Southeast Water Resources:
Management and Supply Issues

August 24-26, 1998

The Tennessee Aquarium & Chattanooga Marriott at the Convention Center

Chattanooga, Tennessee

Sponsored by the Appalachian Regional Commission and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville

The Southeast's rich cultural and economic heritage is inextricably linked to its natural resources. Abundant water provides the basis for agriculture, transportation, energy production, and recreation. It also endows the region with a priceless diversity of flora and fauna. In recent years the Southeast has begun to experience conflicts over water use and supply. Examples of emerging conflicts include contemplated interbasin transfers to cities (e.g., from the Roanoke basin to Virginia Beach and from northeast Georgia and southeast Tennessee to Atlanta), water-pricing systems that penalize smaller communities undergoing economic redevelopment (e.g., rural southwestern Virginia, South Carolina, northeast Tennessee), and threats to instream quality caused by water withdrawal impacts across state lines (e.g., management of the Savannah River by Georgia and South Carolina).¹

This paper contends that a regional approach to managing water is needed to effectively manage these conflicts. This approach would: recognize that water problems in one part of the Southeast affect the welfare of other parts; acknowledge interrelationships among physical, ecological, socioeconomic, and institutional factors; provide a comprehensive, coordinated decision-making framework to enhance cooperation among jurisdictions, agencies, and stakeholders; and anticipate sources of conflict before they lead to political or legal impasse.

2. SOUTHEASTERN WATER PROBLEMS -- AN OVERVIEW

Although the types of water conflicts traditionally found in other parts of the U.S. (e.g., diversion, competition over supplies) have begun to emerge in the Southeast, ways to resolve them have not been systematically explored by drawing upon these other regions' experiences. A growing body of evidence suggests that these experiences may offer valuable lessons on how to develop partnerships, involve diverse stakeholders, and reconcile economic and environmental objectives.²

Spatially, water conflicts in the Southeast range in scale from multi-state issues of water quantity and quality (e.g., the Tennessee and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint basins) to problems facing individual municipalities. Temporally, some conflicts have arisen in response to infrequent events, such as 100-year droughts or floods. Others are prompted by chronic, long-term problems of water availability. Regardless of source, all these conflicts threaten sustainability throughout the region -- the ability to supply enough clean water to maintain economic activities while protecting the natural environment.

Water conflicts in the Southeast share four characteristics with conflicts found in other parts of the U.S. First, they reveal the inadequacy of traditional management approaches that rely chiefly on engineering solutions. These approaches assume that the best uses of water are for industry, agriculture, energy production, and human consumption and that the best policies are those that provide a low-cost, virtually unlimited supply of water.³

Second, they show that the region is not immune from water-supply problems typically associated with arid regions. These problems include perceived inequities of interstate and interbasin diversion, highly consumptive water uses (e.g., irrigation, power generation), and charges of "hidden" subsidies that promote waste or inefficiency.⁴ Third, Southeastern water conflicts cross political boundaries as they do elsewhere. They also cross watersheds and, sometimes, river basins as well. This is a problem because most existing management frameworks are not equipped to address conflicts that cross political or natural boundaries. Finally, these conflicts underscore the need for innovative approaches that encourage interdisciplinary thinking about water problems and that rely on mediation and facilitation strategies instead of command-and-control approaches that may alienate some constituencies.⁵

3. LESSONS LEARNED AND INCENTIVES FOR CHANGE

Something like a regional approach to water-resources management has been attempted in many areas of the U.S. since the 1930s. River-basin and watershed compacts, commissions, and other frameworks for cooperation have faced numerous challenges. Nevertheless, there are many reasons to endorse such efforts and to adopt a regional framework for managing Southeastern water problems.

