463 



necessary and identifying alternative ways of meeting these requirements — 

 giving consideration, among other things, to conservation and more efBeient 

 use of existing supplies, increased usability by reduction of pollution, in- 

 novations to encourage the highest economic use of water, interbasin transfers, 

 and technological advances including, but not limited to, desalting, weather 

 modification, and waste water purification and reuse; (2) consider economic 

 and social consequences of water resource development, including, for ex- 

 ample, the impact of water resource development on regional economic growth, 

 on institutional arrangements, and on esthetic values affecting the quality 

 of life of the American people; and (3) advise on such specific water re- 

 source matters as may be referred to it by the President and the Water Re- 

 sources Council. 



V. Observatioxs ox the Resolutiox of the Water Policy Issue 



In the evolution of water policy in the United States, a succession 

 of additional benefits, one by one, became incorporated into the de- 

 sign of ongoing water projects. First navigation, then flood control, 

 then electric power, irrigation, silt control, low-flow augmentation, 

 recreation, and other valuable returns were added to the performances 

 expected of individual structures. At the same time, the geographic 

 scope of water projects also expanded; functional benefits came to 

 be considered in terms of entire river basins, and specialized as well 

 as multipurpose projects came into use as system components. Some 

 projects of low intrinsic benefit were found necessary to round out 

 these systems (an upstream silt-control dam, for instance, to extend 

 the useful life of a downstream reservoir) . Changes in technology im- 

 pacted on the design of water projects: plans needed to be kept flex- 

 ible and short range, to enable them to adapt to further changes as 

 they appeared. On the other hand, the large and costly structures re- 

 quired for water projects sometimes yielded tangible financial benefits 

 so nearly marginal that to demonstrate an excess of benefits over costs 

 required calculation of returns over extended periods (60 or even 

 100 years) at assumed risk-free rates of interest on the invested capi- 

 tal. The resolution of conflicting interests of many classes of benefi- 

 ciary overtaxed the decisionmaking system. Traditionally, there were 

 the issues of private versus public development of economic resources, 

 the issue of conservative evaluation of benefits and insistence on a 

 substantial predominance of benefits over costs versus a generous at- 

 titude toward the balancing of costs and benefits coupled with strong 

 emphasis on additional intangible values. It became evident, more- 

 over, that there were intangible costs as well as benefits: losses of 

 scenic values as well as expanded opportunity for recreation, losses of 

 unspoiled wilderness as well as increased density of tourism and 

 forest camping. 



By the close of the Eisenhower administration, these conflicts, com- 

 plexities, and uncertainties presented impossible obtacles to rational 

 or equitable legislating of water development projects. Multiple struc- 

 tures were found to have multiple shared, and competing benefits. 

 River basin systems, with a limited number of dam sites, offered an 

 infinite array of alternative choices relative to an infinite variety of 

 local and regional impacts, values, hazards, opportunities, and prop- 

 erty rights. There were agreements as to some principles, disagreements 

 as to others, and a general uncertainty^ as to a third group. There was 

 a general agreement as to the essentiality of water development under 



