on e aim by one formo f p u b l i c a g e n c y - - m u n i c i p a l,d i s t r i c t , o r f e d e r a l . It i s aponderous strategy using a l imi tednumber o f b l u n t i n s t r u m e n t s ,insens i t ive to economic indicators ,and highly conservative in deal ingwith r isk an d uncer ta in ty . Aim,method, an d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y have come to beintertwined so tha t the preservat ion of one i s l inked with theintegrety of a l l : s of Engineers , I-iaterway channe , and ratereductions; Bureau of Reclamation,dams an d new water or new farms;municipal sewer department, secondary t r ea tment , an d d i sea se - f r eewater. The s t ra tegy spel ls ease ofexecut ion, the crea t ion of so l idco n s t i t u en c i e s , i n f l e x i b i l i t y ofm e t h o d ~ hide-bound valuat ion, and awidespread deter iorat ion in waterqua l i ty in both humid and a r i dlands.

Multiple-purpose PlanningMultiple-purpose planning developed outof opportunit ies to use the same project toachieve two or more purposes . The samereservoir could be f i l led with spring runofffor summer water supply and be kept nearlyempty dur ing t he w in te r f lood s eas o n .Reservoir s to rage could be re leased down


22/125

systems of r ese rvo i r s an d r e l a t e d f a c i l i t i e sthroughout a r i ve r bas in .

Congress iona l i n t e r e s t in mult i -purpose ,bas in-wide p lanning began around 1900 (Schad,1964) . A Nat ional Waterways Commission wa sc r ea t ed in 1909. Th e commiss ion, I-lith s ixmembers from each House o f Congres s , madesi i f i c a n t recommendat ions p e r t a i n i n g tonav gat ion , f lood con t ro l , an d wate r powert h a t became th e bas i s fo r subsequent l e g i s l a t i o n (Hoggan, 1974) . Bas i n - wide p l ann i ngdur ing the 1920s ( the 20 8 s tud ies ) l a id thegroundwork for p r o j e c t cons t ruc t ion followedu n t i l a f t e r World Wa r I I . A t o t a l sys t emsapproach ha d been adopted in which water an dthe watershed were t r ea t ed as a un i t .

Planning fo r an ob j ec t i ve d i f f e r s fromplanning for a purpose in t ha t purposes ared e f i n e d to be activities s uch as f l oodc o n t r o l , naviga t ion , i r r i g a t i o n , and powerg e n e r a t i o n , whi le o b j e c t i v e s a re def inedto be g o a l s such as economic e f f i c i e n c y ,envi ronmenta l qua l i t y , and s o c i a l wel l -be ing .

Water r e sou rces engineer ing has t r a d it i o n a l l y b u i l t p r o j e c t s to fulfill manyp u r p o s e s , b u t alternative d e s i g n s werecompared with r e s pec t to only one ob j ec t i ve ,economic e f f i c i e n c y . The eng inee r s made suret h a t the p r o j e c t was designed so as to r ea l lyfulfill its i n t e n d e d f u n c t i o n , and t h eeconomists formulated a pro jec t whose benef i t s would exceed its cos t s an d fo r which themonies requi red to pa y fo r cons t ruc t ion couldbe ob ta ined . While th e economic ef f i c i encyob j ec t i ve was pursued through formal benef i t - c o s t s t u d i e s , empi r ica l evidence c lear lyshows t h a t o t h e r l e s s e x p l i c i t o b j e c t i v e s( se t t l e m e n t of the a r i d wes t , prov id ing

spend money to ach i eve them i nc r e a s e d aswel l .

Th e i n t e n t of mul t i -ob jec t ive planningi s to opt imize f a c i l i t y des ign with r e s pec tto tw o or more o b j e c t i v e s ( M a j o r s , 1977) .The pr ocedur e r e q u i r e s t he fo l lowing f ou rs t eps :

1. D e f i n e th e o b j e c t i v e s t o be o b t a i ne d to s a t i s f y pub l i c demandsan d needs.2 . De f ine both th e r e s o u r c e and th einstitutional constraints t h a twi l l a f f e c t the obta in ing of an y o f

the ob jec t ives .3. Determine th e pos s i b l e r e l a t i ons h i p sand i m p a c t s o f t h e c o n s t r a i n i n gf a c t o r s on a c h i e v i n g t h e d e s i r e dob jec t ives .4 . Opt imize th e a I , which can means a t i s f y i n g t e i n d i v i d u a l o b j e c t i v e s , with r e s p e c t t o the param

eters set by t h e constrainingf ac to r s .r es Thel e g i s requ b j ec -t i v e t o wa t e r r e s ou r c e s p lann ingbegan with the Water Resources Planning Act

o f 1965 (P.L. 89-80) . That ac t grew ou t of aneed f o r cons i s t en t wate r plannin p r a c t i c e samong the var ious agencies . Ti e I o f thea c t es t ab l i s hed th e Water Resources Counc i lt o c oo r d i na t e , a t th e c a b i n e t l e v e l , th egrowing number and expanding scope of f ede r a lwate r r e sou rces planning and ac t ion programs.Th e counci l , composed of cab i ne t s e c r e t a r i e sand heads of f ede r a l depar tments respons ib lefo r wat e r r e s o u r c e s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , wasd i r e c t e d to : 1 ) p e r i o d i c a l l y a s s e s s th eadequacy o f water s upp l i e s in each region ofthe na t ion; 2) eva l ua t e r eg i ona l an d r i ve r


23/125

es tabl i shed to d a t e . In addi t ion to as sessing water supply adequacy by region, the1965 Act d i rec t s the Counci l to focus onenvironmenta l an d water qual i ty problems(Deweerdt et a l . , 1973). The f i r s t NationalAssessment was published in 1968 and thesecond, the 1975 assessment, in 1978. The1975 assessment i d e n t i f i e d c u r r e n t andemerging water problems and the managementdecisions needed to solve the more pressingproblems.

Principles and s tandards . The 1965 Acts i f ica l ly directed the Council to estab-1 common pr inciples (supported by explanatory standards and deta i led procedures) fora l l federa l par t icipants to use in regionalor r iver basin planning stUdies. The f i r s tve r s ion of the proposed p r i n c i p l e s andstandards was published for public review andcomment in the Federal Register on December21, 1971. The Pr inc iples an d Standardsproposed cr i t e r ia for evaluat ing plans andpr o jec t s encompassing economic, envi ronmenta l , s o c i a l , and reg ional ob jec t ives(Deweerdt et a l . , 1973). The resu l t was th ef i r s t of f i c i a l ly r equ i red mult i objec t iveapproach to water and r e l a ~ c d land resourcesplanning. Adverse and beneficial ef fec ts ofa plan on environmenta l qua l i t y , economicdevelopment, and socia l well being were to bedisplayed from both r i o n a l and nat iona lviewpoin t s . Th e Pr inc pIes provided theframework for planning, and the Standardsprovided uniform guidance for carrying outthe deta i l s (Roose et a l . , 1972).

