Title: Legal, Institutional and Social Aspects of Irrigation and Drainage and Water Resources Planning and Management
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00003035/00001
 Material Information
Title: Legal, Institutional and Social Aspects of Irrigation and Drainage and Water Resources Planning and Management
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Richard Hamann's Collection - Legal, Institutional and Social Aspects of Irrigation and Drainage and Water Resources Planning and Management
General Note: Box 12, Folder 6 ( Legal, Institutional and Social Aspects of Irrigation and Drainage and Water Resources Planning and Management - 1979 ), Item 1
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00003035
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text













legal,
Institutional
anb social
9pects Of

















PROCEEDINGS
ASCE Irrigation and Drainage Division and
ASCE Water Resources Planning and Management Division
Specialty Conference
Donaldson Brown Center for Continuing Education
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
July 26-28,1978
SPONSORS
Irrigation and Drainage Division and
Water Resources Planning and Management Division
of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Virginia Water Resources Research Center
COOPERATING SPONSORS
Universities Council on Water Resources
American Society of Agricultural Engineers
American Water Resources Association
American Geophysical Union
HOST
Roanoke Branch, Virginia Section, ASCE






PUBLISHED BY
Amrncan Societ of Cii EngCineM r
345 East 47th SeWe
N ewYNew r. ik 10017
Price $40.00































































































Copyright N 1979 by
American Society o Civil Engineers
All Rights Reserved























CONTENTS
COD
SACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............. .................. .. .ix
C INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW .................. ........... xi
C A WORD FROM OUR SPONSOR
0 Jack J.Coe ................ .. ............. .......... .xiii
KEYNOTE ADDRESS-THE NATIONAL WATER POLICY
Warren Viessman, Jr ...................... ............ 1
EDUCATION FOR TECHNOLOGICAL ACCEPTANCE
William M. Sangster....... ............. ............... 16

A VIEW OF EASTERN WATER LAW
Evan R. Allred and James R. Hanchey, Sesion Chairmen
EVOLVING WATER LAW NEEDS FOR THE SOUTHEAST U.S.
Neil S. Grigg, David H. Howells, William E. Cox and William R. Walker ...... 21
$ DEVELOPMENT OF WATER LAW IN VIRGINIA
P William E. Cox and William R. Walker ............. ........... 28
PENNSYLVANIA WATER LAW-REFORM IN PROGRESS
R. Timothy Weston........................... .......... 41
ADMINISTRATIVE ALLOCATION AND ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY
Clyde E. Kiker, Gary D. Lynne and Albert Starr .................. 52
SOCIAL ASPECTS OF FLOOD PROOFING
James R. Dexter, Gene E. Willeke and L. Douglas James. .............. 65

INTERESTING ASPECTS OF WESTERN WATER LAW
Thomas L. Morin, Sesion Chairman
THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT AS COMMON LAW
John W. Bird .................. ....................... 81
WATER RIGHTS: IMPACT ON STREAMFLOW PROTECTION
Michael J. Mocek....... .............................. 88
RESERVED RIGHTS AND FEDERAL CLAIMS TO WATER
Norman Wengert ...................................... 93
WESTERN WATER LAW AND IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW
George E. Radosevich and Gaylord V. Skogerboe. .................. 108
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF INCREASING THE AVAILABLE WATER
V. Phillip Soice and Ronald K. Blatchley ..................... 121
INDIAN WATER RIGHTS: LAW AND REALITY
Sanford Smith ........................................ 131

WATER LAW, POLICY, AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Willim E. Cox and E. J. Carulon, Saemon Chairmen
FEDERAL WATER LAW POLICY
Daniel J. Snyder, III ................. .. ........ ... ... 138
WATER RIGHTS AND WATER USE EFFICIENCY
J. ErnestFlack ................... ...... ............ 143























INTERRELATING LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT IN FLORIDA
Frank E. Maloney and Richard G. Hamann ....................... 150
A FEDERAL CASE INVOLVING RESERVOIR REGULATION
UNDER SECTION 311 (i), P.L. 92-500
Jerry R. Rogers .................... .................. 170
NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS: THE NEW HAMPSHIRE EXPERIENCE
Mark J. Schiffman ................... ................ 179



WATER LAW AND TECHNOLOGY
J. Ernest Flack and A. Alvin Bishop, Sasion Chairmen
WATER RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY AND WATER LAW
Robert E. Miller ................... .................. 193
STATE WATER LAWS: EFFECT ON ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS
Cecil Eugene Reinke and Richard C. Allison ................... .. 204
HYDROLOGIC ROUTING: AN AID IN WATER RIGHTS
ENFORCEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Om P. Gulati, Shige Okad", M. K. Lininger and L. C. Spencer. ........... 219
RESEARCH AND LAW REQUIREMENTS IN WEATHER MODIFICATION
Conrad G. Keyes, Jr ................... ............... 235
THEORY AND PRACTICE OF WATER-POLLUTING RIGHTS
Klaus F. Alt and John A. Miranowski ... ................... .. 249
PROTECTING HYDROLOGIC IMPACT ON A LAND USE PLAN
USING USDAHL-74
Gary T. Fisher, James E. Ayars and Gary K. Felton .............. 256



LEGAL ASPECTS OF CONJUNCTIVE USE
Robert D. Burman and Karl R. Klingehofer,$ Sion Chairmen
NEBRASKA MULTI-PURPOSE RESOURCES DISTRICTS
Ralph R. Marlette and Craig L. Williams ................ .. .... 266
CONIUNCTIVE USE SAN FR ANCISCO BAN EXPERIENCE
DonFinlayson.................. .. .. ..... ....... .282
DELAWARE GROUND WATER USE POLICY: SOME PROBLEMS
AND CONFLICTS
Kenneth D. Woodruff ........... ............ ........... 297
GROUND WATER STORAGE FOR CALIFORNIA WATER PROJECT
JackJ. Co.... ........... .. .. .......... :..... ......311
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF GROUND-WATER QUALITY CONTROL
Otto Helweg and Woody Brooks .......... .................. 327
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL-
THEORETICAL FACTORS AND PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE
Verne H. Scott and Joseph C. Scalmanini ............. .. ...... 340


























INSTITUTIONS IN WATER POLICY
Jamns N. Krider Sion Chsirman
PLANNING MATRIX-A NEW CONCEPT IN WATERSHED PLANNING
Frederic O. Sargent and Richard F. Dworsky ................... 355
MIDWEST ALLOCATION OF IRRIGATION WATER: HOW EFFICIENT
AND EQUITABLE
Judith A. Maxwell and John J. Waelti ................ ......... 366
INSTITUTIONS: KEY TO DEVELOPMENT OF IRRIGABLE SOIL
Richard A. Schoney and Leonard R. Massie ..................... 382
THE CROSS VALLEY CANAL-A CASE STUDY OF PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION BY LOCAL AGENCY JOINT VENTURE
Thomas S. Maddock and David L. Hardan. ...................... 393
SOCIAL CHOICE IN THE UPPER ST. JOHNS RIVER BASIN
Roy Burke, III, and James P. Heaney. ......................... 409