3.1 Previous Attempts at Regional Cooperation -- Lessons

Historically, river-basin commissions and compacts have had some success in resolving conflicts. However, they have not been very effective in reconciling the interests of private users nor in overcoming jurisdictional rivalries among agencies, states, and communities. Also, they have often been viewed as imposed from above rather than demanded from below; have had insufficient authority to plan for long-term threats (e.g., climate change); and have emphasized water-resources development over multi-purpose management.⁶

Partly because of such failures, no single regional framework is viewed by stakeholders as credible. At the center of this credibility gap is the fact that current frameworks do not encompass all possible choices or stakeholders. Encompassing this range of choices and stakeholders is necessary to ensure that water-resource decisions are beneficial to the long-term public good -- not just the economic development needs of the present. It is also essential to promote fair, equitable, and publicly acceptable decisions.⁷

In addition, most regional frameworks lack an authoritative decision-making body that is viewed as legitimate, and thus, able to bridge these diverse interests. This is because most were originally conceived as means to solve a few user needs (e.g., flood control, navigation). While many frameworks do a relatively good job of managing some problems, few effectively manage several problems at once. In short, they have been ad hoc responses to problems arising at particular times in specific places.⁸

3.2 Incentives for Regional Cooperation

These shortcomings beg the question: why the need for a "new" regional approach? Three reasons are suggested. First, the need for regional cooperation in managing water problems has become more compelling in recent years in light of diminishing federal dollars and changing public attitudes. In the past, communities and states could look to Congress and multi-program agencies for public works projects or other assistance to solve many water supply problems. This is no longer true due to federal cost-sharing requirements, budget reductions, and public resistance to structural solutions (e.g., building more dams). In short, a decline in available resources and the falling out-of-favor of traditional "pork-barrel" solutions are incentives to revisit regional approaches to water management.⁹

Second, there is an emerging consensus among students of water problems from the natural-, engineering-, and social sciences to use regional planning approaches that can systematically evaluate alternatives and make rational and fair policy choices. Many argue that a "paradigm shift" in how we interpret water problems is occurring. Water problems were formerly viewed as segmented and isolated. Now, concerns over population growth, protection of endangered species, and conflicting stakeholder demands are making experts more attuned to recognizing that water problems are interconnected and synergistic and impose cumulative impacts.¹⁰

Finally, recent research suggests that integrated basin and watershed management schemes are better able to avert potential user conflicts and to foster public-private partnerships to resolve them once they occur. While these integrated schemes are promoted under various labels (e.g., ecosystem management, community-based watershed management, integrated watershed management, watershed restoration), they all share in common a desire to integrate quantity and quality issues within a comprehensive program and to be tied to the welfare of the larger region within which they take place.¹¹ In short, the desire to avert and resolve conflicts is another incentive for adopting a regional scheme.¹² The questions that remains are: How do we determine the objectives of a regional approach, and then, how do we best achieve them? One possible answer is provided by the concept of sustainability, explained below.

4. SUSTAINABILITY AS A REGIONAL CATALYST

The concept of sustainability in regard to water management most often arises in the context of developing nations and/or arid regions.¹³ However, the universality associated with this concept suggests it may be a useful organizing principle for resolving water conflicts in a humid region like the Southeast on a comprehensive, coordinated basis.

4.1 Attributes of Sustainability

Sustainability refers to a region's ability to supply enough clean water to maintain essential economic activities while protecting its natural environment. A sustainable water-management system is one that ensures a reasonable level of economic development (i.e., a level that does not exceed a region's carrying capacity), protects and maintains ecological values (e.g., sufficient instream flow to protect flora and fauna), and ensures equity (i.e., provides a fair apportionment of water and related resources to satisfy stakeholder needs). In order to achieve sustainability, a water management system must: encompass the interests of all stakeholders in a region; protect future generations who are not in a position to affect present-day decisions; preserve (or in some cases, restore) the integrity of natural systems in a given region; and empower all interested and affected parties. In other words, a framework for sustainability is one that is flexible, amendable, participatory, and fair -- not just efficient.¹⁴

Critics contend that sustainability is a highly idealized, difficult-to-achieve objective. Nevertheless, there are two reasons why a regional framework for resolving water-resource conflicts might profit by employing the concept of sustainability as a guiding principle. First, the various criteria for sustainability cited above provide a framework for setting priorities among multi-use values. In essence, they constitute a "test" for determining if a decision regarding the management of water is likely to resolve conflicts by addressing several interconnected issues at once, or exacerbate them by promoting one objective at the expense of others. Many policymakers have begun to draw attention to this need for priority-setting due to growing competition over existing supplies that has resulted in regional conflict.¹⁵

Second, these criteria are "benchmarks" that can help identify deficiencies in current decision-making frameworks. In essence, they may be used to gauge whether a proposed decision is likely to benefit the entire region or only a part of it; whether it will enhance or impede the ability to form partnerships for resolving water problems; and whether it will produce durable decisions acceptable to stakeholders.