The P r i n c i p l e s and St an d a rd s werereviewed revised, and became effect ive onOctober , 1 9 7 3 . The f ina l version speci fied the coequal objec t ives of EnvironmentalQual i ty an d National Economic Developmentand rovided for a disp lay of e f f ec t s onBeing and Regional Development.

area . The area may be defined in terms ofp o l i t i c a l boundaries such as s t a t e s an dco u nt i e s , in terms o f n a t u ra l boundariessuch as hydrologic draina bas ins , or interms of economic units suc as t rade areas .All three have been used in water resourcesplanning. Pol i t i ca l units plan for the areaunder t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n . Riv e r bas ins t u d i e s look a t watersheds . Urban waterplanning covers in tensely developed areast ha t cross both pol i t i c a l an d watershedboundaries. The spa t i a l scope of the planning should depend on 1) the area l extent ofl ink among hydrologic and environmentalimpac and 2) the organizational s t ruc turetha t wi l l be required for plan implementat ion .

During th e l a t t e r p a r t of the 19thcen tury , appropr ia t ions to the Corps ofEngineers for navigat ion improvement andinc identa l control of floods on the Mississ i p p i River (Hoggan, 1974) were regu lar lyincreased. Fox (1964) notes tha t :During the period from 1870 to1900 many of the ideas about r iver

bas in deve lopment t h a t h a tch edaf te r the turn of the century werebeing incubated. Broader conceptsof r iver basin development emergedand t h o u g h t was b e i n g g i v e nto a p p r o p r i a t e institutionala r r an g emen t s fo r implement ingthese ideas .Other in f luences t ha t caused concernover the i n s t i t u t i o n a l ar rangements arosebecause of the rapid indust r ial izat ion of th ecountry in the early 20th cen tury . Smal li r r i g a t i o n companies an d municipal watersystems of the 19th century could not meetthe demands of 20th century indust r ial izat iongrowth. Both growth


24/125

69th Congress, Fi r s t Session, andbecame the basis in the Rivers andHarbors Ac t of 1927 for authorizingth e Corps to prepare a se r i e s ofcomprehensive reports on almost a l lo f the major r i ve r basins of thenation. This was the most comprehensive water planning e f fo r t to bea t t emp ted up u n t i l t h a t t ime.These "308" s tud ie s , which werecontinued through the middle 1930s,were th e bas i s f o ~ most of themajor r i v e r bas in deve lopmentd u r i n g t h e n e x t tw o d e c a d e s .Th e ex tens ive development of theColumbia and Tennessee Rivers, forexample, was s tar ted from the "308"reports . (Hoggan, 1974)

Th e evolu t ion o f water r esources planningfrom single purpose to mult i -objec t ive planning para l le led a change in planning or ientat io n from the immediate area of concern todef ini t ion of the hydrologic r iver basin asthe appropr ia te level of analysis .The f i r s t attempt at r iver basin waterresources management came in 1933 with thecrea t ion of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The TVA had a l l encompassing author i ty , as af e d e r a l c o r p o r a t i o n , fo r th e p l an n i n g ,developing, and regu la t ion of the waterr esources o f the Tennessee River Valley.This was, of course, a federal organizationcreated to achieve federally defined object ives.During the 1930s a nat iona l planningboard was formula ted, an d by 1939 th e Na t ional Resources Planning Board (NRPB) hadbeen created. The contribution of th is board

to water resources s p a t i a l planning cons idera t ions came through a Water ResourcesCommit tee . The commit tee , composed offederal agencies concerned with water proj ec t s , designated 45 drainage basins in th e

coordinat ion are e s s e n t i a l e l e ments. FIARBC was establ ished byagreement among the major federa lagencies concerned wi th w at e rr e sour ce s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , andit o p e r a t e d on th e b a s i s o fvoluntary coopera t ion . Th e commit tee ' s work a t the f i e ld l eve lwa s car r i ed o ut by i n t e r agencyoommittees crea ted in s ev e ra l ofthe major r i v e r bas ins o f thecountry: th e Missouri in 1945, th eColumbia in 1945, the ArkansasWhite-Red an d th e New York-NewEngland Basins in 1950.Several problems plagued th i s "modern"

inter-agency attempt a t comprehensive r iverbasin planning. Firs t , the basin interagencycommittees created under FIARBC lacked anys t a tu to r y au thor i ty an d thus had littleimpact on ind iv idual agency programs an dprojects . Secondly, even though the s ta tesdid have representation on the interagencycommit tees c r ea t ed under FIARBC, s t a t erepresenta t ives did not have the te0hnicals t a f f support required to in teract as equalswith the federa l agencies . A0cording toHoggan (1974):In th e Arkansas -Whi te-Reds t u d y , none of the s t a t e w ate rresources agencies were s taf fed top a r t i c i p a t e wi th the f e d e r a lagencies in f i e ld s tud ie s . Eachs t a t e r e p r e se n t a t i v e d id , however, take a keen in te res t in waterdevelopment plans which af fec t hiss ta te and par t icipated in negot iat i o n s concern ing t he se p l a n s .

This a t t emp t a t i n t e r gove r nmenta lcooperat ion crea ted a var ie ty of i n s t i t u t ional arrangements to deal with th e problemof ef fect ive and representa t ive r iver basinplanning. Fox (964) describes six al terna


25/125

s t a t e par t i c i pa t i on an d avoid some of th eproblems of FIARBC, T i t l e I I I au thor i zedfede ra l grants up to $5 mil l ion annually toth e s t a t e s fo r improving s t a t e p lann ingcapab i l i t y .

P u b l i c La w 92-500 ( 9 7 2 ) t y p i f i e scur ren t l eg i s la t ive th inking with respect toth e s p a t i a l e l emen t o f w at e r r e s o u r c e splanning . This law recognizes t ha t administ r a t i v e and s p a t i a l problem a r ea s do notalways f a l l within the s pa t i a l areas definedby hydrologic c r i t e r i a . An e f f o r t i s made todea l with both areawide ( po l i t i c a l system)an d bas in (hydro log ic sys tem) p lann ing .W

Th e evolut ion of water qua l i ty programsd i f f e r s from the evolut ion of water quant i typrograms discussed in the preceding sec t ions .The problem o f wate r qua l i ty has t r a d i t iona l ly been a more loca l ized issue . Theproblems were caused by p o i n t sources ofpol lu t ion , an d the programs to el iminate theproblems origina ted a t the loca l l evel . Onlyin th e l a s t tw o decades has th e f e de ra lgovernment deve loped pro :>ms to c on t ro lwate r po l l u t i on and supp ement s t a t e andl o c a l programs (American Pub l i c Works Assoc i a t i on , 1976). Th e inc reased role of thefede ra l government in the con t ro l of waterpo l lu t ion as out l ined in Publ ic Law 92-500stemmed from an overa l l Congressional dis s a t i s f a c t i o n with th e performance o f th efedera l - s t a te partnership es tabl ished underthe 1965 Water Qual i ty Act o f 1956 FederalWater Pol lut ion Control Act.As sc i ence showed t h a t con tamina t edwate r caused d i s e a s e , th e pro t e c t i on o fpubl ic heal th became a primary water management goal . Although the design, f inanc ing ,

ex terna l i t y genera t ing po ten t i a l neces s i t a t edala r enforcement a rea (which, i n c i -den ta would avoid the long delays o fp r iva t e t i ga t i on procedures) . Th e problemgrew from a s t a t e problem to a r e g i ona lproblem, and i n t e r s t a t e compla in t s weres igned. Th e Ohio River Valley Water S an i t a t ion Commission (ORSANCO) an d th e DelawareRiver Basin Commission (DRBG) are examples ofsuch compacts.

