Managing Water: Policies and Problems

Planning for Drought

Managing Water: Policies and Problems

The West
The Missouri River Basin
U.S. Policies Lack Cohesion Other Useful Information

With a growing population comes greater demand for water supplies, a situation that is exacerbated by the normal occurrence of drought. In the United States, these problems complicate the process of managing the nation’s water supplies.

Allocating Water
The Players
By constitutional law, most of the authority for allocating water resides with state government. (This is part of the reason that state governments are currently leaders in drought planning.) But if governmental authority followed hydrological boundaries, river basin commissions would have a bigger role in water planning. River basin commissions have the advantage of looking at water on its own terms, rather than through human-imposed boundaries. The federal government is the biggest player in water resource planning, management, regulation, and development. In the mid-1990s, for example, at least 35 units within 10 federal departments, 7 independent agencies, and several bilateral organizations had some responsibility for water programs and projects within the United States. The entities and their responsibilities are varied, including the following:

The Bureau of Reclamation provides municipal and irrigation water and operates hydroelectric facilities in the western states.
The Army Corps of Engineers has responsibility for projects involving flood control and floodplain management, water supply, navigation, hydroelectric power, shoreline protection, recreation, fish and wildlife management, and environmental enhancement.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce, in its coastal zone and fisheries management responsibilities, deals with watershed management and non-point-source pollution.
The U.S. Geological Survey assesses the quality, quantity, and use of U.S. water resources.

The Doctrines
Authorities responsible for allocating water make their decisions based on a number of doctrines. Surface water distribution is based on either the riparian doctrine or the prior appropriation doctrine. The riparian doctrine holds that owners of land adjacent to a stream or other water body may use that water, but only as long as their usage does not interfere with the other landowners’ reasonable usage of the water. This doctrine is generally used in the 31 states east of the 100th meridian. In contrast, the prior appropriation doctrine gives rights to the earliest water users over all later water users of a particular source—“first in time, first in right”. This doctrine is common in the 19 western states.

For groundwater, water allocation is determined by 3 doctrines: absolute ownership, the reasonable use doctrine, or the appropriation-permit system. Absolute ownership gives rights to the overlying owner and does not restrict usage. This system is used solely in Texas. The reasonable use doctrine gives groundwater rights to landowners, but with the added provision that their use of the water cannot interfere with other users. California and most eastern states determine groundwater rights on the basis of this doctrine. The third doctrine, the appropriation-permit system, is used in the western states. It holds that groundwater rights are based on priority, meaning that prior users of groundwater have the greatest legal rights. Permits are issued for new groundwater uses if they do not interfere with existing uses.

Water Management Problems: Two Case Studies
Existing policies, laws, and practices can be barriers to changes that could help insulate society from drought, as the following case studies illustrate.

The West
During the settlement of the western United States, the federal government encouraged development in part by ensuring that the new landowners had access to as much water as they needed. This gave rise to the doctrine of prior appropriation. Wilkinson (1994) notes that prior appropriation was part of a “distinctive body of policy and law . . . based on an extraordinary combination of two ideas: that public resources should be made available for private gain free or at far below market value; and that the government, in addition to these initial subsidies, should further fuel the development by affirmatively building water projects and other public works to support the opening of the West. It was in all likelihood the greatest program of subsidies ever undertaken by any nation and it surely accomplished its intended purpose, to open the West to settlement by non-Indians.”

Zilberman (1994) views early water policy as similar to homesteading, when the “government’s objective was to allocate the resource in a way that would accelerate its use”. The doctrine of prior appropriation:

distributes water based on seniority—a “first-come, first-served” system. Water users with seniority are entitled to use as much water as they want. In fact, Zilberman points out, the system offers no incentive to conserve: “The penalty for not using the water has discouraged conservation and led to large-scale use of traditional (inefficient) technologies in spite of the availability of water conservation technologies.”
allows only certain extractive, “beneficial” uses, such as irrigation. Considerations that favor keeping water in rivers and streams, such as fish, wildlife, aesthetics, and Indian claims, are excluded.
gives water away for free. Users’ only costs come from transporting the water.
governs distribution of about 60% of agricultural surface water in California.

But now values are changing, giving more importance to preserving wildlife habitat, aesthetics, recreation, and water quality—all of which create pressure to leave water in rivers instead of using it. As urban populations grow, using water for irrigation is gradually becoming a lower priority. Wilkinson observes, “A new western economy is emerging—based on recreation, scaled-back extractive industries, and light industries that want to settle in this wondrous place—and this new economic mix is far outstripping the old.” The mid-1980s marked the beginning of a new level of public concern for the environment, as people became aware of the possibility of global warming, ozone depletion, the plight of the spotted owl, and plummeting salmon runs in the Pacific Northwest. New ideas such as sustainability and ecosystem management started to become part of our approach to resource management.

