14Wildavsky, Aaron. "The Analysis of Issue-Gontexts in the Study of Decision-Making," Journal of Politics, 24, November, 1962.

Lowi, Theodore J. "American Business, Public Policy, Gase-Studies andPolitical Theory," World Politics, 26, July 1964, pp. 677-715; and Lom,"Four Systems of Policy, Politics and Choice," PHlLLjL'L di!'iili?t' ?tlon Review,32, July-August, 1972, pp. 293-310. '

Some recent studies have demonstrated the difficulty of using the Lowiframework to predict policy outcomes. See: Sheffer, Gabriel, "Reversibil-ity of Policies and Patterns of Politics," Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 5,Special Issue 1977, pp. 535-553; Kjellberg, Francesco, ""^Ec'T^rcIes (Really)Determine Politics? and Eventually How?" Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 5,Special Issue, 1977, pp. 554-570; Greenberg, George "D.~7~JeTfea^jrA. Miller,Lawrence B. Mohr, and Bruce C Vladeck, "Developing Public Policy TheoryPerspectives from Empirical Research," American Political Science Review.71, December, 1977, pp. 1532-1543. ----- , - -.

Edner, Sheldon, "Intergovernmental Policy Development: The Importance ofProblem Definition," in Charles 0. Jones and Robert D. Thomas, eds.. PublicPolicy Making in a Federal System (Beverly Hills, California: Sage PubTl^cations Incorporated, 1976).

1 Pt

Thomas, Robert D. "Intergovernraental Coordination in the Implementation ofNat ional Air and Water Po l lu t i on P o l i c i e s , " in Charles 0. Jones and RobertD. Thomas, e d s . . iLE'iLL?;,J^Jlli£i_i5?'liES_J:Il ?_'!. 'iiy^_?L ^iisj^"" (Beverly H i l l s ,C a l i f o r n i a : Sage Pub l i ca t i ons Incorpora ted , 1976).

19Ophuls, William. ji££ L^SiL JiEL'l ^L^"^ ll9JLi!LijiS crf Scarc:ity (San Francisco:W. H. Freeman and Company, 1977).

Distributive Politics Reconsidered—The Wisdom of theWestern Water Ethic in the Contemporary Energy Context*Helen Ingram, Resources for the FutureJohn R. McCain, University of Arizona

INTRODUCIIOy. Distributive politics, where benefits areparcelled out to all active participants and no one losesto benefit others,! is ordinarily condemned for resulting inover-allocated water supplies, inefficient water uses, andno incentive for conservation.2 While this criticism isvalid for past policy choices, we argue here that faceci withthe energy industry's redistributive demand for Western waterand current federal policy likely to restrict further develop-ment of water supplies, a distributive stance on the part ofWestern states is an intelligent policy strategy. The mostdamaging effect of distributive politics in past water develop-ment policy in the West has been hidden costs. Close con-sideration of adverse social and environmental consequenceswere swept aside by Western politicians not wishing to lookthe proverbial gift horse of huge federal subsidies for largescale development projects in the mouth. Today, the

*Eesearch for this article was supported by a grant from the Office ofWater Research and Technology, U.S. Department of Interior, Water ResourcesResearch Act of 1964, PL 88-279.

49

reluctance of the Western states to abrogate the longstandingdistributive rules of equity and mutual accommodation,-* andpermit water transfers to energy development from agriculture,and other uses that can not afford to pay as much for wateras the energy industry, forces the noneconomic costs ofreallocation to be explicitly addressed.

In pursuit of this line of reasoning we will first examinewhat energy development demand for water could mean for theprevailing patterns of water use in the principal river basinin the arid West—the Colorado River Basin. The existingpublic and state legislative attitudes about water allocationand traditional relationships among water users, will then beexamined. Finally, we will explain how the Colorado RiverBasin example shows that, contrary to conventional wisdom, adistributive stance on water may actually force closer exami-nation of the social and environmental costs of energydevelopment.