INSTITUTIONS FOR MANAGEMENT
Leonard Rice and T. Al Ausin, Session Chairmen
WATER MANAGEMENT: A PROBLEM OF INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN
David Mulkey and Roy Carriker. ............................. 426
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT: A GUIDE FOR CIVIL ENGINEERS
Billy L. Edge ........................................ 436
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS: A TOOL FOR STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT IN A MULTIJURISDICTIONAL SETTING
John P. Hartigan and Hugo A. Bonuccelli ........................ 442
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF WATER MANAGEMENT POLICIES
John E. Reynolds .................. ................... 457
VENTURA COUNTY PROJECT: LAWS AND INSTITUTIONS
W. Martin Roche ................... .................. 473
GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT IN NEBRASKA
J. David Aiken and Raymond J. Supalla ....................... 484

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Wayne MacRostie, Session Chairman
CONSERVATION ECONOMICS OF HAWAII'S SYSTEM OF WATER RIGHTS
HiroshiYamauchi ..................................... 499
DECISION MAKING IN WATER RESOURCE SYSTEMS
Frank J. Trelease, III ....... ................... .... 511
OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR STORAGE DAMS
John V. Walker and Max E. Van Den Berg. ...................... 525
INSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS: THE DELAWARE EXPERIENCE
Robert E. Fish and Francis F. Schaefer ......................... 541
STRESSES ON WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMENT DUE TO
ADVERSE WEATHER CONDITIONS'
Richard A. Smith.... .... ............ ..... ............... 555
MANAGEMENT OF MARYLAND'S HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
David A. Schultz and Ernest C. Rebuck ......................... 561






















WATER ALLOCATION AND/OR WATER USE EFFICIENCY
Kenneth Murdock and Charle Brockway. Session Chairmen
THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF IRRIGATION WATER IN THE WESTERN
UNITED STATES
Bruce R. Beattie, Michael D. Frank and Ronald D. Lacewell ............ 572
CROP RESPONSE INFORMATION FOR WATER INSTITUTIONS
Gary D. Lynne and Roy R. Carrier ................ .......... 582
COST SHARING FOR FARM DRAINAGE IN NEW YORK STATE
James F. Dunne and David J. Alee ............................ 598
SHADOW PRICES: AN EVALUATION TECHNIQUE
Richard Greenhalgh and Fred Stewart ............. ........... 609
LAND VALUES: IMPACT OF LAND IRRIGABILITY
Richard A. Schoney ................................... 617

NEW CONSTRAINTS ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE
C. C. Warnick and Jerome Westphal, Sesion Chairmen
DRAINAGE LAW IN ONTARIO
John Johnston. ..................................... 632
BYZANTINE DRAINAGE LAW: PENNSYLVANIA'S EXPERIENCE
R. Timothy Weston .................... ................ 637
IRRIGATION & DRAINAGE: SOCIAL & LEGAL CONSTRAINTS
James W. Kirby............................................. 647
LEGAL PROBLEMS OF STORMWATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Brain D. E. Canter ................... ................. 661
EXPANDING NON-FEDERAL WATER DEVELOPMENT FINANCING
Daniel H. Hoggan and Kirk R. Kimball. ........................ 668
USE OF IRRIGATION DEMANDS IN STATE WATER PLANNING
David F. Kibler, John McSparran and Robert J. Trotter ............... 681

MODELS AS A VIABLE MANAGEMENT TOOL
Roger P. Bean, Sesion Chairman
COMPUTER MODELS AS VIABLE MANAGEMENT TOOLS
BrianW. Mar. ................... .................... 697
EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION IN MODELING ENDEAVORS
Donald E. Overton ................... ................. 705
A HYDROLOGIC MODEL: THE KEY TO STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Thomas N. Debo and Gerald N. Day .......................... 714
HYDROLOGIC MODELS AS PLANNING TOOLS
Harry C. Torno ...................................... 730

"206" STUDIES: INSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL CONSTRAINTS
Robert A. Shelton, Serion Chairman
208 PLANNING: THE ECONOMICS OF CHOICE
A. Hamilton and L. W. Libby ............ ............... 739
























LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN 208 MANAGEMENT
Lee E. Koppelman ....................... .............. 750
NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL STRATEGIES IN FLORIDA
Sheldon Kelman and Armando I. Perez ......................... 766
PLANNING FOR AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION CONTROL
W. Tom Pitts and F. A. Eidsness, Jr. .......................... 784

WATER MANAGEMENT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Gaylord Skogerboe and Gary Lewis, Session Chairmen
SOCIAL CHANGES: IMPACT OF SIWANI CANAL PROJECT
G. P. Malhotra ........................................ 795
STRATEGIES FOR PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION IN DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES
G. L. Corey and Ernest T. Smerdon ......................... 804
PEASANT INVOLVEMENT IN ON-FARM IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT
Nancy Adams, Jack Keller and Bonnie M. Spillman ................ 813
PHYSICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC DYNAMICS OF IRRIGATION
IN PAKISTAN
Max K. Lowdermilk, Wayne Clyma and Alan C. Early ................ 827
MECHANIZED IRRIGATION IN THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Hameed R. Rasheed and Jack Keller ...................... .. 844

CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS. .............................. 860
SUBJECT INDEX ............. .......................... 869
AUTHORINDEX ................... ........... ......... 893























ACKNOWLEDGME1TS


Many organizations and individuals contributed to the success of this
conference. A special note of thanks goes to the cooperating sponsors-
Universities Council on Water Resources, American Society of Agricul-
tural Engineers, American Water Resources Association, and the Ameri-
can Geophysical Union.

The primary driving force for the conference was the two sponsoring
divisions of the American Society of Civil Engineers the Irrigation
and Drainage Division under the direction of Jack Coe and the Water
Resources Planning and Management Division chaired by William Grecco.
The contribution of the Virginia Section, Roanoke Branch, and the
headquarters staff of ASCE should not go unnoticed.

The general arrangements for the conference were made under the direc-
tion of the steering committee Robert E. Fish, Ernest T. Smerdon,
William E. Cox, Roger Barnes, and William R. Walker. It was the two
co-chairmen, Robert Fish and Ernest Smerdon, who were responsible for
the well-conceived "technical" program.

