Exclusive focus of water management on the water resource system can be a major constraint to the solution of certain water problems. Water quality protection is one management area where land-use considerations are a fundamental factor in achieving water management objectives. Focus on treatment of wastes at. the- discharge point has been a partially successful approach, but realization has n o w been given to the fact that achievement of water quality objectives in m a n y areas will require attention to land-use decisions. Choice of the type and density of land development activities m a y have overriding influence on future water quality that cannot practically be reversed by attempts to treat wastewater.
Flood d a m a g e reduction provides a second example where interaction between water management and land use is obvious. Governmental programs for controlling floodwater through such means as impoundments, channel improvements, and levees have produced beneficial effects but cannot reduce flood damages to an acceptable level if used alone. A n approach including controls on use of flood plains along with traditional flood control methods has greater potential to produce acceptable results.
Efforts to integrate land-use considerations into water management is complicated by several factors. In s o m e countries, public sector involvement in land-use decision making m a y be substantially less than in the case of traditional water management activities. Such public sector involvement in land-use control as does exist is likely to involve an organizational structure for administration independent of the water m a n a g e -ment framework. Regardless of these difficulties, however, water policy should recognize the interactions between water and land use and provide for their consideration in relevant decision processes. In addition, the water m a n a g m e n t program must attempt to influence land-use decisions in pursuit of water management objectives.
1.3(f) Social aspects of water management
T h e deficiencies of m u c h past water management activity have arisen in large part due to the assumption that water management is primarily a technical activity involving physical manipulation of physical systems.
While the technical aspects of management are important, m a n a g e m e n t has fundamental social dimensions that must be fully incorporated into decision-making processes.
The incorporation of social considerations into water management is necessary to establish and achieve m a n a g e m e n t objectives and to avoid undesirable social impacts. Failure of m a n y water management projects to achieve their objectives can be attributed to lack of attention to social aspects of activities essential to accomplishment of the objectives. F e w technical operations affecting water resources are sufficient in themselves to accomplish their intended objectives.
Provision of domestic water supply and improved
sanitation facilities does not ensure improvement in health. Provision of irrigation water does not guarantee desirable increases in agricultural output. Generation of electricity from a hydropower facility does not necessarily lead to industrial development. In each of these examples, achievement of the objective requires a variety of complementary actions, m a n y of which are fundamentally related to socio-cultural factors.
Consideration of such factors therefore must be a basic component of the water management process.
Consideration of social factors is also essential for avoidance of unintended adverse social consequences as a result of water management activities. T h e most obvious of such impacts is the dislocation of the population from land areas needed for projects such as reservoirs. But m a n y more subtle impacts are possible. Water policy should provide for identification and evaluation of social impacts to allow water management decisions to be m a d e in awareness of such consequences and with consideration of possible mitigation measures.
1.3(g) Environmental aspects of water management
Unanticipated environmental degradation has been a frequent consequence of water management activities, particularly where reservoirs and other large-scale facilities have been constructed. Environmental impacts often take the form of biological disruptions. Water in the natural state is an essential element of the ecosystems upon which living organisms depend, and all alterations of natural water conditions have potential to produce adverse effects. These adverse effects belatedly have been widely recognized as contributing negatively to social welfare, which water development is intended to advance.
O n e of the factors responsible for traditional lack of attention to such effects has been lack of knowledge.
Although some h u m a n activities created noticeable environmental disruptions at an early date, the consequences of m a n y activities were obscured by natural variation in environmental systems and the ability of such systems to absorb impacts and continue to function, although perhaps in a less than optimum manner. Understanding of the functioning of natural ecosystems has increased greatly in recent years, but m u c h remains to be learned. W h a t has been learned dictates caution in future water resources development and use due to the continuing discovery of n e w mechanisms of environmental injury.
A m o r e basic reason for traditional lack of concern for environmental impact has been an overly narrow formulation of social welfare. Prevailing attitudes and values at an earlier period in s o m e nations tended to equate all activities leading to economic growth and increase in material prosperity with increasing social welfare. To the extent that adverse environmental consequences were recognized, they were either explicitly or implicitly relegated to a position of little significance. Attitudes and values have undergone change in recent decades, and environmental values
have significantly increased in standing as a component of welfare.
This increased standing has led to major efforts to minimize impacts of water development projects. In fact, efforts to protect environmental values associated with the water resource have gone beyond an attempt to limit the impact of water development to include concern for the total impact of socio-economic development. In addition to generating efforts to minimize adverse impacts, changed attitudes have also resulted in expansion of management objectives to include preservation and enhancement of selected water environments. For example, programs to set aside part of the resource to be preserved for its scenic and other natural characteristics have been adopted in s o m e nations (Goodell, 1978).
Degree of recognition and status of environmental values continue to vary a m o n g nations, however.
Attention to environmental protection has tended to lag in the developing countries. Protection of environmental values is likely to receive less attention where basic needs such as nutrition are not being met.