WATER SUPPLY AND PRESENT USE IN THE COLORADO BASIN. How muchwater actually flows in the Colorado is a matter of some publiccontroversy. The negotiators of the Colorado River Compactof 1922 who allocated 7.5 million acre-feet each to the upperand lower basin, assumed an average annual flow of just under17 million acre-feet. The actual measured virgin flow of theColorado River, during what hydrologists identify as a drycycle, 1931-1968, was 13.1 million acre-feet. The Bureau ofReclamation's more long term reconstructed estimate from 1896is 14.9. Researchers using dendrochronology techniques havecome up with a substantially lower estimate of 13.5 millionacre-feet.4 Whatever the precise amounts in fact available,it is certain that formal allocations to the various states inthe basin and to Mexico have exceeded what is physicallyavailable. The reasons why the overcommitment is not pain-fully obvious is that the states, particularly in the upperbasin, have not yet developed their total allocations. Further,the reserved rights of Indian Tribes have been recognized butnot yet quantified and developed. Given the lack of agreementover numbers, estimates of water supply ought not be taken asgospel. However, one estimate published in a popular journalstating that the river is 120 percent committed and 80 percentdeveloped is probably not far wrong.5 If, as indicated, thereis no unallocated and little unused water in the basin, newclaimants, such as energy development, will have to be servedby reallocation from present uses.

The current pattern of water use varies little among theseven basin states. Table 1 displays how the basin statesallocate their total water supply. Clearly, agriculture isthe largest user of western water, in all states accountingfor at least 80 percent of consumptive use.^ Simply on thebasis of amount of water used, agriculture's share is likelyto be most threatened by other increasing demands.

ENERGY AND OTHER EMERGENT DEMANDS FOR WESTERN WATER. Whilewater is in short supply in the arid Colorado River Basin, theregion is rich in energy resources at a time when such re-sources are scarce. Large formations of coal underlie north-west New Mexico, at Black Mesa on the Navajo and Hopi reserva-tions in northeast Arizona, at the Kaiparowits Plateau inUtah, and throughout western Colorado. Coal development couldtake a variety of shapes. Strip-mined coal could be burned on

50

ctoCO

pa

01

• H

O"draiH0

r H0CJ

.q

CQ

C0

• H

4JCJ

r-i

ft01Q

r-i

ra4 J

0gH

LD[ • ^

cnr H

Ti01

4J

rae

• H

4-JCOH

01f ^

4-10

iHO

MH

COC0

• H

4-101

r H

ftCD

Tl

mT33

V

c• H

4-10ctodl0•d

. . .4-1OJ01

MH1

(DiHUCO

OO

or H

.

to01toto0

l-t

01CJ

c10

ai>c0uM0

3)

c0• H4J

toM0

a(0I>01

X)ra

EH

c0•H4-1

ra01iH

uOJ

01••a MH

• r H

ra TS•H rHfc -H

[2

••a >i

CP4Jc to-H 3c "d

•6« 'S^ >S. '34 >^ "SSo o o o o oCD O O O O O

cnCO

CDCO

COCN

OO

^ cn cnrH CN ^o CO o

OD CJ1

O r-t

ocn

oroCD

COCO

[SI ou

s

ocn

COoCO

ooi—!

COcncn

oo'—1

COO

cnCNJ

ciH01

4-1CO01

ca01

r-

W

CJ

cn

ro

COCO

03

O

i n

0fO

pH

CO

ECD

H

0u

iHOJ

raSrHraCJ

r~fcn

1HM

air-i

'raEH

LO

r-l

r—f•ri

•H a

PO

or H

in

.inCO

oCO^

oM-

SHCO

as

4-1M0

a0)* ;

> i

-d3

4-1tn

OJ

• H

4-1to01

sE0U

014-J

ftra• 0< ;

01uM30

CH

CD.c

MH0

cOJ6

mftOJ

Q

CO0)1 i10

t j j

CJ^• H

C

cn"o

HJ

ra^ 1

m

51

or near the mine sites. An electric power complex alreadyexists in the area where the four states' boundaries cometogether and utility companies and federal governmental agen-cies plan to site in the area a number of additional electricpower plants. Alternatively, stripped coal can be sent inrailway cars or through slurry lines to generating stationsoutside the region. Further, there are plans to convert theregion's coal into natural gas to replace the nation's dwin-dling supplies. The highest grade oil shale deposits in theU.S. are located in northwest Colorado. Government geolo-gists estimate that two trillion barrels of oil may berecovered from these deposits and others in nearby Utah andWyoming. The total amount would be six times greater thanall the proven reserves of crude petroleum on earth, enoughto supply the oil needs of the United States for several cen-turies.'^ Uranium also occurs in the region in large quantities.