ORSANCO was created in 1948 with rep re sen t a t i ves from the fede ra l government an dth e e t member s t a t e s . The DRBC was formedin 19 and "prov ided th e first po l l u t i onabatement compact wi th in t h e co n t ex t o fa basin-wide water resource development an dc e n t r a l program" (American Pub l i c WorksAssocia t ion, 1976).Federal involvement in water po l lu t ionc o n t r o l began with i n d i r e c t aid to s t a t epubl ic heal th agencies . Following World WarI I , P res iden t Truman signed the Water Pol lut i on Cont ro l Act of 1948 t h a t became thebasic federa l water qua l i ty law. According

to the American Pub l i c Works Associa t i on(1976) :I t provided fo r comprehensivep la nn ing , t e c h n i c a l s e r v i c e s ,research i n t e r s t a t e cooperat ion,f inanci ass i s t ance , an d enforce -ment. It author ized $2.3 mi l l ionin annua l l ow- in t e r e s t l oans fo rc o n s t r u c t i n g sewage a b a t e m e n tf ac i l i t i e s from 1949 to 1953. Ana d d i t i o n a l $800 ,000 a ye a r was

au thor i zed to deve lop p l a n t de-extended the ac t inn 1956 placed the Waterl l u t i on Control Act on the booksas permanent l e g i s l a t i on . Larger


26/125

ment and most r ecen t ly the concep t ofrecyc ng our water resources (Hey and Waggy,1976).Plann ing Provis ions of the 1972 Act.

For f n e - r l r s L - " H m e , - - m l r i T m u m - a ~ ~ e p r a o j : e - w a t e rqual i ty goals were se t at the nat ional leve l ,and a federal program was formulated to makesu re these goa l s were achieved. Th e Actdeclares pol icies and provides for four majorplanning programs: 1) Seotion 208, AreawideWaste Treatment Mana ment Planning; 2)Section 201, Areawide d l i t i e s Planning ona Cost-Effectiveness Basis for ConstructionGran t s ; 3) Sect ion 209, Level B Planningunder the Water Resouroes Planning Aot; and4) Sect ion 303, Basinwide Plans an d Cont i nu ing Planning Process Related to ThesePlans . Each of these sec t ions meets therequi rements of the program of d ischargepermits required by Section 40 2 (Shubinskiand Fi tch, 1977).

Sect ion 201. Under Sect ion 20 1 cos t----------effec t ive areawide f ac i l i t i e s are planned toprovide for point source or iented waterpol lut ion abatement. Th e plans are directedto upgrade a s p e c i f i c d i sc ha rge from adefined service area to prescribed s tandards .Fac i l i t i e s plans are reviewed by federal ands t a t e agencies before actual detailed design.Each f ac i l i t i e s plan focuses on a specif icgeographic area and no e f fo r t is made tocons ider reg ional so lu t ions or problems(Shubinski and Fitch, 1977). Under Section201 a s t a t e or l oca l f a c i l i t i e s plan mustcons ider user cha rges , equ i t ab le co s t re covery and excessive inf i l t ra t ion in order toqua l i f y fo r federa l const ruc t ion gran ts(Lieber, 1975).

Under Section 208, areas to address the t o t a l waterproblem r e su l t i ng from urban an dindust r ia l concentra t ions . The 20 8 programc o u p l e s p lann ing with implementa t ion .

a u t h o r i t y fo r t he se p lans in th e pa s tunder th e p r o v i s i o n s of th e 1965 WaterResources Plann Act. Section 20 9 in te gra tes the provis s of th e Water ResourcesPlanning Act with the planning provis ions ofthe 1972 Act. The EPA is current ly involvedin i n t eg ra t ing t h i s sec t ion with the provis ions of Section 208. Under the 1972 Act,a l l areas of th e nation are to have completedLevel B plans by 1980 (Lieber, 1975).

Under Section 303, broadmanagemen nwide plans are to be providedfor la r areas. Since 1970, federal regulat i ons av e required basin p lans from thes t a t e s . However, most s t a t e s develop dprograms in which p lann ing pe rmi t s andmonitoring were no t re la ted to :lne another(Lieber, 1 9 7 5 ) . Under Sect ion 303, a l lareawide plans, point sources, monitoring andother planning ac t iv i t i e s are to be inputs tothe overa l l process. Sections 2 0 1 , 2 0 8 , 2 0 9and 40 2 ac t iv i t i e s are a l l to be included inth e ove ra l l Sect ion 303 planning process .

A sequence c lea r ly is implied bythe Act. The f i r s t plan should beth e 303, se t t ing large basin-sca leob jec t ive s . Th e l a s t should be2 0 1 , forming th e l i nk betweenplanning and deSign/construct ion.Between these , the 208 s i t s as anurban l e ve l plan (Shubinski an dFi tch, 1977) .This s tepped process was des igned topromote coordina ted water qua l i ty con t ro lprograms.A f i na l comment with respec t to theevolution of the spa t ia l pproach to waterresources planning i s necessary a t t ispoin t . Water resources anning ~ a s evolved( spa t ia l ly) along two 1 nes: comprehensiver iver basin anning and metropoli tan plan-ning. Ac ng to Hoggan (1974):


27/125

and in tegra t ion of " ~ r b a n " planningw i t h " r i v e r b a s i n p l a n n i n g . "Kelnhoffer ( 9 6 8 ) and Hufschmidt(1971) are examples of the l i t e ra ture on t h i s subject .

Water r esources as wel l as land useplanning i s done by individuals making thei rown decis ions as well as by various levels ofgovernment. The preceding sect ions emphasizeneeds for various governmental uni ts involvedin land use planning, but a l l governmentalplanner s need also t o cons ide r how t he i rplans re la te to individual water and land usedecis ions an d th e aggregate express ion ofthose choices through market processes .

Considerat ion of the proper role for themarket in water resources planning involvesthe i losophical issues in dist inguishingpub c goods from private goods (Musgrave andMusgrave, 1973) and the pragmatic issue ofwhether public water manageMent ins t i tu t ionsare rea l ly able to improve !1'!arket al locat ionssu f f ic ien t ly to ju s t i fy t h e i ~ cos t . Likemost i ssues , the t ru th i s tha t both publican d pr iva t e s ec t o r s have advantages an ddisadvantages. Wise planning i s to be ableto d i s t i ngu i sh which is advantageous in apar t icu lar set t ing, and good management i s toimplement t ha t a l te rna t ive . Th e marketapproach is genera l ly favored in s i tuat ionsin which economics a re r e l a t i v e ly moreimportant than other c r i t e r i a , the decisionshave few external ef fec t s on th ird par t ies ,and planners are unable to obtain rel iableinformation fo r more comprehensive decisionmaking. Governmental planning ca n make animportant contribut ion in other s i tua t ions ,but i t is very impor tant fo r planners to

r a the r than to under take th e very cos t lyprocess of determining an d implement ing" b e s t " u s e . In cas es where it i s n o t ,cons t r a in t s to market decis ion making ca nof ten still be used to make market implementat ion more e f f ec t ive than any of theal te rna t ives .