Environmental management has become a political issue in m a n y of these nations, but governmental programs m a y continue to be symbolic efforts only (Khator, 1984). But neglect of environmental conditions is a short term approach with possibly serious long term repercussions. Environmental quality must be viewed as a universal concern since environmental degradation can lead to health problems and a deterioration in the quality of life in both developed and developing countries. T h e desirable balance between economic growth and environmental quality m a y be different in the developing country as compared to the developed nation, but total neglect is not a reasonable approach. National policy must establish standards of environmental quality and principles to ensure consideration of environmental conditions within water resource management programs.
1.4 Facilitating public participation
Increased public participation in water management activity has been a major development in recent years.
Although significant obstacles to effective public participation still exist in m a n y situations, the traditional view that water management is the sole province of technical specialists and governmental officials has been modified substantially.
T h e importance of public participation to water management effectiveness arises due to the extensive social dimension of water management. Realization of water management objectives requires integration of water management technology into daily practices governed by the socio-cultural framework. Failure of water managers to thoroughly consider this framework has been an important factor in the frequently disappointing results of management efforts. Partic-ipation of those to be affected by and responsible for implementation is the most direct approach for incorporating the socio-cultural factor into decision making.
2 . W a t e r legislation
Water legislation is the principal formal expression of policies and procedures that define a water management system. While form and content of legislation will vary with national circumstances, the need for such legislation is universal since a well-defined framework is essential to rational and consistent decision making.
A major function of water legislation is the definition of the individual components of the management system, delineation of their respective responsibilities, and provision of necessary coordination mechanisms.
Because of the m a n y interactions between water and h u m a n activities, water m a n a g e m e n t activities necessarily have a broad scope. This situation creates substantial potential for conflicting actions a m o n g individual governmental agencies but m a y also result in neglect of certain management functions not specifically assigned within the management frame-work. While a degree of flexibility must be maintained, legislation should define basic responsibilities to an extent necessary to ensure the operation of the management system as a whole.
Since water management involves the individual actions of a large n u m b e r of water users, water legislation also must define the rights and appropriate constraints relative to such activities. T h e absence of well defined rights can lead to conflict and m a y result in a reduction in the contribution of water to socio-economic development.
2.1 Evolution of water legislation
T h e extent of the need for water management activities to be defined by legislation varies with national conditions. T h e need generally increases as d e m a n d s for water and related services rise and therefore is likely to be greater at higher levels of development. Under favorable water resource conditions where few problems exist, complex legislation is not likely to be necessary; however, the need to define a basic management framework arises at an early stage of development. Interactions between water and socio-economic processes are important at all levels of development and require consideration within appropriate decision processes. Formalizaton of procedures for such consideration through incorpora-tion into law is an important step in the development of an effective water management system and the overall insitutional framework for social governance.
Water legislation is not static but must evolve in response to changes occurring during the socio-economic development process. While a trend toward greater amounts of legislation generally accompanies increasing development, change also involves modification of existing law to ensure continuing consistency with changed conditions. L a w appropriate under one set of conditions m a y become inadequate and even b e c o m e an impediment to effective management under n e w conditions. A n important function of the water management system therefore is to assess continually the adequacy of existing legislation and to identify necessary changes for addressing newly emerging management needs.
3. Water planning
Planning is a pervasive activity within socio-economic development processes since it is the. means by which present conditions, trends, constraints, and opportu-nities are analyzed to provide information to guide future action. Because of variety a m o n g the applications and contexts of planning, general agreement concerning the nature and role of planning is lacking. Comparisons of planning a m o n g nations indicate basic differences in philosophical views.
Nations with "centrally planned" economies generally will view governmental planning as a more fundamental activity than will those nations placing greater reliance on markets for economic decision making. Nations in the latter category engage in planning, but the absence of direct mechanisms for implementation results in diminished standing for planning.
S o m e w h a t related to these differing views of the role of planning are differences in views regarding the appropriate scope and comprehensiveness of planning (Faludi, 1973). At one end of the spectrum is the
"rational-comprehensive" model, which generally can be described as a systems approach to planning. Basic characteristics of this approach are its attempt to encompass a comprehensive range of factors and its long-range perspective. T h e rational-comprehensive approach tends to view planning as a process of objective analysis of alternative means of achieving predetermined ends that reflect a socially desirable view of future conditions (Meyerson and Banfield, 1955).
Because of the broad scope of considerations and the long-term perspective adopted in this approach, the product of rational-comprehensive planning tends to be a planning document intended as a guide to future action. Such documents tend to focus on facility needs and identify projects to be constructed over the planning period.
In an opposing view, k n o w n as the "incremental"
approach, the rational-comprehensive concept is seen as too idealistic in its underlying assumptions regarding political decision-making processes and the ability of planners to m a k e accurate long-range forecasts, particularly in societies with relatively decentralized decision processes. T h e incremental approach focuses on short-range adjustments from current conditions.