In order to resolve water conflicts in a sustainable manner, a management approach must be found that acknowledges the interrelationships between physical, ecological, socioeconomic, and institutional factors. Such a management approach must position decision makers to identify needs for adequate data on water supply, quality, and consumption at various spatial levels and over various time periods in order to aid decision making. Currently, such a management approach does not exist in the Southeast. In part, existing approaches do not adequately reconcile diverse needs for domestic, industrial, agricultural, and other uses of water with needs for adequate instream flow of sufficient quality to protect flora and fauna. In short, ecological values are not adequately incorporated into the planning process.¹⁶

4.2 Components of a Sustainability Framework

Sustainability cannot be measured by any single indicator or index, nor can it be ensured by reliance on any one discipline alone. A regional approach to resolving water conflicts and effectively managing water resources requires an interdisciplinary perspective and an eclectic attitude.¹⁷ Some major components of a sustainability approach include the following.

4.2.1 Physical Attributes and Issues

Physical attributes of water pertinent to sustainability include regional hydrology, surface- and groundwater quality, channel morphology, aquifer size and quality, geology and soils, and existing water-resource developments. These physical aspects of a region's water resources constrain the carrying capacity of human activities. They also underscore the need for policy makers to identify physical indicators and track how these indicators are affected by human activities.

Some physical indicators of sustainability of particular concern to the region include the difference between consumptive use and average rainfall as measured over different temporal and spatial scales; the number (or percent) of waterways that do/do not meet their designated uses (e.g., domestic, industrial, and livestock uses; fish and aquatic use; recreation; irrigation; and navigation); the degradation of shorelines and river channels and their impacts on adjacent structures and communities; the extent of wetland destruction; and the ratio of reservoir storage capacity to annual consumptive demand.¹⁸ The Southeast contains a range of hydrological, morphological, geological, and resource-development features. These pose formidable challenges to regional management, especially since problems arising in one watershed or basin may affect others.

4.2.2 Ecological Resources and Issues

Ecological resources include flora and fauna and the underlying hydrological and geographical features that sustain them. These resources are directly affected by decisions that modify or alter the physical attributes of streams and other water resources. These include increases in water demand as well as decisions to augment or reallocate water supplies. Such activities result in changes in surface-water quantity, quality, and sediment load ultimately impacting aquatic plants and animals and riparian vegetation, as well as terrestrial plants and animals dependent on these resources.

Human activities such as channelization, impoundment, diversion, or draining of wetlands, streams, or other watercourses also impact ecological habitats. These activities often result in changes in species composition, population size, age distribution, and diversity ultimately affecting food-chain dynamics in a region. The Southeast, with its plentiful water supply, is home to an extraordinary number of threatened and endangered species. Of particular relevance to regional water management is that most endangered and threatened species inhabit private lands -- underscoring the need for public-private partnerships and wide stakeholder involvement in order to sustain them.¹⁹

4.2.3 Socioeconomic Issues

Economic attributes of water resources that are pertinent to sustainability include pricing structures, private versus public funding for water projects, and the effects of water quality and supply on economic development (e.g., agriculture, power production, industry). Economic factors relevant to sustainability include monetary and nonmonetary values for clean, free-flowing rivers; the value of water diverted for municipal, industrial and agricultural uses; controversies over how to assess, weigh, and compare the value of these uses; and the role of market forces on behavior (e.g., How does the price of water affect demand and supply?)²⁰

Social aspects of water pertinent to sustainability include the perceived value of small versus large communities and their access to water, the equity of interbasin transfers or changes in water use, and how the cultural heritage of a region is affected by changes in water demand, supply, and quality. Other social issues that have a bearing on sustainability include ethical and cultural perceptions toward water-related activities (e.g., recreation, residential shoreline development), what constitutes a desired "quality of life" among people living in a given region, and what constitutes a desirable "natural" landscape.²¹