Market p r i c e i s based on p e rce i v edpresent worth of future value. That value,an d th e r e su l t an t market a l loca t ion , i s afunct ion of immediate con t r ibu t ion of thewater to the income of th e purchaser but i sa l so af fec ted by h is percep t ion of fu tu revalue. As perceptions af the value of theseuses change (as a product of changing socia lvalues) , the value of the water r igh t changesalso. I f water put ta low value uses can besold fa r h value uses , the market wi l lef fec t th e c and increase th e cantr ibu-t ion to sacia l welfare.Water Rights Market"

Jus t on e of may examples of th e markett ransact ion involving water and af how themarket in terac t s with governmental decisionsi s in the area af water r ights and the l ega li n s t i t u t i a n s which manage these r i h t s .Water r igh t s , or water use r i g h t s , av eevolved alang two l ines in the United Sta tes .In the eastern U.S. an d those par ts of thecount ry where ar id lands an d humid l andsex i s t side by side ( the Pacif ic Coast s ta tesand the high plains s tates from North Dakotato Texas) the doctrine of r ipar ian r t s ha semerged (Tre lease , 1971). This r par i anr igh t ha s t r ad i t ional ly l imited th e users ofth e common pool waters to ad jacen t landowners. The owners have a use r igh t insafaras they do not di s rup t the natural flow fordownstream users. This natura l flow dact r ine


28/125

more marke tab le e n t i t y and enhances thef l ex ib i l i t y o f a l loca t ion to the most benef i 8 i a l use.Water Q u a l i t y M a r k e t s . The m a r k e t

approachTo-waEer--Use-p-iannlng an d a l loca t ioni s no w be i ng i n d i r e c t l y a p p l i e d to th eproblem of water qua l i ty maintenance. Thisi nd i rec t approach involves the use of d i s -c h a r g e t a x e s o r f e e s to m a n i p u l a t e t h eeconomic dec i s ion ca18ulus of the pol lu te r(Nagel , 1977). As a d i s incen t ive to pol lu te ,po l l u t e r s are assessed a discharge ta x or feewhich w i l l c o v e r th e c o s t o f r em ov i ngthe pol lu tan ts . Th e use of discharge taxesan d f ees e s t a b l i s h e s the c o s t of env i ron -mentally acceptable waste con t ro l as a r ea lproduct ion cos t to be passed to the consumersin a compet i t ive market . Those I-Iho benef i tfrom use of the product produced also pa y thet o t a l produc t ion c o s t s , an d equi ty i s es -t a b l i sh e d (Kneese , 1964; P o r t n e y , 1978) .

Th e market approach to planning, desp i t ei t s value in ach iev ing an approximation ofwelfare maximizat ion through market t r ansac-t ions , s u f f e r s from th e drawbacks of thep r iv a t e marke t t h a t go t government i n toplanning in the f i r s t place and t h a t makescomplete r e l i ance on market processes undes i r a b l e . Th e pr imary cons idera t ion here i st h a t many t h i rd pa r t i e s ( apar t from the buyeran d se l l e r in an y t r ansac t ion ) are af fec tedby the way water i s used but have no voice inthe t r ansac t ion . Many of these values cannotbe quant i f ied through the pr ic ing mechanisman d wil l not be adequa te ly represented in amonetary t r a n s a c t i o n . For example , th emarket cannot es t imate a monetary value for as c e n i c r i v e r . Withou t t h i s i n f e r m a t i on ,however, how can a t rade o ff be made betweenthe scenic r ive r and an impoundment for thepurposes o f power ge ne r a t i on? Those in -div iduals who va lue the scenic r ive r w i l l bel e f t out of the t r ansac t ion process as thepower company seeks to purchase the proper ty

This se c t i o n i s concerned wi th the majortools us e d i n c o n t e m p o r a r y p l a n n i n g .Many too ls have been developed to de te rminef e a s i b i l i t y , and t h i s se c t i o n w i l l reviewfour which have gained prominence fo r \.Jaterresources planning.

s isB e n e f i t / c o s t a n a l y s i s , a t o o l fo reconomic f e a s i b i l i t y assessment , wa s o f f i -c i a l l y adopted fe r water resources planr. ing

in 1936 with the f edera l f lood Cent ro l A'ct.Under t h i s a c t , f lood c o n t r o l wa s r ecog -n ized as a proper a c t i v i t y o f the f e d e r a lgovernment in the i n t e r e s t of enera l wel-fare." i f the benef i t s whomsoeverthey may accrue are in excess o f the es t i -mated co s t s , and if the l i v e s an d s e e i a lsecur i ty of people are o therwise adverse lyaf fec t ed" (PL 74-738, 1936).

Various problems an d consequent Deyd i f fe rences in es t imat ing benef i t s an d costswere c l a r i f i e d in 1952 by the Bureau e fBud t Circular A-Q7. f u r t he r c l a r i f i ca t i o nfo owed in 1962 in Sena te Document 97.Th e l a t e s t e f f o r t to develop the benef i t / cos tanalysis in to a soph i s t i ca t ed t oo l appears inthe 1973 P r i n c i p l e s an d Standards o f t heWater Resources Counci l . Th e r e la t ionsh ipbetween benef i t s an a cos t s i s summarize ina r a t i o t ha t has been mandated as an i nves t -ment Ulce in near ly all wat e r p lann ingl e g i at ion s ince 1936.

The be ne f i t / c o s t ra t io i s represented bythe sum of the benef i t s divided by the sum ofthe cos t s . Benef i t s an d cos t s are es t imatedby th e formulas:

LB Bn+"'+n+IT n - 1


29/125

" induced" by the d i r e c t b en e f i t s o r "stemfrom" the di rec t benef i ts . "Induced" benef i t s accrue to industr ies which supply inputsto the d i r e c t user s and "stemming from"benefi t s accrue to i ndus t r i e s whichand/or market the ou tpu ts o f the i r e c tusers . Further discussion may be found inHowe (1971) , Hinote (1969) , York e t a l .(1975), James and Le e (1971), Caulfield e ta1. (1974) , an d James an d Rogers (1976) .

The use of th e benef i t /cos t analys is foran evaluation of public funds investment hascome under attack in recent years (NationalWater Commission, 1973, Gloyna and tcher ,1972) . Th e bene f i t / cos t r a t i o li m s i t s e l f to ques t ions o f economic e f f i c i en cy .I t does not take in to account those noneconomic a c t i v i t i e s such as environmentalqual i ty . I t presents an incomplete eo f the planning scenar io. Economicare considered; noneconomic impacts are not.For th i s reason an enlarged evaluation systemwas developed. This i s the system of accounttools for water planning.

The system of accounts method of waterplanning was created in response to a growingdes i re to combine economic eff ic iency withother planning object ives. The pressure fort h i s method grew as planners pursu mult i p le o b j e c t i v e s en co u n te r ed prob ems o fresource scarci ty which made t rade offs amongthe objec t ives inevi table .The system of accounts, as found in theP r i n c i p l e s and Standa r ds , i s adesigned to classify and present i io nabout a l l impacts of a proposed ac t iv i ty . Amul t ip le objec t ive approach i s inherent to

ef fec t ive . The evaluat ion framework through th e system of accountsprovides for a c invest igat ion of the fu l range and ex ten tof ef fec ts of a plan and providesfo r a d i s p l a y fo r t h i s i n f o r mation in a format which is clearand useful to a l l part iCipants inthe decision process.Four accounts wil l be used fordisplaying benefic ia l and adversee f f ec t s an d fo r showing an d analyzing the t radeoffs among pI ans.The four a c c o u n t s to be usedare nat ional economic development,environmental q u a l i t , r eg io n a ldevelopment, and soci well-being.