However, every recipe for energy development contains"add water" in its instructions. Again, experts disagreeabout the exact numbers but it has been estimated that a one-million-barrel-per-day oil shale development in westernColorado or eastern Utah would consume approximately 150,000acre-feet of water per year. A coal gasification plant inWyoming, New Mexico or Arizona processing 24 million tons ofcoal per year to meet the energy needs of a million peoplewould use about 300,000 acre-feet of water per year. A10,000 megawatt coal-fired thermal electric power plant com-plex in the Four Corners region would consume about 230,000acre-feet per year.^ Were such quantities to be allocated toenergy development of these various kinds, energy would con-sume a much larger share of the available ivater supply. Oneutility executive predicted that 28 to 52 percent of the sur-face water available in the Upper Colorado Basin will have tobe used for energy development.? The Colorado River wouldsoon run short. Weatherford and Jacoby argue that, includingboth projected and planned energy development, the total pro-jected demand for water may well exceed surface supply in adecade.-'- Further, water consumption for energy will meangreater salinity in the already saline Colorado River anddecrease the usefulness of its waters for some purposes.

The demand for water for energy must be understood in thecontext of the number of other emergent demands for water.Redistributive demands for greater shares of the flow arebeing asserted by Indian Tribes, fish and wildlife, mining,recreational, environmental interests, and the rapidlygrowing cities in the West. Were the market mechanism allowedto operate freely, energy would be able to outbid agriculture,certainly, as well as most other users except cities and someindustries. However, Western states have long been unwillingto simply allow water to flow toward money. Past notions ofequity in water have been that everyone gets a share, althoughsome interests have been especially favored. Revenues frommunicipal water users and profits from hydroelectric develop-ment have long been used to subsidize artificially low waterprices for irrigated agriculture. Any massive redistributionof water among users must overcome the hurdle of the Westernwater ethic.

THE DISTRIBUTIVE ARENA OF WATER RESOURCES. The starting pointfor unraveling the politics of any substantive issue is theway in which participants see the stakes in the issue—whatis at risk and who is likely to benefit or incur costs.H

52

Westerners are convinced — scjme say deluded thai: v,ater isdifferent from other commodities.12 They believe thaz abun-dant water is the key to economic prosperity anc; that it isso in-iportant to the quali.ty of life that water supply shoulcibe a governmental re^sponsibil i ty. 13 At the same time";, waterrights, for Westerners, have all the symbolic anci emo-ionalvalue of the Bill of Rights and should be protected ironigovernmental interference. The President of the ColoracioSenate articulatecj this perspective as follows:

Colorado has the doctrine of prior appropriation.We have a water policy that's been developed ovez100 years....We do not want the Federal governmentto come in....Now, if there's anything that shakesup an irrigator or water user in the west, it'swhen you start talking about condemnina his wate--right.l4

The perceptions of stakes in the distributive arena isthat no participant shoulci be forced to lc se to benef;-1others. This is precisely the attitude that Westerners haveabout more water for energy. Table 2 displays the opinionsof a sample of voters and the state senators in four out ofthe seven Colorado River Basin states. While voters anci t.heirrepresentatives are quite willing to allocate more or the sameamount of water to all other users. The distributive orien-tation of the voters is mirrored in the state legislatures.This view is also well reflected m the traditional aecisionrules of water politics which dictate mutual accommodationamong various water users.15

Mutual accommodation and equity among various v ater users,among different localities and different states has, m thepast, been an effective means to put together a package ofmulti-purpose projects in comprehensive river basin billsthat can m.uster broad congressional support. The ColoradoRiver Basin Bill that authorized the Central Arizona Project,for instance, contained a string of hydrologically anci economi-cally unrelated_projects in other states put tocether to gainbroad support.'-' Today, westerners still prefer to deal withwater shortage by building a political coalition for federallysubsidized water development. Many more voters approve thanoppose the construction of interbasin or transmountain diver-sion projects.18 The testimony of the President of theColorado State Senate again illustrates this view:

This is the responsibility of the Federal governnent,not the individual states and I think that when thefederal government looks to the West to developenergy resources to supply the nation as a whole,that your trade-off for this area is to help usdevelop water resources that are not availableto us at this time. Then the choices will be alittle more easy for us so that we •don't have totrade off agriculture for energy development ofsomething of this nature. 1*3

An expanding federal water development pie to serve enercywithout depriving present water users may, however, no longerbe politically feasible. The firm stand of the Carter Admin-istration against federal investment in construction projectsis only the last of a chain of events beginning in the middlefifties that hrsve brought the Bureau of Reclamation to its