4.2.4 Institutional Issues

Institutional issues pertinent to sustainability of water resources include water law and water rights; policies and programs for the management of water resources and associated lands; and the roles, responsibilities, and relative effectiveness of private and public water management institutions. Key institutions include federal, state, local, intergovernmental, semi-public (e.g., TVA), and private agencies (e.g., water development districts, water cooperatives).²² Particular aspects of institutions that should be considered in debates about sustainability include: how political boundaries conform with/do not conform to distinct hydrological and ecological regions; decision-making rules employed by these institutions for addressing and managing disputes; the assigned roles and responsibilities of different sets of laws, rules, and agency jurisdictions; and mechanisms for policy coordination, dispute resolution, and evaluating their effectiveness. In addition, discussions about sustainability must consider changes that need to be brought about within legal and political institutions in order to make decisions that are more sustainable. These could include ways to heighten the consideration of equity and biodiversity in decision making and the introduction of mechanisms to enhance participatory decision making.²³

5. TOWARD A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK

As noted earlier, existing frameworks for managing water resources in the Southeast do not adequately reconcile diverse water needs nor reconcile economic, ecosystem, and societal concerns and needs. Given the foregoing discussion, the following questions are suggested as a starting point for researchers, policymakers, and citizens interested in bringing about a regional framework for sustainable management of water in the southeast. These questions fall into three categories: interrelationship issues (How do we encompass physical, ecological, economic, cultural, and institutional factors alike into a regional scheme?); coordination issues (How do we encourage cooperation among jurisdictions, agencies, and stakeholders in this regional scheme?); and anticipation and threat-response issues (How can a regional approach predict or foresee sources of conflict before they lead to impasse?)

Interrelationships -- Enhancing an Interdisciplinary Approach to Water Management

Among the questions that policymakers need to answer are: (1) What are the optimal ecological and political boundaries (watersheds, ecosystems, states) a regional management scheme must adopt to be sustainable? (2) Do these boundaries adequately address physical, ecological, socioeconomic, and institutional constraints? (3) Is more than one set of boundaries possible? (4) what additional "baseline" studies of regional water problems are needed? Critical examination of other regional cooperation schemes, and stakeholder experiences with them, could provide fruitful answers to these questions.

Coordination -- Enhancing Cooperation and Partnership

Among important questions are: (1) What political, cultural, economic, geographic, or other barriers are there to establishing a regional decision-making framework? (2) How can these barriers be overcome? (3) What strategies should be used to build a political consensus to implement sustainable-development policies? (4) How should outreach be undertaken, and partnerships be fostered, to implement new policies? (5) How do we identify who should be involved? (5) How do we coordinate the regional framework with the needs, interests, and responsibilities of cities, counties, industries, and others? Decision makers need to critically examine their regions' problems to answer these questions.

Anticipation and Threat Response -- Regionalism as Strategic Foresight

These questions require a combination of extra-regional comparison and critical self-examination to be answered: (1) What sources of conflict have other regions faced, and how have they been resolved or otherwise managed? (2) How do these sources compare to potential Southeast water problems? (3) How do global issues (e.g., potential climate change, population increases) affect regional water conflicts?

Recently, the National Governors' Association (NGA) pronounced that the most significant impediment to a rational water policy is the proclivity to approach water problems as "isolated and categorical." The NGA called for development of water management programs that acknowledge interrelationships between ecological, societal, and hydrological factors; that permit comprehensive basin and watershed management, and which encourage inter-jurisdictional cooperation and planning.²⁴ NGA and others recognize that there are numerous incentives and opportunities to bringing about a regionally sustainable framework for water management throughout the nation. Such a framework can provide an enduring dialogue between decision makers, water managers, the research community, and the public on issues pertinent to sustainability. The Southeast is an excellent focal point for meeting this challenge.

REFERENCES

(1) "Hopes Dimming for Pact to Settle Gaston Dispute," (1995) Waterweek, June 19: 7; Greg Jaffe (1996) "Water Deal May Settle Old Dispute," Wall Street Journal, September 11: 2, 5.

(2) For a recent example, see U.S. EPA (1997), Top 10 Watershed Lessons Learned (Washington, D.C: Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds).