We are grateful to the seventy-three session speakers who lent their
expertise to the conference program. Warren Viessman, Jr., who pre-
sented the keynote address, and William Sangster, Della Laura, and
Frederick Clarke, the luncheon speakers, also contributed to the
success of this specialty conference. Our appreciation is extended to
Walter E. Blessey, ASCE President-elect, who was on hand to present
the awards of the two divisions.

Lastly, our thanks go to the staff members of the Virginia Water
Resources Research Center, who assumed such responsibilities as print-
ing, mailing, registration, typing, visual presentations, photographs,
local arrangements, family program, and entertainment. Special recog-
nition is due to Sandra Birch who coordinated the pre-conference
arrangements, the conference, and post-conference details to facilitate
getting these proceedings into print.

William R. Walker































INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW


The Irrigation and Drainage Division and the Water Resources
Planning and Management Division of ASCE joined together in co-sponsoring
the 1978 National Specialty Conference with the theme, "Legal, Institutional,
and Social Aspects of Irrigation and Drainage and Water Resources Planning
and Management." Both divisions recognized the need for a conference
where engineers and non-engineering specialists in water resources together
considered the host of problems attending the development and management
of vital water resources. The conference planners in both divisions were
aware of the increasing complexity of water management problems and
arranged for attorneys, economists, planners and sociologists to participate
along with engineers.

A timely topic related to many of the papers and discussion was
national water policy. Shortly before the conference the President had
released his position on National Water Policy. The keynote session was
directed to a discussion and critique of the President's National Water
Policy. The final session concerned the input and position that ASCE
should take on this Policy through its Water Policy Committee.

The individual sessions were arranged around sub-themes related
to the overall conference theme covering various subjects of interest and
concern to the two divisions. Numerous papers were presented with
many directed at water laws, institutional, social and economic considerations.
Other papers considered the engineering interface with these non-engineering
elements for effective water management.

The officers of both divisions provided strong support for this
pioneering joint divisional effort to provide a unique National Specialty
Conference on an important water theme. That coupled with outstanding
facilities at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and
strong local arrangements by the staff of the Virginia Water Resources
Research Center led to a highly successful conference.


























Irrigation and Drainage Division and Water Resources Planning
and Management Division Specialty Conference
Blacksburg, Virginia
July 26-28, 1978

Plenary Session, Morning, Wednesday, July 26
"A Word From Our Sponsor".....Jack J. Coe, Chairman, Executive Committee,
Irrigation and Drainage Division


I wish to add my welcome and that of the Executive Committee of
the Irrigation and Drainage Division to that of President Lavery. I am
happy to see so many young people in attendance, especially so many girls.

This is the first joint Water Resources Planning and Management
Division and Irrigation and Drainage Division Specialty Conference. We
in the Irrigation and Drainage Division are pleased with the opportunity
to join with Water Resources Planning and Management Division in this
effort. I am sure that there are many civil engineers who are members of
both Divisions.

I consider the conference already a success based on the program
that's been developed and early reports on registration. Every technical
session is an attraction. I wish to acknowledge the contribution of
Ernie Smerdon, Vice Chairman of our Executive Committee, who assisted Bill
Walker, Bob Fish, and others in developing the program.

Now, a few words about the Irrigation and Drainage Division.
The Irrigation Division was created in 1922, and the name Drainage was
added in 1952. We have a present membership of around 4,800. The purpose
of the Division is to "promote advancement of the field of irrigation and
drainage through an exchange of information". The Division consists of
an Executive Committee, five administrative committees, eleven technical
committees, and three task committees. By the way, let me take this
opportunity to introduce the past chairmen of our Executive Committee
who are in the audience this morning: Maurice Albertson, Jake Stephens,
Al Bishop, and Ken Kauffman.

We have about 150 members serving on our committees. Division
committees arranged for the presentation of 70 technical papers at ASCE
conferences in 1977. Fifty-five papers (517 pages) were included in the
1977 Irrigation and Drainage Journals.

Formal liaison with other ASCE groups is achieved by appoint-
ment of members to serve these groups. We have members on the:

Ground Water Hydrology Committee of the Hydraulics Division.

Committee on the Protection of Tile Lines Crossed by Pipe
Lines of the Pipeline Division.

Task Committee on Non-Point Water Pollution Sources of the
Environmental Engineering Division.

Committee on Metrication.






















The goals of the Executive Committee, as presented to TAC
last January, are:

1. Increase membership in Division.

2. Attract new members to Division committees.

3. Increase number of Task Committees to examine and report on
significant issues.

4. Increase number of committee reports and manuals of interest
to those involved in irrigation and drainage.

5. Increase number of papers submitted for publication in Journal.

6. Improve quality of papers and presentations on irrigation and
drainage at national ASCE conferences.

7. Increase attendance at Division specialty conferences.

8. Increase number of appropriate articles on irrigation and
drainage in ASCE News.

9. Improve liaison with other groups within and outside ASCE
involved directly or indirectly in irrigation and drainage.

Issues and problems presented to TAC for their consideration
were as follows:

1. Lead time required for abstracts of papers for ASCE national
conventions is too long.

2. Present transactions have limited utility. Perhaps earth
Division's Journal papers, including discussions, should be
published in a Transactions.

3. Lag time in having articles published in Civil Engineering
is too long.

4. Too much overlap between technical societies, for example,
ASCE, Irrigation and Drainage Division, and Soil and Water
Division of ASAE.

You are all invited to our future Irrigation and Drainage
Division Specialty Conferences at Albuquerque, New Mexico, July 18-20,
1979, and Boise, Idaho, July 23-25, 1980.

Thank you very much and let's have a great conference at
Blacksburg.


























THE NATIONAL WATER POLICY

By Warren Viessman, Jr.,1 M. ASCE

BACKGROUND

President Carter's May 23, 1977 environmental message to
Congress inaugurated a wide-ranging review of national water
policy. The objective of that study, conducted by the Water Re-
sources Council (WRC), the Office of Management and Budget (0MB)
and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), was to produce
viable options for reform. Topics considered were identified in
a set of "issue and option" papers published on July 15 and July
25, 1977 in the Federal Register. They were:

--revision of water resources planning and evaluation,
criteria and procedures,
--cost sharing,
--policy considerations and alternatives relative to
institutions and institutional arrangements,
--water conservation,
--water quality,
--research, and
--Federal reserved water rights.

In July and August 1977, regional hearings were held in
Minneapolis, Denver, Boston, Dallas, Atlanta, Los Angeles,
Seattle and Cincinnati. Considerable adverse reaction was voiced,
especially from water interests in the western states. Conse-
quently, the Senate passed a resolution, S. Res. 284 (October 1977),
expressing its concern about possible interference with the tradi-
tional State role in water allocation actions and the need for con-
sultation with the Congress.