Or, to return to Zilberman’s comparison with homesteading, “As long as settlers used land, they could own it. However, once all the land was allocated and it became scarce, the nation made the transition to a market. Today we are in the same situation with water.” Zilberman argued that a more market-based system for allocating water would provide the necessary incentives for conservation: “We are entering an era where economics and scarcity conditions will play a greater role in water resource management in the West. There is a perception of water shortage, especially during drought periods. But this perception is largely the result of existing institutions for water management, institutions that were designed in an era of abundance. One matter is clear—water users respond to incentives, and when water becomes more expensive, they conserve and use it more efficiently without much effect on overall welfare. I argue, therefore, that we do not have so much a water scarcity crisis as we do a water management crisis.”

References
Wilkinson, C.F. 1994. Change and rediscovery on the rivers of the west: Lessons from the Colorado Plateau. In D.A. Wilhite and D.A. Wood, eds., Drought Management in a Changing West: New Directions for Water Policy, pp. 27–38. IDIC Technical Report Series 94–1. International Drought Information Center, University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
Zilberman, D. 1994. Responses to and management of drought. In D.A. Wilhite and D.A. Wood, eds., Drought Management in a Changing West: New Directions for Water Policy, pp. 151–158. IDIC Technical Report Series 94–1. International Drought Information Center, University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

The Missouri River Basin: Contending with “Unofficial” Water Use
When drought struck the Upper Missouri River Basin from 1987 to 1992, after 20 years of stable water supply, it came as a shock to marina operators and recreation-based lakeshore communities. The impacts of the drought were worse because preserving the recreation industry was not a high priority in the Army Corps of Engineers’ drought planning. The Corps’ drought plan for the basin was written in 1960 and had been updated since then, but not enough to keep up with new uses of the reservoir that were not originally envisioned. A.L. Thomsen, former director of Civil Works and Planning in the Missouri River Division of the Corps of Engineers in Omaha, Nebraska, describes how changing uses of the basin’s water outpaced planning and communication, leaving the recreation industry and other water users high and dry:

A large, dependent infrastructure had grown around the reservoirs and along the river since the operating plan had been developed. New industries, such as recreation, had developed and new environmental priorities had emerged . . . A fairly effective system of communication with downstream water users was already in place because such communication is required on a regular basis [to keep the river navigable for barge traffic]. However, communication with reservoir users was less well developed. As the reservoirs receded, affected marina operators, hundreds of water intake owners, fishing guide businesses, recreation-related businesses, and small reliant communities were confronted with the problems (unforeseen to them) caused by the receding water levels and shorelines. Twenty years of stable water levels had promoted expectations inconsistent with the drought operating plan, which, of course, was not widely known among this group of constituents.

In addition to the recreation industry, irrigators and even municipal water suppliers found in some cases that their intake pipes were left above the water level; fisheries contended with reduced habitat; and authorities were unable to stop pothunters from scavenging valuable artifacts exposed by receding waters.

(Thomsen, 1994)

The Dynamics of Bad Decisions
Thomsen’s position gave him first-hand experience with the hydro-illogical cycle. He referred to it as the awareness-apathy cycle.

During a crisis such as a drought, there is much motivation to communicate, and unlimited funds are available to evaluate and solve drought problems. Awareness is peaked and action is prompted by the event. The crisis would be much more effectively handled if investments in data, analysis, communication, and relationships were made in advance. However, once the event has passed, the tendency is to move on to other priorities created by other crises. It becomes very difficult to compete for funds and personnel when crisis is not imminent. Also, drought issues do not capture public interest and media attention during nondrought periods without human interest stories. Drought preparedness and planning becomes a lonely vocation when water abounds.

For example, water intakes must be approved by the Corps of Engineers before being placed in any of these reservoirs or along the river. When suggestions about intake elevations are made by the Corps during the apathy portion of the cycle, the most usual response is that intake elevation is a private business decision not subject to interference by government. Low-water intakes are more costly than those constructed near the normal water surface, especially in a reservoir capable of 70-foot fluctuations. The tendency is to save the funds and hope (or believe) the reservoir will not recede.

Likewise, marinas and boat ramps must be approved by the Corps . . . but there is no provision to regulate for poor private business decisions. Consequently, millions of private and public dollars have been invested in roads, marinas, resorts, and other recreation infrastructure in shallow, protected bays of the reservoirs. These are delightful locations at normal water levels, but when a drought occurs and the reservoirs recede, these areas become unusable very quickly and can remain unusable for years.