(3) J.A. Beecher (1995) "Integrated Resource Planning Fundamentals," Journal AWWA 87 (6) June: 34-48; H.A. Cortner and M.A. Moote (1994) "Setting the Political Agenda: Paradigmatic Shifts in Land and Water Policy," in R.E. Grumbine, ed., Environmental Policy and Biodiversity (Washington, D.C.: Island Press): 365-377; H. Caulfield (1984) "U.S. Water Resources Policy and Intergovernmental Relations," in J.G. Francis and R. Ganzel, eds., Western Public Lands (New York: Rowman and Allanheld), pp. 215-231; L.M. Eisel, G.D. Seinwill, R.M. Wheeler, Jr. (1982) "Improved Principles, Standards, and Procedures for Evaluating Federal Water Projects," Water Resources Research 18 (April): 203-210; and J.L. Jordan (1995) "Incorporating Externalities in Conservation Programs," Journal AWWA 87 (6): 49-56.

(4) National Research Council (1992) Water Transfers in the West: Efficiency, Equity and the Environment, Committee on Western Water Management, Water Science and Technology Board (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press); "National Implications of Western Water Subsidies" (1995) PEEReview: A Publication of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Fall: 8; O.M. Matthews (1994) "Judicial Resolution of Transboundary Water Conflicts," Water Resources Bulletin 30 (3) June: 375-383; Z.L. McCormick (1994) "Interstate Water Allocation Compacts in the Western United States--Some Suggestions," Water Resources Bulletin 30 (3) June: 385-395.

(5) T. Dudley and W. Stewart (1994) "Innovations in Watershed Management: A Community-Based Approach," Pacific Institute Report, Fall: 1, 4; C. W. Howe (1996) "Water Resources Planning in a Federation of States: Equity versus Efficiency," Natural Resources Journal 36 (1) Winter: 29-36.

(6)K. Miller, S.L. Rhodes, L.J. MacDonnell (1996) "Global Change in Microcosm: The Case of U. S. Water Institutions," Policy Sciences 29: 271-290; D.E. Mann (1993) "Political Science: The Past and Future of Water Resources Policy and Management," pp. 55-65, in M. Reuss, ed., Water Resources Administration in the United States: Policy, Practice, and Emerging Issues (E. Lansing: Michigan State U. Press); L.H. Chang, C.T. Hunsaker, J.D. Draves (1992) "Recent Research on Effects of Climate Change on Water Resources," Water Resources Bulletin 28 (2) April: 1-14; B.H. Holmes (1979) A History of Federal Water Resources Programs and Policies, 1961-1970 (Washington, D.C.: Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, USDA); D.A. Mazmanian and J. Nienaber (1979) Can Organizations Change? Environmental Protection, Citizen Participation, and the Corps of Engineers (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution).

(7) B.K. Landre and B.A. Knuth (1993) "Success of Citizen Advisory Committees in Consensus Based Water Resources Planning in the Great Lakes Basin," Society and Natural Resources 6 (3) July-September: 229; J.H. Hartig , D.P. Dodge, L. Lovett-Doust, K. Fuller (1992) "Identifying the Critical Path and Building Coalitions for Restoring Degraded Areas of the Great Lakes," pp. 823-830, Water Resources Planning and Management: Saving a Threatened Resource (New York: Conference on Water Resources Planning and Management, ASCE).

(8) C.H. Foster and Peter Rogers (1988) Federal Water Policy: Toward an Agenda for Action (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Energy and Environmental Policy Center, JFK School of Government, Harvard University), August; "Toward a New Era in Water Policy: Charting a Course for Change--Draft" (1995) A White Paper Prepared for Discussion at ICWP's Washington Roundtable, March 28-29, Interstate Council on Water Policy.

(9) B.D. Long (1993) "Water Resources Development at a Crossroads," pp. 258-263, in M. Reuss, editor, Water Resources Administration in the United States: Policy, Practice, and Emerging Issues (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press); Conservation Foundation (1984) State of the Environment: An Assessment at Mid-decade (Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation); L. Mosher (1984) "Localities Begin to Challenge Government's Water Policy Vacuum," National Journal 28, February: 164-168; J.K. Stine (1993) Mixing the Waters: Environment, Politics, and the Building of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway (Akron: The University of Akron Press): M. Reuss (1991) Reshaping National Water Politics: The Emergence of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, IWR Policy Study 91-PS-1 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office).

(10) Hartig et al., 1992; Landre and Knuth, 1993; Cortner and Moote, 1994.