The evolu t ion of the Pr i n c i p l e s an dStandards ha s been described ear l ie r in th i ssec t ion as an approach to mu l t i -o b j ec t i v eplanning. Further discuss ion ca n be found inWarner and Bromley ( ) , Water ResourcesCouncil (1973), Caul e t a1. (1974), andNational Water Commission (1973).The four account system adopted in thePr inc iples and Standards incorporates benef i t / c o s t analys i s in to a system t h a t re cognizes both economic and noneconomicobjec t ives. Moreover the system of accountsprovides a more deta ed se t of guidel inesfor the use of economic evaluat ion (Caulf ie lde t a 1 . , 1 9 7 4 ) .The major contr ibut ion of the system ofaccounts to water plann ing has been toorganize and di rec t the plan impact assessment ef fo r t of many di f feren t agencies. ThePr i n c i p l e s an d Standards s p e c i f i e s whatparameters a re to be co n s i d e red in th e


30/125

easements)(2 ) P u b l i c amenities(3 ) Nourishment(4 ) O t h e r (specify o rdescr ibe)

d. Protect ion an d preserva-t i on :(1 ) P h y s i c a l (jettys,b u l k h e a d s , etc.)(2 ) L e ga l ( d e d i c a t i o n ,i n s t i t u t i o n a l , e t c .)(3 ) Specia l

By fol lowing t h i s guide r e l evan t impactsw i l l be documented and presen ted fo r cons i d e r a t i o n in th e p l a n f o r m u l a t i o n ande v a l u a t i o n . Th e system of accoun t s i s are l a t ive ly new t oo l in water planning, an df u l l implementat ion wi l l be delayed unt i l thenecessary t echn ica l capabi l i t i e s and i n s t i t u t i ona l s e t t i ngs are crea t ed . There are manyunanswered ques t ions as to vlhat proceduresare to be used to quant i fy an d present thei m pac t s in the accoun t s s i nc e th e WaterResources Counci l i s still working on thep rocedu res s e c t i o n . For t h i s r e a s on , thec om pl e t e i m p a c t o f t h e a d o p t i o n o f th eP r i n c i p l e s and S t a n d a r d s c a n n o t y e t bee v a l u a t e d . Th e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of acommon system of plan eva lua t ion , however,has el iminated the uncoordinated an d of tend i s s i m i l a r p lann ing methods o f numerousfedera l agenc ies .

Va r i ous q u a n t i t a t i v e models have beenformulated to aid in f eas ib i l i t y assessment .A quant i ta t ive model i s a se t of equat ionst h a t d e s c r i b e s and r e p r e s e n t s th e r e a lsys t em. A model d e f i n e s th e f u n c t i o n a lr e la t ionsh ips between elements of the system,es tab l i shes the const rain ing parameters which

have cont inual ly increased wi th the d evelopment an d r esea rch a v a i l a b i l i t y o f modernd i g i t a l an d ana log computers . A d e t a i l e ddiscuss ion of these mathematical t echniquesut i l i zed in hydro log ic modeling can be foundin Systems Analysis of Hydrologic Problems,the Proceedings of the Second I n t e r na t i ona lSeminar fo r Hydrology P r o f e s so r s (1970) .

There also e x i s t models to examine theo t h e r component p a r t s to a comple te waterresources system. Models r e l a t i ng economico b j e c t i v e s to e ng i ne e r i ng a n a l y s i s can befound in t


31/125

Such p a r t i c i p a t i o n may be found in manyf o r m s . The p u b l i c meet in g , t h e p u b l i chear ing , and th e c i t i zen s advisory committeea re th e more common forms, but can be ex-tended through genera l p o p u l a t i o n surveytechniques .

The i m p e t u s fo r a d o p t i o n o f p u b l i cpar t i c ipa t ion as a too l for water resourcesplanning wa s in the increasing publ ic concernfor na tu ra l resources pol icy as a r e s u l t ofthe environmental t rade of fs recognized inthe ear ly 1960s. The movement toward c i t i zenpar t i c ipa t ion s t a r t ed a t the federal l eve lw i th t h e 1954 Hous ing Act (Rosenbaum,1976) which ca l l ed fo r th e c i t i e s " to encourage c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n th rough theestab l i shment o f Cit izens Advisory Committeesto examine c o n s t r u c t i v e l y th e workableprogram goals ." Par t i c ipa t ion requirementsincreased with the passage of th e EconomicOppor tun i ty Act o f 1964 ( E r t e l an d Koch,1 9 7 6 ) . A c l au s e o f t h a t a c t su g g e s t e d"maximum f eas ib le (publ ic) par t i c ipa t ion . "Water resource planning ac t i v i t i e s soon bthe process of implementation. Ful lmentation was slow in com! ng . AccordingHoggan (1974):

Although some previous planning stud ie s ha d r a the r elaboratepublic information programs such asth e one descr ibed by Bird (1964)fo r th e S o u t h e a s t River Ba s i n sStudy, p u b l i c involvement in th eprocess o f iden t i fy ing and evalua t ing a l t e r n a t i v e s wa s minimal .None of the in teragency comprehens i v e r i v e r b as in s tU d ies whichstar ted in the ear ly 1960 's (withwhich t h i s r e s e a r c h r e p o r t ispar t i cu la r ly concerned) ha d s ign i -f i c a n t p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n pro-

Federal Water Pollut ion Contro l Act Amendments o f 1972 (Wi l leke , 1976) . S e c t i o n101(e) of the 1972 Act requi res the EPA toprovide for broad public par t i c ipa t ion fora l l aspects of the Act, and Sect ion 20 8 ca l l sfor the es tabl i shment of a Policy AdvisoryCommittee to advise the agency in developinga plan. In addi t ion , publ ic meetings are tobe used to expla in 20 8 p l a n s an d t o bu i ldgrassroots su r t fo r th e plans . Sect ion50 5 also p r o v e s the c i t i zen with a mechanis m to sue fo r v i o l a t i o n s o f th e Act(Lienesch e t a l . , 1976). The publ ic p a r t i c i -pat ion requ irements of NEPA are discussed inth e prev ious chapte r on land use planningprac t ices .