On February 3, 1978, Secretary of the Interior, Cecil D.
Andrus, met with the Subcommittee on Water Management of the
National Governors' Association. The governors were seeking a
stronger role in the water resources decision-making process; of
particular importance to them was the economic viability of their
regions. Governors in the East were seeking more help for urban

1Senior Specialist in Engineering and Public Works, Congressional
Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.




















2 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES

water problems while those in the West were concerned about their
State-rooted water rights. It was the consensus of the governors
that any national water policy should be the result of a coopera-
tive, national, not primarily Federal, effort. As a result of in-
tense pressures, the President agreed to discuss his water policy
proposals with a delegation of governors before announcing his de-
cision.
Following consultations with Members of Congress, State,
county, city and other local officials and the public, the results
of the water policy review were transmitted to the President by
Secretary Andrus in May 1978. On June 6, 1978, President Carter
presented his Federal Water Policy Initiatives (WPI) to the Con-
gress (1). He said:
I am today sending to Congress water policy initiatives de-
signed to:
--Improve planning and efficient management of Federal water
resource programs to prevent waste and to permit necessary
water projects which are cost-effective, safe and environ-
mentally sound to move forward expeditiously.
--Provide a new, national emphasis on water conservation.
--Enhance Federal-State cooperation and improve State water
resources planning.
--Increase attention to environmental quality.

He further stipulated that the WPI would not impose any new
Federal regulatory program for water management.
The WPI contained positive recommendations on: conservation;
cost sharing; planning procedures; and environmental protection,
but many controversial subjects were avoided and several important
issues were:given only cursory treatment. Of particular impor-
tance is the fact that the water quality-water quantity interface
was not considered, nor was there any proposal relative to the
Federal water pollution control program with its massive outlays
for capital construction.
An analysis of the President's Federal Water Policy Initiatives
of June 6, 1978 follows:

REVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
AND PROCEDURES
Planning and evaluation of Federal water projects and programs
are hampered by the great number of agencies and departments in-
volved and the inconsistencies and complexities of their procedures.
In consideration of the adequacy of the water resources plan-
ning objectives, the President stated that national economic de-
velopment (NED) and environmental quality (EQ) would be retained



















NATIONAL WATER POLICY


and given equal emphasis. In addition, water conservation would
be made a specific component of both of these.

The recommendation to include conservation as an element of
the principal objectives rather than to assign it separate status
appears sound. Conservation is only one of several approaches
which might be used singularly or in concert to meet the Nation's
water development goals. It seems more logical to consider it as
a program than as an objective. Its explicit incorporation into
plans for water resources development should result in more inno-
vative and less structure-oriented designs.

Determination of appropriate roles to be played by Federal,
State and local governments is considered by many to be a pre-
requisite to the solution of most critical water problems. The
WPI gave this subject little attention, but accelerated activity
by State and local governments was implied. These proposed actions
are illustrative:

--Substantially increasing from $3 million to $25 million
the annual funding of State water planning under the ex-
isting 50%-50% matching program administered by the Water
Resources Council (P.L. 89-90).
--Preparation of legislation to provide $25 million annually
in 50%-50% matching grant assistance to States to imple-
ment water conservation technical assistance programs.
--Working with State Governors to create a Task Force of Fede-
ral, State, county, city and other local officials to con-
tinue to address water-related problems.

While increased funding for State water planning is desirable
according to most authorities, the size of the increase proposed
could be questioned. The concept of water conservation technical
assistance programs is also attractive, but a pilot program might
be worth considering before setting a funding level.

Economic analysis of water projects was emphasized in the WPI.
It was stated that the implementation of the Principles and Stan-
dards (P & S) should be improved by instituting consistent proce-
dures for calculating benefits and costs. Such analyses are not
uniformly applied by Federal agencies, and in some cases, benefits
have been improperly recognized, "double-counted" or included when
inconsistent with Federal policy or sound economic rationale. To
provide a mechanism to assure the needed consistency, the WRC and
its member agencies were directed to:

...(1) evaluate current agency practices for making benefit
and cost calculations, and (2) publish within 12 months a
new planning manual to ensure that benefits and costs are
estimated using best current techniques and calculated ac-
curately, consistently, and in compliance with the P & S and
other economic evaluation requirements...


















4 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES

There can be little argument that there is a need to achieve
greater consistency and reliability in economic and other aspects
of project analysis. In this respect, the Water Policy Initiatives
are a forward step. It is noteworthy, however, that the lack of P
& S coverage of federally-assisted projects was not addressed. This
is a significant omission, particularly when one considers that
Federal grants and loans for water projects now exceed direct Fede-
ral funding. Attention should be given to the development of a
feasible mechanism for subjecting P.L. 92-500 projects to standards
analoguous to those which other water projects are required to meet.

The discount rate (currently 6-7/8 percent), greatly influ-
ences the outcome of benefit-cost calculations. High rates favor
projects with low initial investments, while low rates favor capi-
tal intensive projects. Remarking on this subject, the President
stated:

...After careful consideration of a range of options, I have
decided that the currently legislated discount rate formula
is reasonable, and I am therefore recommending that no change
be made in the current formula. Nor will I recommend retro-
active changes in the discount rate for currently authorized
projects.

The WPI, by maintaining the status quo, sidestepped this poli-
tically volatile issue. The level of the discount rate has been
debated intensely for years. Some prominent university economists
and many environmentalists favor considerably higher rates based
upon an opportunity-cost approach, while many pro-development in-
terests consider that the present discount rate includes provisions
for currency depreciation and is therefore too high. There are
also many who believe that the grandfather clause allowing some
projects to use interest rates of a time long past is illogical,
uneconomic and inequitable.

The WPI confronted the issue of excessive focus on structural
approaches to water resources development. It set forth a require-
ment that there be an explicit formulation and consideration of a
nonstructural plan as one alternative whenever structural water
projects or programs are planned. Such plans would incorporate a
combination of nonstructural or demand-reducing measures which
could be employed to achieve the project purpose. Floodplain
management techniques (such as zoning), pricing policies and
groundwater recharge are representative of these measures.

The June 6 Initiatives also addressed problems of non-uni-
formity in project planning and evaluation procedures. It was
stated:

No entity other than the construction agency itself now ef-
fectively monitors water project planning to ensure consis-
tency and accuracy of benefit/cost calculations or compliance
with relevant statutes, regulations or procedures.



















NATIONAL WATER POLICY


An entity is needed to provide an impartial review of all water
projects during the planning phase to assure technical com-
pliance with the Principles and Standards and related laws
and other requirements...

To resolve this problem, the President announced that an inde-
pendent review function would be assigned to WRC. It was also
stipulated that the P & S requirements and the independent review
process would apply to all authorized projects not yet under con-
struction.