(11) J.A. Ballweber (1995) "Prospects for Comprehensive, Integrated Watershed Management Under Existing Law," Water Resources Update (100): Summer: 19-27; L. Shabman (1994) "Bargaining, Markets, and Watershed Restoration: Some Elements of a New National Water Policy," pp. 94-104, in M. Reuss, ed., Water Resources Administration in the United States: Policy, Practice, and Emerging Issues (E. Lansing: Michigan State U. Press).

(12) "Toward a New Era in Water Policy," 1995; National Governors' Association (1992) Committee on Energy and Environment, "Water Resource Management," Policy D-23, February; Western Governors' Association (1991) with Western States Water Council, Challenges and Opportunities for Western Water Management in an Era of Changing Values, Draft Report (Park City, Utah: August 7).

(13) M. Grubb, M. Koch, A. Munson, F. Sullivan, and K. Thomson (1993) The ‘Earth Summit' Agreements: A Guide and Assessment. An Analysis of the Rio 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (Energy and Environment Programme, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, London: Earthscan Publications, Ltd); Penn Loh (1995) "Planning for the Sustainability of California's Water," Pacific Institute Report, Spring: 3.

(14) H.E. Stoerker (1994) "The State Perspective," pp. 274-282, in M. Reuss, ed., Water Resources Administration in the United States: Policy, Practice, and Emerging Issues (E. Lansing: Michigan State U. Press).

(15) L.G. Smith, T.J. Carlisle, and S.N. Meek (1993) "Implementing Sustainability: The Use of Natural Channel Design and Artificial Wetlands for Stormwater Management," Journal of Environmental Management 37: 214-257; President's Council on Sustainable Development (1996) Final Report (Office of the President, Washington, D.C.: February); E. Ostrom (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); E. Ostrom, L. Schroeder, S. Wynne (1993) Institutional Incentives and Sustainable Development: Infrastructure Policies in Perspective (Boulder: Westview Press).

(16) P. Gleick (1994) "Keep the Water Flowing: Sustainable Development of Water Resources," Pacific Institute Report, Fall: 1,3; S. Lele (1994) "Sustainability, Environmentalism, Science," Pacific Inst. Report, Spring: 1, 2,5.

(17) D.M. Liverman, M.E. Hansen, B.J. Brown, R.W. Meridith Jr. (1988) "Global Sustainability: Toward Measurement," Environmental Management 12: 133-143; H. Verbruggen and O. Kuik (1991) "Indicators of Sustainable Development: An Overview," pp. 1-6, In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development, in O. Kuik and H. Verbruggen, ed. (Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers).

(18) Chang et al., 1992; M.E. Moss and H.F. Lins (1989) Water Resources In the Twenty-First Century--A Study of the Implications of Climate Uncertainty, Circular 1030 (Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey).

(19) J. R. Mather (1984) Water Resources: Distribution, Use, and Management (New York: Wiley); W. Harrington (1979) "Endangered Species Protection and Water Resource Development," in W.J. Granney, ed. Utilizing Scientific Information In Environmental Quality Planning, Report no. TPS 81-2 (Minneapolis: American Water Resources Association); and Andy Dobson (1997), "'Hot Spots' and Endangered Species: New Directions for Public Policy," (1997) The Chronicle of Higher Education October 31: B6-7.

(20) J.P. Biniek (1985) "Benefit-Cost Analysis: An Evaluation," pp. 136-152, in S.P. Kaminieck Controversies In Environmental Policy (Albany: State University of New York Press); P.B. Downing (1984) Environmental Economics and Policy (Boston: Little, Brown).

(21) T. Beatley (1989) "The Role of Expectations & Promises In Land Use Decisionmaking," Policy Sciences 22 (March): 27-50.

(22) V. Ostrom (1971) "Institutional Arrangements for Water Resources Development," (Washington, D.C.: National Technical Information Service); J.G. March and J.P. Olson (1983) "Organizing Political Life: What Administrative Re-organization Tells us About Government," American Political Science Review 77: 281-296.

(23) "Toward a New Era in Water Policy," 1995; D.C. Harrison (1982) "Institutional Barriers to National Water Policy," Water Spectrum (Spring).

(24) National Governors' Association (1992) Committee on Energy and Environment,"Water Resource Management," Policy D-23, February.