The g e n e r a l g u i d e l i n e s fo r p u b l i cpar t i c ipa t ion a t the f edera l l eve l are foundin the Princi es and Standards. The spec i -f ic statement s :

The ac tua l der ivat ion and i d en t i f i -c a t i o n o f c o m p o n e n t s r e q u i r eseveral di f fe ren t approaches. Ani n i t i a l poin t o f depar ture i s then a t i o n a l and r e g i o n a l economicanalysis an d pro jec t ions providedby t h e Co u n c i l . These w i l l beuseful in a f i r s t c u t def in i t ion ofth e economi c p ar amete r s o f th ecomponents of the objec t ives . Moredetai led def in i t ions wil l r equ i r ein-depth consul ta t ion with Federal ,s t a t e , an d l oca l o f f i c i a l s famil iarwith the planning s e t t i n g . Direc tinput from the publ ic involved a tthe l o c a l an d r e g i o n a l l e v e l i simportant , an d wi l l be accomplishedby :a . So l i c i t i n gearly i n p u b l i c opin iont h e p l a n n i n g


32/125

Defin i t ion an d spec i f i ca t ionof the components of the env ironm e n t a l q u a l i t y o b j e c t i v e w i l lr e q u i r e direct c o n s u l t a t i o nwith g ro u p s i d e n t i f i e d with env i r o n m e n t a l c o n c e r n s as w e l la s w i t h t h o s e g r o u p s wi t h i n aplanning se t t i ng whose act ions haves ign i f i can t impacts on the env ironment. A broad spectrum o f publ icg r o u p s and interests m u s t becons ide red an d consu l t ed in thei d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the components(Water Resources Counc i l , 1973:24827) .Th ese recommenda t ions app ly to allpro j e c t sin wh i c h th e fed e ra 1 go v e r nm e n tpar t i c ipa t e s . .Although th e P r i n c i p l e s an d Standardsd o e s recommend p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n inplanning an d l i s t s some of the forms t ha t thepar t i c ipa t ion ca n t ak e , it f a i l s to give anyfu r the r guidance on how to use the re su l t inginput in planning decis ions . I t i s merelydes i red t h a t publ ic op in ion be s o l i c i t e de a r l y in t h e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s and t h a tmeet in g s be held ea r l y in the course o fplanning to advise the publ ic and l i s t en tot h e i r needs and views.F u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h ePr inc ip les an d Standards and publ ic p a r t i c i pat ion may be found in Caulf ie ld (1974) an dNational Water Commission (1973). Van Gigch(197Ll) p r e se n t s a summary of the ro l e o ft h e p u b l i c in p l an n i n g and th e v a r i o u smethods ava i lab le to accommodate t ha t ro l e .Publ ic par t i c ipa t ion as a planning too lin water resources i s not a panacea t h a t wil lel iminate a l l value conf l i c t s or re l i eve thep l a n n e r o f h i s b u r d e n . Th ere a re eve rp resen t I im i t a t i ons an d requ irements whichre ta rd the fu l l e f fec t iveness po ten t ia l o f

r e q u i r e s e x t r a r e s o u r c e s and h as movedplanning decis ions away from the loca l peoplean d toward h i g h e r l e v e l s o f g o v e rn me n t .As open land and clean water have becomes c a r c e , t h e i r u se s have become c l o s e l yin ter twined , an d the planning of t he i r useshas begun to r e q u i r e a co mp reh en s iv e , sy s t e m i c a p p r o a c h . While th e c o n c e p t u a lfo u n d a t io n fo r such an approach has beend ev e lo p ed , t hese ideas must be made moreprac t i ca l in order to be implemented. Th eP r i n c i p l e s an d Standards o f th e Water Resources Counci l were an i m p o r t a n t s tep inth i s di rec t ion but still f a l l fa r shor t o f

ac tu a l planning requ irements . Severa l t rendsin our soc ie ty make it very d i f f i c u l t toachieve s ign i f i can t , r e a l i s t i c , an d pos i t ivep l a n n i n g . These w i l l be analyzed below,par t i cu la r ly as they a f fec t the developmentand use o f an i n t e g r a t e d r e s o u r c e usesplanning model.Th e Nat iona l Water Commission (1 9 7 3 ) ,fol lowing i t s inves t iga t ion of the s t reng thsan d weaknesses o f c u r r e n t wate r p l a n n ~ n ,c i t e s the following c r i t i c i sms:

(1 ) Water p l an n i n g is n o tadequately in tegrated with planningfo r th e l a n d u s e s that w a t e rdevelopments are expected to serve;(2) while much at tent ion has beendevoted to planning for l arge r ive rsystems, too l i t t l e e f fo r t i s madeto r e l a t e t h a t p l a n n i n g t o t h eneeds o f met ropo l i t an a r e a s ; (3 )p lans have taken too little accountof the environmental consea uencesan d water qual i ty planning h ~ s beenconducted ap ar t from water planningin general ; (Ll) plans of ten do notr e f l ec t the i n t e re s t o f the generalp u b l i c , l a rg e segments o f whichh a v e little v o i c e in it; (5 )


33/125

These c r i t i c i sms can be fu r ther condensed into two causes: Firs t , water planning has been concerned with the water systemr a the r than t r e a t ing water as a componentpa r t of a l a rger soc ia l an d envir0nmentalsystem; and second the nature of th e watersystem makes th e d ni t ion of the appropriate spa t i a l element (and i t s correspondingi n s t i t u t i o n s ) a c r i t i c a l var iab le in theplanning process.

That th e water system must be consideredas but on e element in a l a rger system i srecognized in the Principles and Standards.That system of accounts t r i e s to record thecomplex in te r re la t ionsh ips t h a t e x i s t andmust be accounted fo r in an y planning in volving the water resource. One di f f i cu l tyin t ry ing to combine t h e s e e l emen t s i sbecause the quan t i t a t i ve hydrologic andeconomic aspects of water planning cannot beexpressed in commensurate terms with thenon-quan t i t a t ive soc ia l , p o l i t i c a l , an daesthet ic impacts .

The necess i ty of defin an appropriates p a t i a l element fo r water anning i s be-coming a paramount problem. In th e area of1 and use pI anning, it i s recognized t ha tl a n d , as a s tock r e s o u r c e s , has a veryd e f i n i t e " l o c a t i o n a l a t t r ibu te . With t h i sa t t r ibute comes the recognit ion tha t external i t ies generated from the use of tha t landgenerally decl ine with the distance from tha tuse. This gives the land us e plan a manageable local ized, control lable perspect ive .

The nature of water does not lend i t se l fso readily to loca l control , unfor tunate ly .Water i s a flow resource, which as it t ravelsto i t s f i n a l d e s t i n a t i o n , may be used ,reused , p o l l u t ed , cleaned , consumed, an dimpounded. I ts course may be altered from

quate analys i s techn iques , j u r i s d i c t i o n a lconfl icts and ineptness have a l l contr ibutedto th e diff icul t i es of implementing the Act(Shubinski et a1. , 1977).

Perhaps the loudes t cr i t icism of the Actha s come from those who contend tha t the Actamounts to e x t r a o r d i n a r y s u b o r d i n a t i o nby f edera l au thor i ty o f s t a t e and loca lprograms. Sta te and l o ca l programs a resubjec t to federal review and must conform tothe nat iona l ly uniform federa l s t andards ,gu ide l ines , an d r egu la t ions . Many s t a t estake th e posi t ion tha t th e diversi ty of waterprob lems in the va r ious s t a t e s a re notsolvable by s impl i s t ic , generalized solut ionsoutl ined by a centra l agency and tha t in manyinstances the Act i s def ic ien t in recognizingthe ins t i tu t iona l and environmental di f fe r ences which e x i s t among s t a t es (L ieber ,1915).