The concept of an independent board to review agency proposals
has often been recommended. This mechanism could provide unbiased
evaluations of project analyses and be used to address questions of
safety and environmental impact as well. On the negative side, it
would add another layer to already lengthy review processes and
could aggravate problems of delay. Staffing and time requirements
would need scrutiny and a determination should be made of the nature
and scope of projects to be reviewed. In addition, there is some
question of the advisability of assigning a project review function
to WRC, an agency intended to play a formative role in guiding U.S.
water policy and in developing a national water planning strategy.
Assignment of specific project responsibilities could easily divert
the talents of WRC away from its principal mission. Further, the
review function would place WRC in an adversary position with the
States, a counter-productive move relative to its coordinating role.

Planning coordination was not addressed in the WPI, although
this long-standing problem is well documented and deserving of at-
tention. Of particular importance is the issue of water quantity-
water quality planning and program coordination (3).

COST SHARING

Cost sharing is a critical element of national water policy.
Unfortunately, cost sharing arrangements are presently inconsistent
among programs, purposes and agencies. This disjointed approach
favors: structural over nonstructural solutions; capital-heavy
construction alternatives over more economical solutions (having a
higher proportional cost of operation and maintenance); and high
levels of wastewater treatment over other alternatives such as con-
trol of urban runoff and dispersed sources of pollution (4).

Cost sharing was given considerable emphasis in the President's
Water Policy Initiatives. He stated that the approach proposed
would involve the States more heavily in water project decisions
and eliminate many of the conflicting rules governing cost sharing
for flood control projects. He directed the WRC to prepare, with
respect to the programs of the Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of En-
gineers and TVA, necessary rules, procedures, guidelines or legis-
lation to:





















IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


--require that States provide a legally binding commitment to
contribute a 10% cash share of the construction costs asso-
ciated with vendible outputs of water projects within its
borders plus 5% of the cost of other project purposes. This
would be in addition to existing cost-sharing arrangements.
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) would be exempt from
this requirement;
--provide for the sharing or revenues from vendible outputs
between the Federal Government and the States in proportion
to their respective investments;
--make State cost-sharing requirements mandatory on projects
not yet authorized by law, and voluntary on those projects
authorized but not yet under construction;
--include an annual project-by-project "cap" on State contri-
butions of 1/4 of 1% of the State's general revenues; and
--modify existing cost-sharing rules to require in addition to
the.cost-sharing requirements covered above, a 20% contri-
bution for either structural or nonstructural Federal flood
damage reduction measures. This would equalize structural
measure cost sharing with the existing authorized arrange-
ment for nonstructural flood control measures. This re-
quirement would apply to the three agencies covered above,
plus the Soil Conservation Service.

The President's recommendations on cost sharing may be con-
sidered representative of a cost sharing floor. By requiring that
the States contribute a more substantial portion of project costs,
greater care in setting priorities should result coupled with the
tendency to build the best projects. In addition, it is likely
that those projects selected will have more expansive benefits and
will not be as provincial in their purpose. On the other side of
the coin, is the possibility that if non-federal cost shares be-
come dominant, the national interest will not be well served.

The cost sharing proposals, although suggesting greater con-
sistency than the current situation, do not really achieve this.
As was pointed out in the "Section 80 C Study", there exists a
wide variation in cost sharing levels among purposes, programs and
agencies. For the most part, the President's proposals do not
eliminate these; rather they superimpose an additional five to ten
percent charge upon existing cost sharing arrangements. It is dif-
ficult to understand why the inconsistency problem was not met head
on.

While there are provisions to guard against stiff cost sharing
requirements where larger projects are involved, it is not clear
whether these are sufficient. The condition that the State contri-
bution must be cash and legally committed may be difficult for some
States to accommodate. Problems could occur due to the amount of
funds required, and the State's ability to time its commitment in
light of budgeting cycles and possible uncertainty of revenue to
cover anticipated costs.





















NATIONAL WATER POLICY


Relative to flood damage reduction, it was recommended that both
structural and nonstructural measures require 20% non-federal cost
sharing over and above other requirements. This attempt to eliminate
inconsistency is commendable. It might have been better, however, if
a uniform level had been set for all flood damage reduction measures.
As it now stands, any existing cost sharing provisions would be sup-
plemented with the new proposals. In addition, the exclusion of SCS
projects from the five-percent share for non-vendible outputs results
in a new 20% non-federal share for these projects as opposed to a 25%
share for projects constructed by the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of
Reclamation and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

Although the cost sharing requirements are not applicable to pro-
jects already authorized, it was noted that expedited consideration
would be given those projects for which a State voluntarily guaranteed
these cost sharing contributions. In theory, this is a meritorious
proposal, one which suggests that States sincerely interested in water
development will be accommodated. There exists the very real possi-
bility, however, that poorer States could not comply with this ideal,
thus placing them at a competitive disadvantage.

Legal and institutional aspects of cost sharing deserve attention
but were not considered. Practical assessment and collection proce-
dures and mechanisms for identifying principal beneficiaries should be
carefully assessed and full cognizance given to Federal laws and regu-
lations, State statutes and financial constraints.

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES RELATIVE TO INSTITUTIONS
AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

The avoidance of impairment of environmental values was stressed
in the President's Water Policy Initiatives. This is exemplified by
the actions proposed:

--A directive to the Secretary of Interior and other Federal
agency heads to implement vigorously the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, the Historic Preservation Act and other
environmental statutes.
--A directive to agency heads requiring them to include designated
funds for environmental mitigation in water project appropria-
tion requests to provide for concurrent and proportionate ex-
penditure of mitigation funds.
--Accelerated implementation of Executive Order No. 11988 on flood-
plain management. This Order requires agencies to protect flood-
plains and to reduce risks of flood losses by not conducting,
supporting or allowing actions in floodplains unless there are
no practicable alternatives.
--A directive.to the Secretaries of the Army, Commerce, Housing
and Urban Development and Interior to help reduce flood damages
through acquisition of flood-prone land and property, where


















IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


consistent with primary program purposes.
--A directive to the Secretary of Agriculture to encourage more
effective soil and water conservation through watershed programs
of the SCS.

The WPI emphasized protection of instream flows for recreation,
water quality, aesthetics and fish and wildlife habitats. Though crude,
current estimates of instream flow needs suggest substantial conflicts
with other water uses, notably irrigation and energy resources develop-
ment. In general, the amount of water available for storage or for new
use will be reduced by about 30 to 60 percent for any one selected stor-
age volume and location if present calculations of instream flow rates
are adhered to. Such requirements might well be the most critical water
development issue in a river basin.

There is widespread support for additional research to aid in de-
termining the quantities of water needed to satisfy flow requirements.
In addition, data needs for determining appropriate Instream flows are
ill-defined and comprehensive programs to secure basic data are lacking.
This suggests a research directive to meet these needs, but the WPI con-
tains no such provision.