53

rafi

ra 3

+•;

c01

CJ

raE4JUJOJ3

4-130CO

OJ

x:4-1

•dCJCJ

T ic

.raCJk

c• H

30r-i

0

OJfi4-1

MH0

fiCJ

raOJ

"dr-H30.Cto

C!0

• H

c• H

a0

k 3 k3 0 3

a

OJ

ucra4-1k00,SH

MH0

0)3COCOH

Cra

oto

HraCOrH

0)to3

kCJ

• P

ra

cH

.

k01to3

kCJ

4-1

ra3

CO30

• H

kIti[>

DlC0

eratoOJ

• r H

4-1-rHk0

• H

k

a0)to

04-1

3MH

CJ

4-1

c• rH

k0)

4-1ID

3

totoOi

r-i

k0

OJEraCO

01

01k0E

4-1010 1

tokCJto3

co oV tn

•H

XCJ

OJgroto

k0

ore

S

cOJCO

raD

Vo

t

cCJ

O COTirakoHO •U 4-1

o

m

in

incn

CDCO

CO

rHCO

CD

CO

o03

CO00

cn

o

inCO

tnCNJ

cn

COCO

OCO

oinCO

CO

CD

ocn

CO

HCD

CO

OD

COCO

O

cn

oOx

CO03

COOD

oCO

oCO

DlkCJ

cM

r~ftoo

• r H

k4JUCJ

r~i

u

c0

• H

-Mu3

0k

•dCJ

4J

raDl

• H

k

uM

OJk3

4-1r-tPV

• r H

kDl<

T iCJCO

raCQ

kCD

4 J

ra

co

• H

4-1

ra01kCJCJ

TS

ara> i

k4Jtfl3

T iCM

DlG

• H

k34-1UraMH3Cras

TiCra

r H

ra

r H

ra• H

4-1

cOJa-d

• H

c;• r H

G3a

• H

to11Pi

raCra

• r H

•d

cH

cn)CJ

•Hk01E

<

CO

cn

oIIc

ckOJ>ooMH

o

34-1

•o3

Odi

IDCkOU

k3o

Ok3OCO

54

knees and new starts of water projects to a virtualThe federal government is now focusing on energy development,embracing subsidies for energy development with enthusiasmreminiscent of the former reclamation zeal to make the desertsbloom by federally funded water development. An entire federaldepartment has been established to promote energy development,millions of dollars are devoted to R and D and a host of eco-nomic incentives are designed to encourage the construction offacilities.

IMPLICATIONS OF DISTRIBUTIVE WATER ETHIC FOR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT.There is evidence that voters in Western states are favorableto energy development. For instance, fifty-six percent ofColorado voters and seventy-seven percent of Utah voters favoroil shale dcivelopment. More than fifty percent of the vt:itersin Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico believe that thebenefits of nuclear energy outweigh the possible hazards.However, a majority of residents in these states are alstnunwilling to suffer iriore air and water pollution to ensure aplentiful supply of energy nor are they willing to suffe renvironmental damages for energy produced in their state andused elsewhere.21 Clearly, residents in the Colorado RiverBasin would like the benefits of energy without having to paycosts. It may well be that they are even unaware of potentialcosts.

The policy-making process in energy is poorly designedto illuminate the implications of energy development tochanging patterns of water use and water quality. The Depart-ment of Energy is separate from water agencies in the Depart-ment of Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency.Perhaps planning proceeds partially abetted by unrealisticallyoptimistic estimates from the Bureau of Reclamation about howmuch water is uncommitted, without explicit consideration ofsocial and e;nvironmental costs of altering the pattern ofwater use. Supplyincj energy to the nation as a whole is likelyto be given a higher priority by the Department of Energy thanthe adverse impacts of energy development on the sparsely pop-ulated but culturally and environmentally delicate region.Unless the Western states combine in defense of their pre-vailing lifestyles, the adverse regional impacts are not likelyto be given much notice.

It is not within the scope of this brief paper focusingupon water to detail all the adverse impacts of energy develop-ment upon the Colorado Basin. Many analysts believe thatimplications for land use, and air and water quality are likelyto be severes, and the boom towns which accompany energy con-struction will impose large social costs on their populations.22It may be that although full scale energy development couldraise per capital income in Western states, the region willstill lag behind the nation as a whole and much of the addedincome might go to immigrants rather than present residents.23Of course, it could be argued that national welfare requiresregional sac:rifice; present residents in the West have no Godgiven rights; and, more per capita income is an improvementeven if the region dc:ies not catch up economically. The impor-tant point here is that the costs to the region cf energydevelopment, including the costs of reallocating water, oughtto be recognized in the policy-making process.