The funding process of th e Act may alsoplace areawide planning agencies in di rec tc o n f l i c t with s ta te and/or loca l uni t s ofgovernment. Areawide planning agencies haveth e p o t e n t i a l o f d e t e rmi n i n g land usecon t ro l of i n d u s t r i a l , r es iden t i a l , andcommercial development and loca t ion, and evenpopulat ion movements. Under Section 208 ,areawide planning agencies or counci l s o fgovernments r ece ive f edera l funding, in ac o s t - sh a r i n 0 e r a t i o n , to develop andimplement re g plans fo r th e placement oft r ea tment f a c i l i t i e s . These a u t h o r i t i e s ,independent of s ta te control , may regula tethe cons t ruc t ion of f ac i l i t i e s and thusoversee land use planning (L ieber , 1975) .

A recent preSidential order directed theChairman of th e water Resources Council , th eOffice of Management and Bud e t , an d the


34/125

7. Methods have not been developed tocompare environmental and economicimpacts.8. The s o c i a l d i s co u n t r a t e i s to ouns tab le fo r or de r ly p l an n i n g .9. eral water resource planning isor ented to cons t ruc t ion pro jec t sra ther than to comprehensive manage-ment o f th e nat ion ' s water resourcesby a l l al te rna t ive means.10 . Procedures for coordination of waterre sources planning have not beenimplemented.11 . There i s a l ack o f c o o r d i n a t i o nbetween wate r q u a l i t y and wate rquant i ty planning.12 . There i s excessive varia t ion in the

implementation of project planningprocedures and review processes byth e i n d i v i d u a l wate r r e sour ce sagencies.13 . The Pr i n c i p l e s and Standards havebeen i sola ted from the EnvironmentalImpact Statement procedures.14. Lack of effect ive project termina-t ion procedures lead to th e frequentbui ld ing of o b s o l e t e p r o j e c t s .15. The v a r y i n g f o r m , l e n g t h , ands p e c i f i c i t y o f th e P r i n c i p l e sand Standards leads to di f f i cu l ty incomprehension and use.16. Water subs id ies have resu l t ed inco mp e t i t i v e ad v an tag es fo r someu s es , have p r ev en ted ac t ion toachieve some o b j ec t i v es , an d havecont r ibu ted to water qual i ty de-grad at ion.17. Water r e l a t ed laws and managementpract ices have impaired the recogni-t i o n o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l v a l u e s .

18. Many s ta te water r ights systems havedeve loped w i th o u t r eg a rd to th ephysical fac t tha t sur face water isrelated to groundwater and var ioussources of groundwater are re la tedto each other .19 . Exis t ing subs tan t ive water r h tssystems have resu l t ed 1 0 lns tu -t ional arrangements which may resu l tin i n f l e x i b i l i t y , r e l a t i v e to thea l l o ca t i o n and use of water whichmay l ead to i n e f f i c i e n c i e s andinequal i t i es .20 . Problems may s t i l l ex i s t concerningthe end qual i ty of the opportuni t iesfor public input .

In summary, the water resources planningfunct ion has evolved from a posi t ion o fr esource abundance an d a phys ica l designor ientat ion to a posi t ion of resource scarc i -ty with an a l l o ca t i o n an d public repre-sen ta t ion or i en ta t ion . New problems havear isen as new parameters have been introducedi n to th e plann in s c e n a r i o . Th e t o t a lenvironment, soci as well as physical , hasen tered the recognized "sys tem" o f waterplanning. Along with th i s t rans i t ion , newtools have been formulated, but they do notr ea l ly meet the needs o f a comprehensiveplanning approach.The most important problems and i ssuesin water resource anning are inherent to anin ter face between pol i t i ca l boundaries ofgovernmental uni ts and the natura l boundariesof hydrologic systems. This creates a l eve lof analYSis problem which ha s impact on boththe natura l and socia l systems.


35/125

CHAPTER 3LAND USE PLANNING PRACTICES

Land use d e c i s i o n s in Amer ica havehistorically been d o m i n a t e d by p r i v a t ei n t e r e s t s . During th e 19th century thenat ional pol icy wa s to " t r a ns f e r land fromth e publ ic ownership to pr iva te ownership asrap i d 1 Y a s po s s ib 1e" ( Cr ib be t , 1973: 54 ) . Inthe ear ly 20th century , neighborhoods beganto f ee l th e adverse e f fec t s o f cer ta in landuses and began to work through l oca l governments to e s t a b l i s h r e g u l a t i o n s t o p r e v e n tu n d e s i r a b l e p r a c t i c e s . T he p r i n c i p a lj u s t i f i c a t i o n fo r land use r e g u l a t i o n hasbeen to con t r o l publ ic hazards and nuisanceson adjacent proper t ie s . Local governmentswere the most reasonable jusr . i f ica t ion fo rthe regulat ing au thor i ty because nuisancesand use c o n f l i c t s were t y p i ca l l y l o c a l inor ig in and e f f e c t . Moreover, l oca l governm e n t s c ou l d be e xpe c t e d t o be more r e sponsive to the property holders af fec t ed , animportan t cons idera t ion to a people heav i lycommitted to the r i g h t to pr iva te proper ty .

Over th e last 10 to 15 y e a r s , th eincreas ing re l a t ive sca rc i ty of l and , water ,an d raw mater ia l s , toge ther wi th increas ingenvi ronmenta l degrada t ion , have emphasizedth e need to be more care fu l in planning theuse o f na tu ra l resources . It i s our i n t en t ionto survey the present t oo l s an d approaches

s c hoo l s , r oa ds , pa r k s , pub l i c b u i l d i n g s ,urban renewal and o t he r pub l i c purposes .Land cannot be taken from a p r i v a t e ownerunless it i s done in the publ ic i n t e r e s t forpubl ic use and benef i t . Property owners whohave the i r land t aken from them are en t i t l ed ,under the Fif th Amendment to the Const i tut i o n , to j u s t c om pe ns a t i on or th e fairmarket value of the property a t the t ime ofth e t a k i n g . Land-use c o n t r o l s under thepol ice power inc lude zoning laws, subdiv i s ionregulat ions an d bui ld ing codes, and do notr equ i re compensat ion as long as the permi t t eduses provide a reasonable r e tu rn to the landowner . Taxat ion powers used to c o n t r o lresource use general ly take on the form ofc a p i t a l gains or property tax laws.

Eminent DomainThe power of eminent domain i s rou t ine lye xe r c i s e d to ob t a i n l and fo r such pub l i c

pur pos e s as h ighways, parks , s c hoo l s , andother public bui lding s i t e s . With two majore xc e p t i ons , urban renewal and open spaceacquis i t ions , eminent domain has seldom beenused fo r co n t r o l l i n g development in l a r g et r ac t s because of the high expense of compensat ion and fear of eroding the tax-base.


36/125

eas emen t s can be acqu i red to promote andpreserve ameni t i es ( espec ia l ly open spaces)in areas o f predominately pr iva t e ownership.A pos i t i ve easement secures a publ ic r igh t ; an e g a t i v e easement d e n i e s c e r t a i n p r i v a t euses .