Improvements in water management associated with the relationship
between groundwater and surface water and the relationship between water
quantity and water quality are urgently needed. The importance of both
issues is well documented. Relative to groundwater, State laws and
court decisions have sometimes failed to recognize that surface waters
and groundwaters are interrelated and often part of the same system.
On this issue, the WPI stated the following:

Management of groundwater resources is essentially a State and
local function although EPA has certain statutory responsibilities
to protect underground water resources in conjunction with the
States. However, the absence of laws and procedures in many areas
has created problems which have resulted in calls for Federal
water resource development.

To improve Federal cooperation with States relative to groundwater,
the President directed the following actions be taken:

--Federal water resource agencies are directed to assess ground-
water problems as projects are planned.
--Federal water resource agencies are directed to work closely
with States and local governments to seek resolution of ground-
water problems.

The WPI recognizes the groundwater problem but does not include any
substantive remedial actions. Federal-State partnerships for develop-
ing model water codes and programs which set conditions on grants and
loans to require cognizance of surface water-groundwater linkages could
provide guidance and Incentives. The recommendations of the National
Water Commission on groundwater management deserve further considera-
tion (5).






















NATIONAL WATER POLICY


Problems related to the water supply-water quality interface stem
mainly from the fact that federally-directed planning under P.L. 92-500
(Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) is conducted outside
the procedures for comprehensive planning developed by the WRC (3). In
addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines do not
fully accommodate the water quantity-water quality interface. Parti-
cular consideration should be given to coordination of EPA's 208, 209
and 303e planning processes with those of major direct Federal programs
related to water quantity. This important issue was not addressed in
the WPI.
It has long been recognized that the varied nature of States'
water rights and the manner in which they are administered have created
problems. Both intrastate and interstate problems have resulted and
inefficiencies in water use have been a by-product. Greater emphasis
could be placed on total water management. To accommodate this, some
modification of States' water rights and/or administrative procedures
seems inevitable. Pricing and cost-sharing mechanisms could be used to
provide incentives.
The States should review their water law doctrines and consider
removing legal impediments to water-saving practices. The Federal
Government, working through the river basin commissions or other re-
gional authorities, could play a useful role in assisting States to
develop statutes that recognize the interrelationship of surface water
and groundwater and provide for integrated management and conjunctive
use of water supplies.

Although the WPI explicitly avoids imposing any new Federal regu-
latory programs, positive steps by the Federal Government to aid the
States in resolving tough water management issues should be encouraged.
The Congress could explore this subject and devise cooperative measures
to facilitate identification and implementation of needed changes. It
could also review the nature of water subsidies, a sensitive issue
avoided in the WPI.

WATER CONSERVATION

It has long been recognized that the exercise of conservation prac-
tices can stretch water supplies and protect water quality. The dif-
ficulty has been in getting people to accept and employ known tech-
nology. The prevailing attitude that more will be provided when the
well runs dry, combined with a widespread lack of concern for the fu-
ture, makes voluntary conservation more wishful than realistic. The
common-property character of water also constrains implementation of
conservation practices. Thus hard-to-make changes in deeply-rooted
institutions such as water rights, organizational structures and long-
standing social customs appear needed. Fortunately, timely incremental
action could bring about revisions in new water development endeavors
and set the strategy for modifying existing operations.
Methods for combating inefficient water use were stressed in the
WPI. The President set forth several initiatives to encourage con-





















10 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES

servation including pricing, technical assistance and Federal program
reforms designed to help alleviate the problems. These include direc-
ting:

--Agriculture, Commerce and EPA to modify financial assistance pro-
grams for municipal water supply and sewer systems to require
appropriate community water conservation programs as a condi-
tion of loans and grants.
--HUD, Agriculture and VA to modify housing assistance programs
to require use of water reducing technologies in new buildings
as a condition of receiving assistance.
--GSA, in consultation with affected agencies, to implement mea-
sures to encourage water conservation at Federal facilities.
--All Federal water agencies to require development of water con-
servation programs as a condition of contracts for storage or
delivery of municipal and industrial water supplies from Fede-
ral projects.
--All Federal departments to review programs and policies for con-
sistency with water conservation principles.

In addition, special emphasis was placed on improvement of irriga-
tion repayment and water service contract procedures under existing
authorities of the Bureau of Reclamation.

There are many who subscribe to obtaining water conservation
through pricing systems rather than by regulation or statute. This is
an over-generalization, however, and in some instances it may be more
feasible to obtain the needed changes by regulatory authority. There
is also merit in conditioning grant and loan programs by requiring es-
tablishment of conservation programs. Determining the nature of these
and how they can be implemented is another matter. The President's
water policy does not clarify this point. Well-intentioned as his
proposals may seem, great hardships and expense could result if the
conditions imposed are ill-devised. Caution should be exercised in de-
termining their explicit nature. In any event, regional, State and
local differences argue against a uniform national policy.

The payoff from conservation practices will depend heavily on de-
velopment of incentives to: (1) incorporate conservation practices in-
to new development; and (2) to modify existing systems to incorporate
the best available conservation technology.

Because large-scale reductions in water use will not be realized
unless existing systems (especially those used in irrigation) are
modified, every effort should be made to determine practical options
for generating such changes. New systems can be designed according to
revised procedures, but the treatment of old systems will require great
care since the cost of their revision may far exceed the owner's ability
to pay.

Relative to groundwater depletion, the water policy directed the
Departments.of Agriculture and Interior:

















12 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH

Unless coordination, planning and implementation of Federal water
research programs are improved, little change from the current situa-
tion can be expected. It also seems that a close, balanced relation-
ship should be sought between water research and water resources plan-
ning processes. Determination of funding levels to permit effective
research on priority issues and provision of mechanisms for translating
this information into budget processes should be given top considera-
tion. While President Carter's emphasis on better water management
suggests the need for a responsive water research program, the WPI is
barren of any pertinent recommendations.

FEDERAL RESERVED AND INDIAN WATER RIGHTS

The President has instructed Federal agencies to work promptly and
expeditiously to inventory and quantify Federal reserved and Indian
water rights. In some areas, States have been unable to allocate water
because these rights have not been determined. The quantification ef-
fort is to focus first on high priority areas, and is expected to in-
volve close consultation with the States and affected water users.
Negotiation rather than litigation is to be emphasized.

The issue of Federal reserved water rights is especially signifi-
cant in the public land States. The problem is that the uncertainty
created in attempting to strike a water budget where there is no quan-
tification of Federal reserved rights makes planning and development
difficult at best.

Special consideration could be given to integrating Federal re-
served rights into existing State water rights systems. Thereafter,
these rights could be subject to court decrees, interstate compacts
or other institutional developments affecting the source of water in-
volved. Establishing a forum outside the judicial system to resolve
Federal reserved rights questions deserves full consideration.

