Disintegrated Water Resources Management in the U.S.: Union of Sisyphus and Pandora

Abstract

‘‘With the turn of a switch on New Year’s Day, the federal government finally did what it has threatened to do for years: It reduced the flow of water from the Colorado River that has helped California Coastal cities bloom.’’ ~The Washington Post, Jan. 6, 2002!. The Clinton Administration had pressed California for years to reduce its share of Colorado water, and California pledged to come up with a plan by New Year’s Day 2003. But an agreement brokered by the state broke down at the last minute because of concerns of farmers in the Imperial Valley about potential liability for environmental damages in the Salton Sea, which is currently sustained almost entirely by irrigation return flows. Utilities and their customers will have to find new ways to conserve, and the cost of water will inevitably go up. This scene is being replayed many times over throughout the United States, in large systems ~Missouri River, Appalachicola River, Florida Everglades! as in small ones. Many small, ~and seemingly disconnected! decisions are being made about water management, without any apparent larger, guiding national philosophy that could be directly related to the principles of integrated water resources management ~IWRM! or sustainable development ~SD!. It was a relatively harsh step for the federal government to take, but in the absence of a clear national policy on water resources, it was a wakeup call to the state of California that they must do more and take more responsibility for effective and efficient water management within their state and river basin boundaries. And this action, de facto, constitutes a policy in the sense of Arthur Maass’ ~1951; p. 3! dictum that ‘‘@P#ublic policy is being formed as it is being executed, and it is being executed as it is being formed.’’ But policies are statements of societal goals, or are directives for achieving goals. In many cases today, policies are simple administrative substitutes for marginal tinkering with the status quo. Since there is no real water ‘‘crisis’’ in the U.S. yet, this incremental adaptation may be all that is required for the time being. But we must begin to think of the future in a more comprehensive way. The Maass dictum is at the core of ‘‘adaptive management.’’ It is the mantra of the ‘‘new age’’ water and environmental managers—learn, refine, improve, and implement as you go. It is a more purposeful form of ‘‘autonomous adaptation’’ that has successfully brought us to the point we’re at in the U.S.: freshwater withdrawals and water use has steadily declined since its peak in 1975; streams are cleaner and water is progressively being reallocated for ecological purposes. But adaptive management is inherently incremental in nature, continuously spawning a plethora of new rules, good ideas ~as well as bad ones!, and procedures that are dispersed indiscriminately, continuously adding new threads to the growing ‘‘Gordian knot’’ of public policy. IWRM and SD requires a future-oriented management plan—it is