Principal Investigator: Gene E. Willeke (Georgia Institute of Technology)
Principal Investigator: F. William Kroeck (Georgia Institute of Technology)
Sponsor: GWRI
Start Date: 1970-04-15; Completion Date: 1972-07-31;
Keywords:
Description:
The objectives of this study were 1) to describe the nature and scope of metropolitan water resources management programs; 2) to determine the strengths and weaknesses of existing institutional arrangements; 3) to specify and evaluate a feasible and equitable means of financing metropolitan water management programs; and 4) to suggest ways in which management of water resources in metropolitan areas can be improved.
The study included a literature search, a mail questionnaire of state officials to aid in the selection of study areas, and field interviews with 190 respondents in five Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas: Macon, Georgia; Lansing, Michigan; Charleston, Columbia, and Greenville, South Carolina. Field interviews were conducted according to a plan of questioning rather than according to a fixed interview schedule.
Water management, and the physical, economic, social, and political context within which it takes place, was described for each of the five study areas. Both the similarities and differences among the areas were considered, with special emphasis placed on the difference. Water management, in this study, included the specific functions of water supply for domestic, commercial, and industrial use; storm drainage; collection, treatment, and disposal of sanitary wastes; flood hazard reduction; and recreation.
Water management is treated primarily as a social process. The roles of various participants, the nature of decisions and non-decisions, actions and inactions, functional priorities, intergovernmental relations, management style, and public participation are discussed. The multiplicity of functions and jurisdictional units is discussed in the context of developmental specialization rather than fragmentation.
Conclusions and recommendations are numerous. Many of them center on the issues of accountability, measures of performance, and on revision of the social process of water management rather than on functional and territorial structuring per se. Financing is considered from both efficiency and equity viewpoints, and the importance of viewing water management financing in the context of the financing of other public programs, especially taxation programs, is emphasized.
Specific recommendations are made that apply to the Federal Government, State Governments, local governments and local water managers, local and regional planning agencies, and COGs, consultants, universities, associations and societies, citizens, and citizen organizations. Of special interest to local water managers are recommendations for an expanded program of technical assistance, a floating labor pool, more effective use of consultants, and for more participation in the political process.