There are many who believe that the Federal Government should pay
compensation to the holders of established water rights that are de-
stroyed or impaired by the exercise of Federal reserved water rights.
It can be argued that water-related investment has been made with full
knowledge of the possible consequences of the exercise of such rights,
yet Congress may wish to guarantee that any disruption caused be
ameliorated by adoption of a compensation mechanism.

The competition between Indian and non-Indian water rights poses
some extraordinary problems. Most Indian reservations predate exten-
sive water development projects in the western U.S., although the use
of water in significant quantities by the Indians has generally de-
veloped in recent years.

The tribes are concerned that water used for energy and other non-
Indian development will adversely affect their water rights and lead to
a depletion of supplies critical for sustaining future economic develop-
ments on their reservations. They seek assurances that their water






















NATIONAL WATER POLICY


requirements will be properly considered in all planning scenarios.

In the President's Water Policy Initiatives, it was stated that:

--The Bureau of Indian Affairs, through the Department of In-
terior, is being directed to develop and submit a plan for the
review of Indian water claims to be conducted within the next
ten years...
--All Federal water development agencies are being directed to
develop procedures to be used in evaluating projects for the
development of Indian water resources and to increase Indian
water development in conjunction with quantification of
rights...

The quantification of Indian water requirements for both short-
and long-range planning horizons is urgently needed and should be given
high priority. The negotiation approach suggested in the water policy
is considered superior by most authorities on Indian water rights. If
it can be accommodated, it should shorten the time span for resolution
of many problems. The ten-year time frame proposed for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs to submit a plan for, and conduct a review of, Indian
water claims does not seem in keeping with the President's instruction
to Federal agencies to "...work promptly and expeditiously to inven-
tory and quantify Federal reserved and Indian water rights." Problems
associated with these rights are already of critical proportions in
some areas and timely action seems warranted. The statement that
Federal agencies should develop procedures"...to increase Indian water
development..." is not consistent with the general tenor of the Presi-
dent's WPI which is to conserve water and to seek non-development al-
ternatives whenever practical. To encourage water development on
Indian lands is to invite more trouble in many water-short regions.
This is not to say that Indian waters should not be developed, but
rather that other options for solving Indian problems should be con-
sidered in planning processes.

A final note of caution is in order. Care must be exercised in
any quantification scheme to assure that "reasonable" not "inflated"
determinations of future water needs result.

SUMMARY

The President's Water Policy Initiatives announced on June 6,
1978, contain needed improvements in cost sharing policies and a
strengthening of environmental considerations in water resources de-
velopment. WRC is directed to improve the Principles and Standards
and to establish conservation as a principal component of the national
economic development and environmental quality objectives of water
resources planning. Many politically sensitive issues were side-
stepped, however, and several topics were presented in generalities
with no substantive remedial action proposed. The WPI contains no
recommendations on water quality, research or planning coordination.





















14 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES

The principal features of the WPI are summarized below:

(1) The Water Policy will not preempt State or local water
responsibilities.
(2) Conservation is added as a specific component of the economic
and environmental objectives of the Principles and Standards.
(3) Consistency is to be achieved in calculating benefits and
costs.
(4) A water project review board within the WRC is to be estab-
lished.
(5) Consistency in cost sharing for structural and nonstructural
flood control alternatives is proposed (legislation required).
(6) A greater degree of non-Federal cost sharing for all water
projects is proposed (legislation required).
(7) Water conservation measures would be a condition for receipt
of Federal grant and loan funds for various purposes.
(8) Planning grants to States would be significantly increased.
(9) A water conservation technical assistance matching grant pro-
gram is proposed (legislation required).
(10) More vigorous enforcement of environmental statutes is being
sought.
(11) More emphasis is to be placed on determining and encouraging
allocation of flows for instream needs.
(12) The Federal agencies are to cooperate with States in solving
groundwater programs.
(13) Federal agencies are to inventory and quantify Federal re-
served and Indian water rights.

REFERENCES

1. Message from the President of the United States, Federal
Water Policy Initiatives. House Document No. 95-347.
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, D.C., June 6, 1978.

2. U.S. Water Resources Council. Principles and Standards for
Planning Water and Related Land Resources. Federal Re-
gister, Part III, Vol. 38, No. 174, September 10, 1973.

3. Universities Council on Water Resources. Workshop Report:
Integrating Water Quality and Water and Land Resources
Planning. Cornell University. Ithaca, N.Y., August,
1976.

4. Universities Council on Water Resources. Review of Water
Resources Policy Options. University of Nebraska.
Lincoln, Nebraska, October, 1977.



















NATIONAL WATER POLICY 15


5. National Water Commission. Water Policies for the Future.
Washington, D.C., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973.

6. National Commission on Water Quality. Final Report of the
National Commission on Water Quality. House Document No.
94-418. 94th Cong., 2nd Sess., U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
Washington, D.C., March 22, 1976.































EDUCATION FOR TECHNOLOGICAL ACCEPTANCE
William M. Sangster
Fellow and Past President, ASCE

INTRODUCTION

This paper proposes to approach one of the author's favorite
themes from a new direction and then to turn it around by suggesting
some special challenges to concerned civil engineers with interests
in water resources problems.

In February 1978 the author was invited to participate in a
conference aimed at the development of a policy for science and
technology in the country of Jordan. This caused him to review the
history of such development in the United States. Due to our
remarkably fortuitous endowment of indigenous natural resources,
a high level of material development has occurred in only slightly
over 200 years. Hence, the results of government decisions on
development have been compressed on to a time scale quite readily
assessed by those without training as historians.

It became apparent during the course of the author's review that
the seeds of certain deterrents to the orderly and rational develop-
ment of public policies on science and technology exist in almost
every nation and culture. The essential role of the educational
system of a nation in its policy derivation manifested itself early
in the study.

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

Until quite recently in the United States relatively free rein
has been given to science and technology and the rapid development
of the country unquestionably derived in large measure from the
resultant freedom of action permitted under this policy. Smoke
filling the air above the valley of the Ohio River in the 1940's
was viewed as a harbinger of a return to an expanding economic climate
after the Great Depression of the 1930's. The sounds of trains, cars,
trucks, and planes were considered symbols of the development of a
transportation system never before attained by any nation in all of
history. The exceedingly strong economy which these developments
(and many others) brought with them carried the ingredients of the
restrictive policies toward technological development which have been
characteristic of the U.S. in the recent past. At this point a look
at the part the American educational system has played in the


Dean, College of Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, Georgia.























EDUCATION


unfolding attitude toward science and technology should be instructive.