In this approach, policy making, planning, and implementation of decisions are seen as iterative processes without distinct boundaries of separation (Lindblom, 1959). Less emphasis is placed on preparation of a "plan" while more attention is given to policy analysis and mediation of interest group conflict.
Since these models represent extreme views, neither is a totally acceptable approach without modification.
T h e comprehensive approach can become too Utopian if preoccupied with the distant future and u n m a n a g e -able if applied to increasing levels of detail. T h e incremental approach is inadequate if taken to m e a n that the narrow, short-range perspective is always to be adopted to the total exclusion of consideration of interactions a m o n g issues and the long-range perspective. A realistic strategy must combine elements of both approaches. T h e broad, long-range view can
be exercised at a relatively high level of generalization without attention to detail while the more pragmatic incremental approach can be employed to address immediate problems within the context of actual political processes (Etzioni, 1967).
Planning has both a predictiveand a declarative role.
It is predictive w h e n it attempts to forecast future conditions resulting from forces outside the influences of the planning organization. In this situation, the planner is a disinterested analyst not attempting to promote change. A completely detached status is difficult to maintain because of the m a n y opportunities for the planner to interject value judgments into t\\e analysis. But planning is not always conducted from a premise of neutrality; it often is conducted as an agent of change, and the planner becomes an advocate of a particular course of action. T h e posture of the planner is largely determined by the location of the planning organization within the m a n a g e m e n t structure and the nature of the authority conveyed by laws and other relevant institutional factors (Beckman,
1964; Davidoff, 1965; D y c k m a n , 1961).
Water resources planning is a specialized application of planning theory and practice that focuses on water management problems and opportunities within the context of general socio-economic conditions. Water planning cannot be conducted in isolation but must recognize the pervasive nature of interactions between water and h u m a n activities. Planning is the means by which water-related demands and impacts of the various sectors of an economy can be analyzed and appropriate water management actions formulated.
Water planning is also a mechanism for increasing awareness of water management issues within other sectors and the general public and exerting influence within other decision-making processes. T h e ability to increase awareness is important to the development of public support for water management activities. T h e capability to influence action by those w h o use and otherwise impact the water resource has increased in importance as the range of water management options has increased to include strategies based on modification of water use and land use in addition to strategies based on hydrologie modification
3.1 Levels of planning
In order to accomplish its diverse functions, water resources planning is generally conducted at several levels (Petersen, 1984, pp. 10-11). T h e term "strategic planning" or "framework planning" is often applied to the broadest level of planning. Such planning generally includes assessment of resource conditions and analysis of trends in water-use practices and other activities affecting the water resource. T h e need to consider m a n y factors and their interactions requires a relatively comprehensive scope, but the process is kept manageable by maintenance of a general level of analysis. This broad analysis provides a basis for identification of future water problems and general management actions necessary for addressing such problems.
Strategic planning examines the overall role of water in socio-economic development and establishes a general framework for action within water m a n a g e m e n t programs. It provides a basis for allocation of resources a m o n g competing interests, identification of needs for actions to protect environmental quality, identification of the potential for flooding or other d a m a g e and possible needs for avoidance measures, and identifi-cation of needs for storage for water supply or other purposes. W h e r e water problems and the need for management activities are indicated, strategic planning provides a framework within which m o r e detailed but more narrowly focused planning can be conducted.
Strategic planning also has impacts external to the water management program by articulating policies and strategies that inform others of future directions and increase awareness of water problems and m a n a g e m e n t issues.
Strategic planning is often supplemented by m o r e intensive levels of planning. Regional planning and river basin planning are c o m m o n examples of an intermediate level of planning between the strategic level and detailed project planning. Planning at the intermediate level generally studies the preliminary feasibility of a series of management actions for addressing water problems within a river basin or other area. At this level, problems resulting from cumulative impacts of socio-economic development can be assessed and interactions a m o n g individual water m a n a g e m e n t activities evaluated.
At an even m o r e detailed level, project-implementation planning evaluates the relative feasibilities of specific water management alternatives and.recommends a preferred option based on forecasts of conditions with and without each of the alternatives.
This investigation typically includes such components as preliminary design studies, economic analysis, environmental impact assessment, social impact assessment, and financial analysis. T h e following sections review basic issues associated primarily with the project planning process although they have s o m e applicability to other levels of planning.
3.2 Forecasting
A central feature of planning is the estimation of future conditions to provide a basis for assessing potential problems or evaluating the effects of alternative means of addressing potential problems. In the case of water planning, a basic application of forecasting is the prediction of levels and types of future activities that affect d e m a n d for water services. Forecasting must also predict future water resource conditions. Water conditions change not only in response to specific management activities such as project implementation but also in response to development activities that modify natural hydrologie processes and to broader potential influences such as climatic change. Thus forecasting involves estimating conditions that will exist both in the absence of management activities as well as conditions that would result from implementation of such activities.