Evidenc:e exists that many Western officials are alreadysensitive to the social implications of reallocating water to

55

energy.24 Dean Mann il lustrates the increasing concern byquoting a report of the Western States Water Council:

There is more to the issue that this dollar com-parison would lead one to believe. The socialcost of water used for energy production is thevalue of all those uses that are sacrificed tomake water available for energy. We are comingto realize that almost no diversion of water or newuse can be introduced without a sacrifice beingmade. Even water 'in stream' or 'in aquifer' isdifficult and involved, yet new uses or diversionsshould be undertaken only when they can bejustified.25

When the nation is in the grip of a new crisis—in thiscase energy--the costs of solutions are frequently overlooked.This is especially true when those who bear the cost areunaware. The Colorado River Basin states lack a coherentstand on energy. They have, however, a well developed stanceon water allocation. So long as Westerners continue to per-ceive water as a priceless birthright and refuse to allow themarket mechanism alone to determine water allocation, energydevelopers will have to justify their use of a larger shareof water by more than just the exercise of economic power.If, as Yehezkel Dror has prescribed, "the quality of the bestpossible policy-making increases as a function of the in-creases of available policy knowledge"25 then there is unreg-nized wisdom in the prevailing Western water ethic that forcesa public debate over redistribution of water resources basedon concerns other than ability to pay.

REFERENCES

Lowi •States tha t In many instances of d i s t r i b u t i v e p o l i c y , the deprivedcan not as a c lass be i d e n t i f i e d because the most i n f l u e n t i a l among themcan be accoiimiodated by fur ther disaggregat ion of the s t akes . See TheodoreJ. Lowi, "American Business , Publ ic Po l icy , Case-Stiidies, and P o l i t i c a lTheory," Wor^lji^PoUt^ic^, 26, Ju ly , 1964, p. 690.

See, for in s t ance . Dean E. Mann, " P o l i t i c s in the United S ta tes aod theS a l i n i t y Problem of the Colorado River ." Katural Resources Jou rna l , 15,January, 1975, pp. 113-128; Helen Ingram, "The P o l i t i c s of Water Al loca t ion ,in Values and Choice in the Devel_c3£menJ^_C)j _.ii]_Arid Lan_^d_Riv_er ji j sijij TheColorado River Basin, D. F. Peterson and A. B. Crawford, eds. (Tucson:Univers i ty of Arizona P r e s s , 1978).

ilelen Ingram, "The Changing Decision Rules in tbe P o i i t i c s of Water Devel-opment," Water Resources B u l l e t i n . 8, 19 7?. p. 1177.

Gary D. Weatherford and Gordon C. Jacoby, "impact of Energy Developmenton the Law of the Colorado River ," Nimjral R_c;_scni_rc_es__J cnirjia_l, January, 1975,pp. I71-2W. '" ' '^ '

"George Sibley, "The Desert Empire," Har£ers_ , 255, Octoher, 1977.

Gary Weatherford, "Allocation of the Water Resource: Energy Aspects;Bureau of Reclamation and Its Programs," workshop materials. Conference onEnergy and the Public Lands (Park City, Utah: August 23-26, 1976)•

Neal B. Pierce, The Mountain States of America (New York: Norton, 1972),p. 48.

Q

Task Force on Water Resources and Uses, Final Report, Rocky MountainEnvironmental Rescjarch, Quest for a Future, 1974, p. II-H-5.

9

Needs for Faster Water Litigation Cited,' Tucson Star, November 18, 1977.

Weatherford and Jacohy, p. 187.

Lowi, 1^^. cit.

See, for instance, Maurice Kelso, "The Water-Ts-Different Syndrome or WhatIs Wrong With the Water industry," Proceedings of the Third Annual Confer-ence of the American Water Works Association, 1977.

Maurice Kelsc:), William Martin and Lawrence Mack, Water Sci|)pJJ.es andEconomic Growth in an Arid Environment: An Arizona Case Study (Tucson:University of Arizona Press, 19 73), p. 23.

Statement of Senator Fred Anderson, Water Resources Policy Study PublicHearings, Record of Question and Answer Period (Denver, Colorado, July28-29, 1977), Department of Interior Files.

Helen Ingram, loilz cit.