(Thomsen, 1994)

In November 1989, the Corps decided to review and update the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual (Master Manual). The drought of the late 1980s highlighted the Master Manual’s shortcomings as well as the changed environment (both physical and social) of the river basin. The review, formally known as the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual Review and Update, will be completed in late 2002. It will incorporate one of six alternative operating plans detailed in the Corps’ August 2001 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement (RDEIS): the current water control plan, a modified conservation plan, and four alternatives that add a range of Gavins Point Dam releases to the modified plan. The preferred alternative will be selected following open discussion of all the options and their impacts. In addition, the RDEIS provides a comprehensive description of economic, social, and environmental impacts on flood control, navigation, fish and wildlife, hydropower, water supply and quality, recreation, and irrigation in the Missouri River Basin.

References
Thomsen, A.L. 1994. Drought management: The Missouri River Basin experience, 1987–92. In D.A. Wilhite and D.A. Wood, eds., Drought Management in a Changing West: New Directions for Water Policy, pp. 73–78.. IDIC Technical Report Series 94–1. International Drought Information Center, University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

U.S. Resource Policies Lack Cohesion
As important as water is, the United States lacks a coordinated policy to ensure that its citizens will have the water that they and their descendants will need to survive. This is by no means to say that water is neglected. Rogers (1993) notes that in the early 1990s there were 90,000 federal employees working on water problems within 10 cabinet departments, 2 major agencies, and 34 smaller agencies. He estimates that state and local governments have up to three times as many employees dedicated to water, and that there are another 50,000 private sector employees working on water issues. Unfortunately, the hundreds of thousands of people and the agencies and organizations they work for are not all laboring within a common policy framework. Sometimes, instead of complementing one another, they find themselves working at cross purposes. The National Drought Mitigation Center advocates that the United States adopt a guiding philosophy to ensure that its citizens will have a dependable and adequate water supply, conflicting policies can be reconciled, and the public interest can be better served, particularly during times of water shortage.

Without a coherent guiding philosophy, the jumble of federal agencies assigned various responsibilities regarding water can actually work to inhibit water stewardship, drought planning, and routine water management decisions. In its 1989 White Paper on Federal Water Policy Coordination, the Western Governors’ Association noted these problems when it called for a White House-level group “to serve as an interagency forum to improve coordination of federal water programs with each other and with state water policy”.

Goldfarb (1988) also noted the problems in U.S. planning efforts: “The major deficiency of American water resources planning has been its fragmentation: water planning has not been adequately integrated with land use planning; planning for river basins has neglected the water-related needs of metropolitan areas; environmental planning, or water quality planning, has been separated from water resources development planning; and federal agency plans have been project-specific, mission-specific, and uncoordinated with water resources plans of other federal agencies and non-federal organizations.”

Among the many organizations that have called for the development of a national drought policy and national and state drought plans in the past two decades are the multistate 1996 drought task force under the leadership of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Western Governors’ Association, the General Accounting Office, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the World Meteorological Organization, the Interstate Council on Water Policy, and the Environmental Protection Agency. In 1993, the Office of Technology Assessment called for the creation of an interagency drought task force to develop a national drought policy.

Past Efforts to Unify Policy
In 1965, Congress passed the Water Resources Planning Act, which created the Water Resources Council, which included representatives of each of the major federal agencies involved with water policy. The Council’s mission was to facilitate interagency planning and policy coordination by recommending and reviewing policy, establishing principles and guidelines for evaluating projects, coordinating river basin commissions, and administering grants to states to encourage planning. The Council was also supposed to assess national water supply and demand.

The General Accounting Office reported in 1993 that the Council was ultimately limited in its effectiveness because it had to depend on voluntary cooperation from the federal agencies that were involved. Funding for the Council was cut off in the early 1980s under the Reagan administration, on the grounds that the Council wasn’t cost-effective. GAO investigators also found that although the Council wasn’t specifically focused on drought, its unifying presence in water policy helped in responding to droughts.

References
Goldfarb, W. 1988. Water Law. 2d ed. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
Rogers, P. 1993. America’s Water: Federal Roles and Responsibilities. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London.

Other Useful Information
For more information on federal responsibilities/authority for water management, see Chapter 5, “Water” (especially pp. 233–234), of the Office of Technology Assessment’s Preparing for an Uncertain Climate, Vol. 1.

More information about water-banking and other systems that approach water as a commodity is available under Mitigating Drought.

The American Water Works Association has published a white paper on water rights with detailed policy recommendations for practicing wise water stewardship.