At t imes it may be desired to purchased eve 1 0 pm e n t r ig h t s for the pro t e c t ion 0 fwetlands , a i rpor t s an d c r i t i c a l areas (Kaise re t a l . , 1971i). One problem i s tha t development r i g h t s o f t e n c o s t as much as a fees imp le land purchase , p a r t i c u l a r l y if thegovernment wai t s to purchase the r i g h t s u n t i ld e v e l o p m e n t i s j u s t a b o u t to b e g i n . Aconserva t ion group or governmental un i t whichwants to p r o t e c t an a r e a from developmentshou ld , if possib le , purchase the developmentr i g h t s before any s i g n i f i c a n t developmentpressure occurs . In Wisconsin, the development r igh t s adjacent to the Great River Roadalong the Miss i ss ippi River were purchasedover 30 year s ago fo r a fe w c e n t s a f o o t .As a r e su l t , the area i s fu l ly protec ted fromextens ive development today (St rong, 1968;Whyte, 1959). Advance acqu i s i t i on and landbanking i s ano ther c o n t r o l mechanism comm u n i t i e s may use t o g u i d e g r o wt h . Bypurchasing large amounts o f undeveloped orsparsely developed l and , a community may s e l lit a p a r c e l a t a t ime for the type of development they d e s i r e . Not only i s landacquis i t ion pr io r to development l e s s cos t ly ;it a l so r e q u i r e s l e s s d e t a i l e d planningspec i f ica t ions a t the t ime of acqu i s i t i on andpermi t s more pI anning lead t ime. Loca l i t i e swould thus be in a b e t t e r posi t ion to makereasoned dec i s ions on des i r ab le developmentand to enforce those dec i s ions . Columbia,Maryland, an d I rv ine , Ca l i forn ia , have em ployed a form o f land bank i ng . In t hesecommuni t i es , d e v e l o p e r s purchased l a r g et r ac t s of land an d provided the major i n f r a s t r u c t u r e investments . Th e communi t ies, byc o n t r o l l i n g th e placement o f r e s i d e n t i a l ,commercial , an d r ec rea t iona l areas , grew in

a c t i v i t i e s on adjacent parce l s , and the powerof the s t a t e s to delega te th i s au thor i ty top o l i t i c a l subdiv i s ions wa s confirmed by theSupreme Court s dec i s ion in Euclid v. AmblerReal ty ( 9 2 6 ) . Although zoning l aws varyfrom l o c a l i t y t o locality, t h e y s h a r ethe s arne general mot iva t i on : to prov id e aframework fo r order ly an d harmonious development by crea t ing zones of homogeneous use .

Usual ly a c i t y or county maste r p l and e l i m i t i n g the zones i s deve l oped a f t e re x am in a t ion 0 f pre sen t use p a t t ern s , anassessment of probable i n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t samong expected land use types an d the capab i l i t y of the l oca l na tu ra l envi ronment tosuppor t them under expected growth pressu res ,an d a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f d e s i r a b l e f u t u r edevelopment . Once es tab l i shed , th e masterplan l i m i t s development of land in a ivenzone to the designated type of use unless avar iance i s granted . Once the master plan i sapp r oved , its implementat ion i s t y p i ca l l yt u rned over to zoning b o a r d s . The rr :ost 'common c r i t i c i s m o f t h i s a r r angemen t i st ha t :

Th e s h i f t of dec is ion-making powersin l and use to zoning boards o fappeal has led to charges in manyc o m m u n i t i e s t h a t c o m p r e h e n s i v ep l a n n i n g i s a futile e x e r c i s econt inua l ly undercut by p o l i t i ca l l yor ien ted laymen. (Lev in , Rose, andSlave t , 1974 : 8 . )A number o f v a r i a t i o n s on th e above

"Euc l idean zon i ng" concep t have been in -i t i a t ed or proposed to improve the e f fec t ive -ness o f growth management t oo l(Levin S l a v e t , 1 9 7 l i : 1 7 - 2 4 ) .devel t l i n k s the" : : ' ~ C : ' : " : : ' - - = ' = " : : ' : T - - = : c = : - : ' : : = O = - e ~ ; : ' . " : o : = i ; - ' = C c ~ = - o : ' - : n : : ~ s . ; : . - c r : : ' u : : : : C : : T 0 n to t he

availability o f e s s e n t i a l s e r v i c e s andf a c i l i t i e s . Developers can speed developmentby agree i to provide the required r ,f ra-


37/125

a l so been used by some s t a t e governments.For example , th e Hawai i s t a t e Land Us eCommission divides land into four c lass i f i cat ions , ru ra l , agr icu l tu ra l , conservation, andurban. The Land Use Commission controls th eboundaries o f these c lass i f i ca t ions . s ta tegovernment agencies control the us e of landwi thin a l l areas except th e urban di s t r i c t swhich a re c o n t r o l l e d by th e l o c a l i t i e s(Linowes and Allensworth, 1975). In Vermont,an Environmental Cont ro l Act requ i res thes t a t e to develop th ree zoning plans . Thef i r s t is an in te r io r capabi l i ty plan set t ingfor th the ecological const ra ints of th e land.The second i s a capabil i ty and developmentplan which would r e c o n c i l e th e state'secological capabi l i ty with ci t izen goals andneeds . The f i r s t two plans have successful ly been adopted. The thi rd plan, a mappedstatewide resource us e plan, has yet to beaccepted (Meyers, 1974; Counci l of Sta teGovernments, 1974).

A potent ia l ly effect ive tool for guidingand locat ion of neH development i si s ion control . Subdivision regulat ionsthe division of undeveloped land intoo ts o r s i t e s fo r s a l e an d /0 r bui ld ingdevelopment . Subdivision r egu la t ion is an a t u ra l ex tens ion o f zoning p rac t i ce s tocircumstances where development of r e la t ive lyl a rg e t r a c t s i s contempla ted. Since thesimultaneous development of numerous lo t s ca np l ace heavy demands on l o c a l s e r v i c e s ,l o c a l i t i e s may impose regu la t ions a t theplanning s tage to aver t l a t e r problems.The general procedure i s to require tha tplans and plot for developments la rger than aspecified size are f i led and registered withth e l o ca l planning agency fo r review andapprova l . Developers of subdiv is ions areusual ly required to provide adequate s t ree ts ,

h is own. Similar ly, development r igh ts maybe acqui red in o rd e r to en su r e t h a t nodevelopment occurs. Such purchases are oftenca l l ed scen ic or conservat ion easements(Counci l on Environmental Q u al i t y , 1974) .The t r ansfe r of development r igh ts mayf ind its most impor tan t a p p l i c a t i o n inpreserving r i c u l t u r a l uses . A group offarmers who es i re to mainta in the a g r i c u l t u r a l c h a r a c t e r o f an area may j o i ntogether to t ransfer (donate) the i r development r h ts to a public body or a priVatenOn-pr t at io n group. Besides nolonger ha v to be concerned with i n t e r -fe rence wi t h e i r farming a c t i v i t y fromn urbanizat ion, the property values wil ldec l ne with the removal of developmentpotential--hence property taxes wil l decl ineand th e d o n a t i o n s can be deduc ted fromfederal income taxes as a char i table g i f t .Residents in Mill Creek Valley near Phi ladelphia have used th is approach for nearly 35yea r s ( Co u n c i Ion En v ir 0 nm e n t a I Qua lit Y

integrating water resources and land use planning

Documents