The Four Corners Policy Study administered mail questionnaires to a sampleof registered voters and State Senators in 1975 and 1976. Procedures weredesigned to obtain a high rate of return. Voter response rate: Colorado—78.1%; Utah--64.4%; Arizona—77.4%; New Mexico—71.2%. Senators' responserate: Colorado—83%; Utah—93%; Arizona—70%; New Mexico—51%. Questionsranged over a variety of issues including water, energy, and the environment.

Helen Ingram, Patterns of Politics in Water Resource Development: j\ _Ca_se§tudy of New Mexico's Role in the Colorado River Basin Bill (Albuquerque:University of New Mexico, Division of Government Research, 1964), D. 14.

18Southwest Policy Project.

19Fred Anderson, Water Resource Policy Study.

See, 0. Stratton and P. Sirotkin, The Echo Park Controversy (The IntercaseProgram, 1959); H. Ingram, Patterns of Politics in Water Resource Develop-ment: A Case Study of New Mexico' s Role in the Colorado River Basin Bill;R. Nash, Wilderness anci the American Mind (1967), pp. 161-181; E. Richard-son, Dams, Parks and Politics (1973).

21Southwest Policy Project.

For an assessment of some of the costs see Federation of Rocky MountainStates, Inc., Energy Development in the Rocky Mountain Region: Goals andConcerns (Denver, 1975). Also, Donald Ropp, Western Boomtowns: A Compar-ative Analysis of State Actions (Denver, Western Governor's RegionalEnergy Policy Office, June, 1976). Also, Leonard D. Bronder, NancyCarlisle, Michael Savage, Jr., Financial Strategies for Alleviaticrn ofSocioeconomic Impacts in Seven Western States (Denver, Western Governor'sRegional Energy l^olicy Office, May, 1977).

2 3Conclusion repor::ed from Trends and Perspectives Project, Gomponent ofSouthwest Region Under Stress Project, Allen V. Kneese, Director, AnnualMeeting, Albuquerque, November 4-5, 1977.

57

Dean E. Mann, Water Policy and Decision-Making in Ihe Colorado River Basin,Lake Powell Research Project Bulletin Mo. 24, July, 19 76, p. 14.

25 Western States Water Council, Western States Hater Requirements for EnergyDevelopment to 1990, Salt Lake City, Utah, November, 1974, p. 34, quoted inDean E. Mann, Water Policy and Decision-Making.

Yehezkel Dror, Public Policy-Making Reexamined (San Francisco: ChandlerPublishing Company, 1968), p. 9.

THE NATIONAL CONTEXT

Energy as a Disorganizing Concept in Policy and AdministrationTerry D. Edgmon, North Caro/ina State University

Prior to the energy crunch of the early 1970's, energy wasnot widely utilized as an organizing concept in public sectorpolicy formation and implementation. While some institutions,such as the Federal Power Commission, were organized toaddress in a direct manner specific aspects of energy policy,the management of energy resources and their use was usuallya secondary consequence of the activities of hundreds ofagencies and bureaus on all levels of government. The AtomicEnergy Commission, the bureaus in the Department of Interior,the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the Federal PowerCommission to name a few, operated in separate and distinctpolicy areas, relatively independent of each other. Theypursued goals which in many cases gave energy managementactivities a low priority.1 Today with Congressional Commit-tee reorganization and the Department of Energy, many energymanagement functions on the federal level have been consoli-dated and centralized on the cabinet level. A major questionexists, however, if this reorganization will provide for thedevelopment and implementation of energy policies which willconfront and manage the energy problems of the 1980's andbeyond.2

The purpose of this paper is to broadly review our pastenergy organizing concepts, patterns of energy politics, andemerging energy "ideologies," so as to assess the potentialimpact of the latest federal energy reorganization upon energydecision-making. It is the author's contention that energy,because of its seeming abundance in our recent past, has led usto ignore its significant ramifications for social organiza-tion. As energy prices climb, we will have to not only alterits allocation, distribution, and consumption, but also the webof social organization and institutions which have developedupon past, but obsolete, patterns of energy use. Such altera-tions may have a significant impact on the level of controlgovernment exerts on our lives and the consequences and impli-cations of centralizing energy decision-making must becarefully scrutinized.

A review of the organizational changes since 1973 indicatesthat our perceptions of energy and its significance to societyis in a rapid state of flux and our past complacency on energyquestions has given way to uncertainty as our conventionalorganizational and policy concepts have failed us.

58