Through most of its first 100 years the U.S. was a predominantly
rural society. While public education for all its citizens was an
early goal of the new nation, the vicissitudes of providing food,
clothing, and shelter dictated against the attainment of this goal.
Education, particularly at the college level, was reserved for the
children of the wealthy. As a consequence, early universities in the
U.S. were structured to resemble those of England and were aimed at
the general development of mental capacities rather than at the
provision of vocational tools.

This situation prevailed, with some notable exceptions, until the
passage of the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. Public lands were
provided to establish new colleges concentrating on studies of
agriculture and the mechanic arts. Much of the development of the
tremendous food and fiber production capability and of technology
in general, which has characterized the second century of U.S. history,
can be traced to the establishment of these so-called "land-grant
colleges".

Concomitantly with the land-grant college movement came the
development of other universities, financed both privately and by
state and local government, many of which assembled strong faculties
in science and engineering. It was often claimed that students at
such universities had general educational opportunities available to
them not readily found in the land-grant colleges.

General population increases were noted at each decennial census.
Concurrently, the U.S. was moving closer and closer to the goal of
education for all its citizens.

Under these pressures the land-grant colleges, one by one, began
to alter their essential characteristics and to emulate more closely
the other "multi-versities". Preparation for more contemplative
pursuits became the goal of an ever greater percentage of the total
student population. Inclusion of the humanistic and social studies
became a routine and generally desirable part of the education of
scientists and engineers. However, there was no reciprocal require-
ment of the study of science and technology by other students.

Adding to the deteriorating position of science and technology
in the U.S. is the fact that scientists and engineers have not often
been inclined to seek political office. Such participation in
government policy setting has thus been left to representatives
virtually unschooled in science and technology, but very responsive,
as a result of their education and experience, to the cries of many
well-meaning, but narrowly-interested, pressure groups.

Consequently, we find a government, which is apathetic to
science and technology, unable to devise an energy policy in the
face of the clear necessity for one. We find industries required to
return to a stream the waters used in an industrial process at a
higher level of quality than they possessed when taken from the






















18 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


stream in the first place. We find a Congress decreeing "zero
pollution" by the year 1985. One wonders how lightening-kindled
forest fires are to be restrained from discharging smoke into the
atmosphere or erupting volcanoes are to retain their particulate
discharges. One contemplates some future Congress, in its wisdom,
repealing the Law of Gravity as being not in the public interest.

What makes this history so ironic is that such contemplative
counter-productivity would have been impossible without the general
financial well-being of the population which more reasonably managed
science and technology development brought about.

EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Our educational system must be overhauled so as not to trade one
form of general illiteracy for another of a narrower nature. We must
make sure that in overcoming functional illiteracy we do not produce
technological illiterates. The modern world and its various argots
are increasingly technological in nature and one can operate effective-
ly only if one has at least a basic understanding of the fundamental
principles of science and technology. It is an unfortunate fact that
technological illiterates do many strange things--among them, voting.
In the process they invariably tend to vote into office people who
are, like themselves, unskilled in technological matters, which leads
to the political and legislative difficulties discussed earlier.

The author has long advocated the inclusion of subject matter
from technology in the education of all students who are not specifi-
cally studying in that field. Even a rudimentary introduction would
at least provide some background for more responsible decisions with
regard to technological matters.

Of equal importance is the need to ensure that engineers actually
build on the foundation of humanities and social studies required in
their educational programs. In most countries engineers are recognized
as insensitive technicians who will design essentially anything they
are told by their clients or their supervisors to design. This is no
longer a satisfactory procedure. Engineers must recognize and must
speak out concerning any undesirable social, economic, or humanistic
results of their works. At the same time the engineering profession
must be prepared to support such outspoken engineers in their attempts
to improve the consequences of engineering projects and works.

SPECIAL INTERNATIONAL NEEDS

During the course of the first half of 1978, the author had the
opportunity to visit twenty-eight foreign countries. In most of them
discussions took place regarding American educational systems and the
methods whereby they might be adapted to the local requirements of
the countries visited. In many of the countries there was also a
substantial discussion of the ways in which technology could improve
life in the developing nations of the world.

These recent experiences indicate a desirable goal for the
engineering profession to be the encouragement of a reasonable number

























EDUCATION


of our engineers to turn their attention to the special needs of
developing countries. This is particularly important in water resources
management; hence, the timeliness of this discussion in a Specialty
Conference on Irrigation and Drainage and Water Resources Planning and
Management.

In early July the author participated in a conference in Sierre
Leone concerning the transfer of appropriate technology to rural
societies. In a paper presented at that conference the author dis-
cussed solar-powered pumps for irrigation applications in Africa. The
needs for pumping are so widely dispersed geographically that relatively
small pumps are required, on the order of 1 to 3 kw. Application of
flat-plate collector assemblies and focussing collectors results in a
cost which is so high ($5,000 to $50,000 per kw) as to make this
application virtually useless. Only if the costs can be brought down
to the order to $1,500 per kw can such a system find useful application.

Another application of solar energy which has received considerable
attention in Africa is the use of solar cookers in an attempt to
conserve firewood and thus to prevent the desertification of large
areas of the sub-Sahara region. These cookers, properly operated, can
be very effective in conservation and, in fact, in the cooking process
itself. However, the tribal women who have to use these cookers find
many sources of dissatisfaction with them: they must be operated during
the heat of the day, they must be operated outdoors, they are too
expensive, they are too complicated, they are not traditional, there is
a danger that the users will be burned, etc. As has been shown in
Central America, these complaints can largely be overcome by including
the users in the original design, construction, and erection of these
devices. In addition, the governments involved may be required to
apply forceful measures to compel the use of solar cookers for
-conservation in a manner somewhat comparable to the concept of
increasing taxes to reduce gasoline consumption in the United States.

During the course of the conference in Sierre Leone, it became
clear that most of the work which is being done in applying
technology to rural societies is concentrated on reducing the labor
exerted by men. In many cases this requires the women of the tribe
to do even more work. For example, providing the man with a plow
with which he can plow greater areas in a given period of time will
very likely require the woman to have a larger area to weed and
harvest, and to have more grain to prepare for the table. Since, the
women already work longer hours than the men, such applications of
technology are culturally unsuitable. Constant cognizance of the
social impacts of technology in these very primitive areas could
prevent some of these difficulties.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these recent experiences the author is brought to the
conclusion that a desirable goal for the United States and, in fact,
for countries everywhere would be the following:

Ensure that the education of all college-level students
includes some introduction to technology. At some future






















20 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


time this introduction might well be extended into the
secondary school systems and, perhaps, eventually even into
the elementary schools.

Utilize the humanistic-social preparation of engineers to
ensure that they become and remain sensitive to people's needs.
Inclusion of consideration of these needs in the works of the
engineer can only increase their acceptance and, hence, their
ultimate utility.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs