Part II Along the American RiverCHAPTER ONE Along the American River A merica’s rivers are an integral part of ... and coasts. The placement of subjects in these chapters is only

27

Part II

Along theAmerican River

29

C H A P T E R O N E

Along theAmerican River

America’s rivers are an integral part ofthe nation’s heritage and wealth.

They are simultaneously sources of waterfor drinking, irrigation, and industry;conduits to move people and products;nurturers of both aquatic and terrestrialbiodiversity; and treasure troves of scenic,historic, and recreational pleasure.

From the nation’s birth through aboutthe 1950s, the story of the American riveris largely about taming its force. Publicand private efforts were aimed at reduc-ing the risks of floods, providing assuredsupplies of water for cities and industry,and bringing water to the vast, largelyarid West.

In the 1930s and 1940s, many of thenation’s rivers were little more thanhandy receptacles for municipal wasteand industrial toxins. They had becomeputrid stews carrying waterborne disease,threatening human health, and destroy-ing plant and animal resources. Partly inresponse to the damage done to thenation’s waters in the first half of the 20th Century, the national focus beganto shift to water quality in the 1950s.Over the next four decades, a massiveinvestment was made to reduce point-source pollution and improve the qualityof the nation’s rivers.

In the 1990s, truly remarkable andexciting changes are taking place in thenation’s collective thinking about rivers.

• People and institutions increasinglythink about rivers in holistic terms,either in the context of watersheds oras interconnected systems that mayspan hundreds and even thousands ofmiles from headwaters streams toriver’s end in estuaries and oceans.The old adage that “we all live down-stream” has never been more relevant.

• Massive floods in recent years haveunderscored the complexity of riversystems and the need for comprehen-sive planning. Responding to prob-lems such as catastrophic floodingreveals the complexity of environmen-tal problems: there are many sourcesof stress, and many, varied solutions.

• Escalating costs of highly engi-neered structures and the federal bal-anced budget imperative have creatednew opportunities for locally led initia-tives. Instead of driving top-down solu-tions, federal agencies now promotecollaborative planning with earlyinclusion of all interested parties atthe local and state level. Broaderinvolvement of all interested groups

often leads to more creative, moreinformed, and more cost-effective solu-tions. Groups that traditionally didn’tcommunicate are now finding com-mon interests.

The extent of watershed-level activity isremarkable. From Rivers Unlimited inOhio and Idaho Rivers United to theAlabama Rivers Alliance and AmigosBravos in New Mexico, citizen groupsacross the country are adopting water-sheds as their organizing principle. Some3,000 river and watershed organizationsare listed in the 1996-97 River and Water-shed Conservation Directory. Watershed‘96, a conference sponsored by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency andothers, drew 2,000 participants in thespring of 1996.

National groups such as River Net-work, Know Your Watershed, PacificRivers Council, American Rivers, TroutUnlimited, the Appalachian MountainClub, Restore America’s Rivers and othersare playing diverse roles as advocates,communicators, and teachers.

States have moved forcefully. Florida,Wisconsin, Massachusetts, New York,Texas, and Maryland have passed legisla-tion or established specific programs todeal with clean water and other issues atthe watershed level.

North Carolina’s “whole basinapproach” to water quality protectionfocuses on coordinating and integratingall program activities for each of thestate’s 17 major river basins.

Resources are mobilized to assess allwaters in a basin and develop a manage-ment plan that targets priority problems

and pollutant sources. These plans pro-vide a basis for management decisionssuch as National Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES) permitrenewals, enforcement, and monitoring.

At the national level, numerous effortsare underway to look more broadly atenvironmental problems. After the tragic1993 floods in the Midwest, the adminis-tration created a Floodplain ManagementTask Force that produced a multivolumereport, paving the way for numerous sub-sequent changes in the federal approachto floodplain management. An Intera-gency Ecosystem Management TaskForce also produced a massive review ofthe opportunities and impediments toimplementing an ecosystem approach toenvironmental management.

Federal agencies now recognize theneed to work together as well as with stateand local governments and the privatesector. For example, Coastal America—apartnership of 11 federal agencies and theWhite House Council on EnvironmentalQuality—helps build partnerships amongfederal agencies, the states, and non-governmental organizations.

This edition of Environmental Qualityuses “The American River” as an extend-ed metaphor to describe environmentalproblems and opportunities along thecourse of a river. While the focus is onrivers as an organizing tool, a broad rangeof other environmental issues will be con-sidered.

A few cautionary notes are in order:• In chapters 3-6, the discussion isorganized in terms of the distinctivesegments of a river, beginning withheadwaters and ending with estuaries

Along the American River

A L O N G T H E A M E R I C A N R I V E R30

and coasts. The placement of subjectsin these chapters is only illustrative; itis not meant to imply that such activi-ties occur only in these segments of ariver.

• The lines between “urban” and“rural” are increasingly blurred; mostwatersheds today are characterized bya mix of land uses, some predominant-ly “urban” and some predominantly“rural.”

Though much of the discussion con-siders the impacts of human activities onwater quantity and quality, the real pointof this report is to think broadly about thecomplexity of environmental problems,about the many groups that have aninterest in environmental problems, andabout challenges posed by indirect andcumulative effects that are not easilyunderstood.

Watersheds and their component parts—upland drainage areas, rivers, streams,lakes, and estuaries—are a useful focalpoint because they integrate nearly allaspects of the environment. In assessingany particular development, governmentsmust consider a broad array of potentialeffects on a stream, including impacts onwater quality and quantity, riparianforests, wetlands, wildlife corridors, andaquatic habitat, to name just a few. Envi-ronmental managers also recognize thatwatersheds are often the units that actual-ly define a problem, and are more rele-vant than state or national boundarieswhen considering natural resources man-agement.

The well-known phase, “Think Glob-ally, Act Locally,” has a great deal of

merit. This report is a reminder that act-ing locally is a vital part of our efforts toprotect the environment, and that muchnew thinking and acting is occurring atthe local, state, and regional level. As welearn more about environmental prob-lems, it is also a reminder that the gapbetween local, regional, national, andglobal thinking and action is not as wideas we may think.

FROM DEVELOPMENT TOSTEWARDSHIP

The state of America’s rivers reflectsour national and political history, not tomention the many thousands of years ofnatural history that preceded the arrivalof the first settlers from Europe.

As settlers moved from east to westacross the United States in the 18th and19th centuries, rivers were the principalroutes of movement, and riverbanks werethe first places to be settled.

Steamboats, needing wood for fuel,were responsible for much of the earlyloss of riparian forests. Soon thereafter,early settlers began clearing forests foragriculture (Figure 1.1). This historicland-use pattern permanently changedthe environment in much of the Mid-west, but proved more transitory in otherregions of the country. In the Northeast,for example, extensive clearing was com-mon until the mid-1800s, when farmingbecame unprofitable and farms wereincreasingly abandoned. In PetershamTownship in central Massachusetts, near-ly 85 percent of the land was cleared by1850; today, forests have returned to


C H A P T E R O N E 31

about 90 percent of the township, andmost of the cleared land is devoted to res-idential development.

The historic pattern of clearing forestland along rivers has remained a relative-ly common feature of the American land-scape until recently. Prior to settlement,woody riparian vegetation covered anestimated 30-40 million hectares in thecontiguous United States; by the early1970s, at least two thirds of that area hadbeen converted to non-forest land usesand only 10-14 million hectaresremained wooded. In much of the aridWest, the Midwest, and the Lower Missis-sippi River valley, riparian forests havebeen reduced by more than 80 percent.

Along the Willamette River in Ore-gon, for example, the streamside forest in1850 extended up to 3 kilometers on bothsides of a river characterized by multiple

channels, sloughs, and backwaters. By1967, government-sponsored programsfor forest clearing, snag removal, andchannelization had reduced theWillamette to a single uniform channelthat had lost more than 80 percent of itsforest and land-water edge habitats. Agri-culture, logging, and urbanization all hadimportant environmental impacts,increasing runoff of silt, nutrients, andpollutants into rivers and lakes. Increasedsilt and nutrients, in turn, began a processof euthrophication that killed many desir-able plants and encouraged the growth ofnuisance plants and algae. The loss ofnative plants and chemical changes inthe water subsequently led to a loss of ani-mal species, including fish and waterfowl.

In the region around Lake Mendota,Wisconsin, the conversion to agriculturewas largely complete by the 1870s. By the1880s, large blooms of blue-green algae



1946 1966 1978 19890

5

10

15

20

num

ber

of s

peci

es

Figure 1.2 Aquatic Plants in

University Bay, Lake Mendota,

Wisconsin, 1946-1989

Source: Nichols, S.A., R.C. Lathrop, and S.R. Car-

Study of Lake Mendota, Wisconsin (Springer-Verlag,

penter, "Long-term vegetation trends: a history," in

Kitchell, J.F. (ed.), Food Web Management: A Case

New York, 1992).

1850 1880 1920 1950 1978 19920

200

400

600

800

1,000

mill

ion

acre

s

Cropland

Grassland

Forest

Other

Figure 1.1 Major Uses of Land

in the Contiguous United States,

1850-1992

Source: Daugherty, A.B., Major Uses of Land in the

United States, 1992 (USDA, ERS, Washington, DC,

1995) and earlier reports.

were common. By 1989, roughly a centu-ry later, about half the lake’s species ofaquatic plants were gone (Figure 1.2).The beds of wild celery that once sup-ported canvasback ducks and other migra-tory waterfowl and the native pondweedsthat were vital nursery and rearing habitatfor many fishes had also disappeared.These beneficial plants were largelyreplaced by coontail and an exotic,Eurasian watermilfoil, both of which havelow food value for fish and wildlife. Deep-water insect populations began to declinearound 1950. Native fish populationshave declined by about one third (Figure1.3); the causes include overfishing, habi-tat loss, the disappearance of native aquat-ic plants, and the stocking of the lakewith predatory fish for game purposes.

The loss of native plants and animalshas been especially severe in our lakes,rivers, and other waters. By 1989, in spiteof conservation and restoration efforts,over 100 species of freshwater fishes wereadded to the threatened or endangeredlist and more than 250 were in danger ofdisappearing.

The Changing Federal Role

The early history of water resourcesdevelopment in the United States has twofocal points: the effort to reduce the risksto human life and settlements posed byfloods, through the construction of dams,levees, and other measures; and the effortto take greater advantage of the economicbenefits of water, by providing an assuredsupply of water for irrigation, industry,and public consumption.

In both cases, the nub of the problemwas the unpredictability of precipitationand water supply in much of the nation,and particularly in the states west of the100th Meridian. The area east of the Mis-sissippi River typically receives more thantwice as much annual rainfall as the areawest of the Rocky Mountains (Figure 1.4)(Box 1.1).

The federal authority to regulate waterstems from an 1824 Supreme Court case,Gibbons vs. Ogden, in which the courtconfirmed the federal government’s powerto protect and promote navigation underthe commerce clause. The navigationauthority became the constitutional foun-dation for federal regulation of water use.

Congress and the Supreme Court his-torically interpreted the commerce clausequite broadly, citing it as the federalauthority to develop water resources forirrigation, hydropower, flood control, andmunicipal and industrial water use, aswell as to prevent environmental degrada-



1920 1970 1980 19890

3

6

9

12

num

ber

of s

peci

es

Figure 1.3 Cumulative Loss of

Native Fish from Lake Mendota,

Wisconsin, 1920-1989

Source: Magnuson, J.J. and R.C. Lathrop, "Historical

changes in the fish community," in Kitchell, J.F. (ed.),

Food Web Management: A Case Study of Lake Men-

dota, Wisconsin (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992).

tion or restore past environmental dam-age.

After the turn of the century, the fed-eral government assumed a much largerrole in water resources development. TheReclamation Act of 1902 gave the federalgovernment a major role in the develop-ment of a vast infrastructure of dams,canals, and other structures to supportirrigated agriculture in the West, generatepower, and provide water for municipaland industrial usage. The New Dealtransformed the Bureau of Reclamation’sprogram into a regional water develop-ment program, building large storagereservoirs to support irrigated agricultureand urban growth. Hoover Dam, whichwas built to augment supplies for Califor-

nia’s Imperial Valley and for Los Angeles’growing needs, became the model formore large multiple-purpose projects thatbegan during the Depression and contin-ued in the 1960s. In all, the Bureau ofReclamation constructed some 133 waterprojects in the West.

At about the same time, the ArmyCorps of Engineers began to expand itsflood control mission. The Corps builds,operates, and maintains navigation chan-nels, reservoirs and levees for flood con-trol and incidental uses such as hydro-electric power generation. The Corps’navigation authority also became a limit-ed form of river basin management, asflood control and navigation objectivesrequired the Corps to plan and manage



Figure 1.4 Mean Annual Precipitation in the United States

Source: Adapted from National Climatic Data Center, Climatography of the United States No. 81.

Precipitation varies from 0 to greaterthan 100 inches in Alaska.

Precipitation varies from 16 to 400inches in Hawaii.

Precipitation, in inches 0 to 1011 to 2021 to 30

31 to 4041 to 60

61 to 100Greaterthan 100



Box 1.1Trends in Precipitation

In an average year, about 9 percent of the contiguous United States is unusually dry and about 9percent is unusually wet. But there is considerable variation in these numbers. In 1983, 36 percentof the country experienced unusually wet weather. In the Dust Bowl year of 1934, almost half thecountry—48.8 percent—was extremely dry. (See Part III, Table 6.2)

For the nation as a whole, precipitation trends have been generally above normal during the 1970-96 period, especially since 1992 (Box Figure 1.1). In both 1995 and 1996, roughly one fourth of thecountry experienced unusually wet weather (Box Figure 1.2). In addition, much of the country hasbeen struck by natural disasters in the past few years. During July and August 1993, devastatingfloods hit the lower Missouri River, the upper Mississippi River, the Illinois River, and many of theirtributaries. Thirty-eight lives were lost, and estimated damages were between $10 billion and $16billion.

1900 1916 1932 1948 1964 1980 1996-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

stan

dard

ized

z-s

core

Index Trend

Source: See Part III, Table 6.1.

Box Figure 1.1 Precipitation Index, 1900-1996

1900 1916 1932 1948 1964 1980 19960

10

20

30

40

50

perc

ent a

rea

Drought

Wetness


Box Figure 1.2 Severe to Extreme Wetness

and Drought, 1900-1996

on a basinwide scale. The Department ofAgriculture also had a dam-building rolethrough its Soil Conservation Service(now the Natural Resources Conserva-tion Service), which financed small damson the upper reaches of watersheds.

The reclamation program was origi-nally envisioned as a way to support thedevelopment of small farms in the West.That program limited water deliveries to160-acre tracts (320 acres when both ahusband and wife held title), with projectcosts to be repaid in 10 years by the bene-ficiaries. But most projects could notmeet the repayment obligation, so repay-ment periods were progressively extendedand the costs of project water and powerwere subsidized in various ways. The sub-sidies included interest-free repaymentcharges and the use of an “ability-to-pay”standard for cost recovery, which allowedReclamation to shift some of the repay-ment obligations from irrigators to hydro-electric power generation. The acreagelimitation policy and subsidies have longbeen criticized as economically ineffi-cient and environmentally unsound.

The generation of hydropower alsoemerged as a major part of the federalrole in water development. Several con-troversies over hydropower developedover the course of many decades. Onekey issue concerned whether the federalgovernment or private utilities wouldcapture the benefits of prime dam sites.The Federal Power Act of 1920 allowedprivate access to hydroelectric sites sub-ject to a federal license. Since then,power generation has evolved into amixed system of privately and publiclygenerated power.

Rivers and coastal waters are alsoimportant for waterborne commerce.The water transportation system includesharbors, ports, channels, wharves, locksand dams. Some commercial water facili-ties are constructed and maintainedunder federal programs, while others arelocal or private. For example, the CoastGuard operates the “aids-to-navigation”system, enforces safety and pollution pre-vention regulations for the design andoperation of vessels and marine facilitiesalong coastal waters, and, with EPA,coordinates response to oil and hazardousmaterials spills.

Other federal agencies also have animportant role in water issues. The Fishand Wildlife Service (FWS) and theNational Marine Fisheries Serviceadminister the Endangered Species Actand the Fish and Wildlife CoordinationAct, to protect species threatened by afederal activity or where private actionsmay harm species when water is removedfrom stream channels.

The era of building large dams for tra-ditional needs such as flood control,water supply, and irrigation is now essen-tially complete, though the nation willcontinue to develop its water resourcesfor recreation, some additional water sup-ply, environmental enhancement, navi-gation, and probably some low-headhydro. The nation has about 75,000dams, including some 2,600 large damsthat each store more than 6 million cubicmeters of water. Water storage in reser-voirs increased to 445 million acre-feet.(Figure 1.5).



The Emerging FederalConservation Role

The rise of the conservation move-ment and of federal conservation pro-grams has had an important impact onwater resources development.

In the first half of the century, fish andwildlife impacts were generally a minorissue in the construction of federal recla-mation projects. Early responses includ-ed authorizing agencies to construct fishladders and hatcheries, create wildliferefuges, and operate reservoirs in a man-ner consistent with fish and wildlife pro-tection. Until 1958, fish and wildlife pro-tection was generally a permissible butminor use of water. The 1958 Fish andWildlife Coordination Act mandated thatfish and wildlife receive “equal considera-tion” with other project purposes, and theNational Environmental Policy Act of1969 (NEPA) became a major new vehi-cle for the evaluation of fish and wildifeimpacts in pending federal projects. The

Endangered Species Act of 1973 requiredfederal agencies or licensees to take allnecessary steps to preserve endangeredspecies.

The original focus of the Wild andScenic Rivers Act of 1968 was to preserveprime undammed rivers. Since then, theprogram has broadened its focus to riverand corridor protection generally. About10,000 river miles are protected by theWild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Watershed protection also has been afocus of federal activities since the late19th Century. The 1897 Organic Admin-istration Act, which provided manage-ment authority and direction for the for-est reserves, expressed the congressionalintent that forest reserves be managed forboth timber production and watershedprotection. The Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 included watersheds asone of the specific multiple uses, alongwith outdoor recreation, range, timber,and fish and wildlife. The National For-est Management Act of 1976 directedthat guidelines for the creation of forestplans consider watershed protection, andthat no harvesting should take place inareas where irreversible watershed dam-age could occur. Forest Service regula-tions require planners to evaluate haz-ardous watershed conditions, provideinstructions to avoid or mitigate damageat specific sites, and give special attentionto 100-foot wide riparian zones alongperennial streams, lakes, and other waterbodies.

The Bureau of Land Management(BLM) operates under generally similarmandates. The Federal Land Policy andManagement Act of 1976 included



1895 1925 1945 1965 19850

90

180

270

360

450

mill

ion

acre

-fee

t

Figure 1.5 Reservoir Storage in

the United States, 1895-1990

Source: Ruddy, B.C. and K.J. Hitt, Summary of

Selected Characteristics of Large Reservoirs in the

United States and Puerto Rico (USGS, Reston, VA,

1988) with updates by W.B. Solley, USGS, 1997.

resources dependent on watershed pro-tection as part of BLM’s multiple-usemandate. The Public RangelandsImprovement Act of 1978 recognized theserious deterioration of public rangelandsand directed BLM to take rehabilitativemeasures to restore viable ecological sys-tems. BLM is paying increasing attentionto the protection of riparian areas andstream ecosystems. The agency has theauthority to exlude livestock from sensi-tive riparian areas, but is not required todo so.

The National Park Service (NPS) hasa strong watershed protection mandate,but has limited authority to deal withimpacts to park resources that arise out-side of park boundaries.

By the 1950s, the importance of man-aging land uses to achieve water supplyand quality goals was understood. Whileplans were being approved for majorflood control works, agricultural forcesargued for a program of flood controlupstream in small watersheds. The con-cept combined structures for flood con-trol with the idea of reducing erosion,runoff, flooding, and sedimentation.

The Watershed Protection and FloodControl Act of 1954 established a mecha-nism for the Soil Conservation Service(now the Natural Resources Conserva-tion Service) to work on small watershedsof no more than 250,000 acres. The goalsof the Small Watershed Program includeflood prevention, watershed protection,and water management. Projects includea combination of land treatment, struc-tural, and nonstructural measures toenhance natural resource managementand improve economic and social condi-

tions in watersheds. Local groups, orga-nized into legally recognized bodies, arecentral to the development and successof these projects. Groups provide land,easements, rights of way, and operationsand maintenance inputs. With stronglocal involvement, projects reflect com-munity priorities and serve to bringtogether disparate interests to solve mutu-ally identified problems.

Today, the concept of watershed pro-tection to address water supply issues hasreturned to the fore of water resourcemanagement approaches. The primarilystructural approaches characterizing theearlier part of this century are giving wayto more holistic approaches, incorporat-ing nonstructural approaches and otherconservation practices that enhancewatershed function. The approach isbased on a simple premise—that manag-ing precipitation where it falls is the mosteffective and efficient solution to tamingthe river.

A comprehensive flood managementstrategy could include nonstructuralapproaches such as maintaining or restor-ing wetlands to hold precipitation, return-ing parts of watersheds to native vegeta-tion, and increasing the moisture-holdingcapacity of soils. Healthy wetlands are par-ticularly efficient at cycling moisture andcontribute to a favorable distribution ofwater—absorbing water when it is plenti-ful and releasing it gradually.

The many efforts underway to managewater more efficiently also are paying offin terms of recent reductions in totalnational water withdrawals (Box 1.2).





Box 1.2Trends in Water Withdrawls

During the period from 1950 to 1980, water use rose faster than the rate of population growth, increas-ing from about 184 billion gallons per day in 1950 to 445 billion gallons daily by 1980 (Box Figure 1.3).Over half of the 1980 total was used for industrial purposes—primarily thermoelectric power—andanother third was used for irrigation, including water applied both to agricultural crops and pasturesand to recreational lands such as golf courses. Public water supplies represented only about 8 per-cent of total national water withdrawals. Between 1980 and 1995, the nation’s total water withdrawalsdeclined nearly 10 percent to 400 billion gallons per day, including an 11 percent decline in irrigationwater use, an 11 percent decline in thermoelectric use, and a 39 percent decline in commercial andother industrial use (Box Figure 1.4). While U.S. population continued to grow steadily, the downturnin water withdrawals suggests some improvements in water-use efficiency, though other factors suchas variations in annual precipitation also affect such measures. (See also Part III, Table 6.3)

In the case of agriculture, for example, irrigators are using water more efficiently. Nationally, averagewater rate applications have dropped 14 percent since 1970. Between 1982 and 1992, 11 million moreirrigated acres were managed with water conservation systems. Cropping techniques such as terrac-ing can increase the water available for use in a watershed. Conservation plantings can promote infil-tration of rainfall, capturing more water for use by agriculture and communities.

Another factor is the decline in irrigation in the West and increase in the East, where irrigation watertends to be used as a supplement.

Groundwater is one of the nation’s most important natural resources. About 40 percent of the nation’spublic water supply and more than 30 percent of the water used for irrigation is provided by ground-water. Groundwater provides 96 percent of the self-supplied domestic freshwater use in the UnitedStates. It is the nation’s principal reserve of freshwater and represents much of the nation’s future watersupply.

Depletion of groundwater in some regions has reached significant proportions. Moreover, increases inwithdrawals from the nation’s groundwater systems are expected to occur in future years as a resultof increased irrigation in certain regions, water needs for industry and growing urban areas, limited newsurface reservoir capacity, and the desire to establish water supply systems that are not easily affect-ed by droughts.

1900 1945 1970 19950

100

200

300

400

500

billi

on g

allo

ns p

er d

ay

Public supply

Rural

Irrigation

Thermoelectric

Other

Box Figure 1.4 U.S. Water Use

by Sector, 1900-1995


1900 1945 1970 19950

100

200

300

400

500

0

100

200

300

mill

ion

gallo

ns p

er d

ay

popu

latio

n, in

mill

ions

Box Figure 1.3 Population

Growth and Water Use in the

United States, 1900-1995

Source: See Part III, Table 1.1 and Table 6.3 .

Population

Water use

Water Rights

State law usually governs who has theright to use water and how those rightsare administered. In the East, wherewater is generally abundant, the ripariandoctrine is used, which entitles stream-side owners to make reasonable use ofthe water flowing past their land providedthat their use does not unreasonablyinterfere with the use of others.

Under the prior appropriation doc-trine in the West, the right to use water isestablished by putting the water to a ben-eficial use. When there is not enoughwater for everyone, users under the ripari-an doctrine will share reductions propor-tionately, while those under the priorappropriation doctrine will be appor-tioned water under the principle of “firstin time is first in right.”

Federal reserved water rights are a spe-cial case. The Supreme Court has heldthat when the United States withdrawsland from public domain and reserves itfor a federal purpose, by implication itreserves sufficient water to accomplishreservation purposes. The doctrine has itsroots in the context of water rights onIndian Reservations, but was later extend-ed to other federal reservations, such asNational Parks and Forests.

The Federal Role in WaterQuality

The Clean Water Act’s National Pollu-tion Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) provides a permitting mecha-nism to limit the amount of pollutionthat can be discharged into receiving

waters from industrial and sewage treat-ment plants, as well as from other sourcesthat can affect water quality (Figure 1.6).Technology-based performance require-ments have been issued for over 50 kindsof industries; collectively, they reducepollution loadings from industries byabout 90 percent. Municipal sewagetreatment plants in most areas arerequired to provide at least secondarytreatment, to assure that 85 percent ofconventional pollutants flowing throughthese plants, such as organic waste andsediment, are removed.

Water quality standards are set by thestates for every body of water, subject toEPA approval. These include a designat-ed use (such as drinking water or recre-ation), specific criteria to protect those



Figure 1.6 Point Source

Discharges, circa 1992-1995

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Permit

Conventionalindustrial (32%)

Toxicindustrial (1%)

Combinedseweroverflows (41%)

Sewagetreatmentplants (25%)

Compliance System, unpublished.

Note: Totals include: sewage treatment plants, 3,318

million pounds in 1992; combined sewer overflows,

5,340 million pounds in 1992; toxic industrial, 146

million pounds in 1995; and conventional industrial,

4,170 million pounds in 1995.

uses, and provisions to prevent degrada-tion of water.

The law also provides funding to helpstates and local governments protect andimprove water quality. The original 1972act established a construction grants pro-gram, in which the federal governmentagreed to pay up to 75 percent (laterreduced to 55 percent) of the construc-tion and design cost for municipal treat-ment plants. From 1972 to 1990, the pro-gram provided nearly $54 billion infederal assistance; state and local govern-ments contributed over $20 billion.

Amendments to the act in 1987 begana transition from grants to loans throughstate revolving funds. Localities now mustrepay the cost of construction financing.Federal contributions (83 percent) to thefunds are matched by states (17 percentof total capitalization). Although loansupport under this program has focusedon financing municipal sewage treat-ment, loans may now be used forstormwater management, wetlands pro-tection, and projects that reduce agricul-tural and urban runoff, if they are part ofa state’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Plan.

The transition from grants to loans hasmeant a substantial increase in the shareof wastewater treatment expendituresborne by local governments. The pro-gram has also been an effective way toleverage limited dollars. Over a 20-yearperiod, an initial federal investment canresult in the construction of up to fourtimes as many projects as a one-time fed-eral grant. With new streamlined require-ments, state revolving loan fund projectsare completed about 30 percent fasterthan those funded with grants. The typi-

cal cost of a state revolving fund loan isabout 30 to 50 percent less than the costof the same project funded through thecommercial bond market. For more onpoint-source pollution controls, seeChapter Five.

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act,which mandates national primary drink-ing water regulations, EPA and the statesregulate about 55,000 public communitydrinking water systems that serve over247 million people. In 1996, 83 percentof the population were served by commu-nity systems with no reported violationsof drinking water standards, 12 percentwere served by systems with one or moreviolations of maximum contaminant lev-els (MCL), and 5 percent were served bysystems with violations of water treatmenttechnique standards (Figure 1.7).

Water quality remains a significantproblem in the nation’s rivers, lakes, andestuaries. According to the 1996 EPANational Water Quality Inventory, which



1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 19960

10

20

30

40

50

mill

ion

peop

le

Figure 1.7 Population Served by

CWSs with Violations of Health-

based Standards, 1991-1996

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Safe

Drinking Water Information System, 1997.

Note: CWS = Community Water System.

surveyed about 18 percent of the nation’s3.6 million miles of rivers and streams,about 60 percent of surveyed rivers and

streams showed good water quality andsupported their designated use and 8 per-cent were in good condition but threat-ened. About 30 percent were impaired—supporting their designated uses onlypartially or not at all (Figure 1.8).

One or more sources may impair anygiven river or stream. Siltation and nutri-ents were the pollutants most often foundin surveyed rivers and streams, eachaffecting 18 percent and 14 percent,respectively, of all surveyed river miles(Figure 1.9). Agricultural activities werethe most widespread source of pollution,generating pollutants that degradedaquatic life or interfered with public usein 25 percent of the surveyed river miles(Figure 1.10).

Nonpoint Pollution. It is generallyagreed that the framework of pollution



supporting (60%)

Threatened (8%)

Impaired (31%)

Figure 1.8 Overall Use Support in

U.S. Rivers and Streams, 1996

Note: Based on an assessment of 18% of U.S. river


and stream miles.

Fully

Priority organicsToxics

ThermalInorganics

TurbiditypH

HydromodificationSalinityMetals

Suspended solidsHabitat alteration

PesticidesEnrichmentPathogens

NutrientsSiltation

0 35 70 105 140

thousands of impacted miles

Figure 1.9 Leading Causes of Pollution in U.S. Rivers and

Streams, 1996

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, National Water Quality Inventory: 1996Report to Congress, Table A4 (EPA, OW, Washington, DC, 1998).

control standards, technical tools, andfinancial assistance provided by theClean Water Act has greatly reducedwater pollution from industries, sewagetreatment plants, and other point sources,but for a variety of reasons has been con-siderably less successful in reducing pol-lution from nonpoint sources. Otherapproaches have been effective in reduc-ing nonpoint pollution, but have notbeen widely implemented. Conservationactivities, for example, have generatedsubstantial benefits for water resources byreducing runoff, sediment loads, erosion,and nutrient use.

A wide variety of federal programs areintended to reduce nonpoint pollution.Sources of nonpoint pollution include airdeposition, cropland, livestock, urbanrunoff, storm sewers, construction sites,

mining, logging, and drainage from wastedisposal sites.

Under the Clean Water Act, EPA hasprovided over $570 million through fiscal1997 in grants to states, which are passedthrough to farmers, ranchers, small busi-nesses and local governments to supportthe design and implementation of practi-cal measures to address polluted runoff.The Clean Water state revolving fundprogram is also a significant source offunding for nonpoint pollution controlprojects, providing $659 million since1988, with the potential to fund a muchlarger share.

The Department of Agriculture alsohas numerous programs that address non-point pollution. The 1996 farm billmerged the Agricultural ConservationProgram (ACP), Great Plains Conserva-



DevelopmentCombined sewers

PetroleumConstruction

SilvicultureLand disposal

ChannelizationIndustrial

Riparian lossUrban runoff

MiningNatural

Habitat lossHydromodificationMunic. discharge

Agriculture

0 45 90 135 180thousands of impacted miles

Figure 1.10 Leading Sources of Pollution in U.S. Rivers and

Streams, 1996

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, National Water Quality Inventory: 1996Report to Congress, Table A5 (EPA, OW, Washington, DC, 1998).

tion Program, Colorado Basin SalinityControl Program, and Water QualityIncentive Projects into the Environmen-tal Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).EQIP funding is capped at $200 millionfor each year through 2002. The programis available to farmers and ranchers inpriority areas identified through the local-ly led conservation process and wherethere are significant threats to water andsoil and related natural resources.

CASE STUDIES

The causes of environmental changehave varied from river to river, and haveincluded urbanization, industrial devel-opment, agriculture, and the construc-tion of dams and canals. In general, itappears that for many rivers pollution wasmost severe in the 1930 to 1950 period,with gradual improvement or restorationsince then. The Delaware River and Bay,the South Florida ecosystem, and theSan Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem pro-vide three contrasting examples.

Case Study: The Delaware River and Bay

Several studies, including a 1975CEQ report and a study by Ruth Patrick,have described the environmental historyof the Delaware River.

Arriving in the Delaware Valley in1678, the first Quaker settlers built tan-neries, brickyards, and glassworks. Thesewere soon followed by forges and fur-naces to smelt and shape iron ore andgrain mills to grind corn, wheat, and rye.Lumbering became an important indus-

try, with communities on the Bay supply-ing wood to shipyards and papermillsnear Wilmington. Commercial fishingand oystering thrived.

By the time of the first ContinentalCongress in 1774, there was noticeablewater pollution in the Delaware. The firstwater quality survey in 1799 reported thatthe main sources of pollution were in thePhiladelphia area. But the volume ofwaste was small enough to be assimilatedby the river; the water continued to bedrinkable and fisheries prospered.

During the 1800s, many large manu-facturers chose sites along the river totake advantage of the water and the inex-pensive transportation provided by theriver and newly built canals. In the early1800s, E. I. Du Pont, a French chemist,established the first gunpowder mills inthe nation on the Brandywine Creek justabove Wilmington. The availability oflarge amounts of water was vital to thesuccess and growth of these enterprises.

The fishing industry continuedthroughout the century, but manyspecies—shad, striped bass, and stur-geon—began to decline. Catfish almostcompletely vanished and the populationof oysters also declined. Overfishing anddam construction, which preventedupstream migration, probably were themain factors in the decline, but waterpollution almost certainly played a role.

By the 1850s, the city of Philadelphiabegan building sewers to carry wastewateraway from city streets, and other commu-nities soon followed suit. But the volumeof sewage and industrial waste contami-nated water supplies, causing typhoid andother waterborne diseases that preyed on



Philadelphians through the end of thecentury.

To deal with this public health threat,Philadelphia in 1899 began constructionof the world’s largest sand filtration plant.Other cities such as Trenton also built filtration plants, but Camden abandonedthe Delaware as its source of water and in1897 drilled over 100 wells into theaquifers underlying southern New Jersey.

During the first decades of the 20th

Century, modest attempts at pollutioncontrol were overwhelmed by continuedmunicipal and industrial growth. Waterquality sunk to probably its lowest level inthe period from 1930 to 1950. Onlyabout 20 percent of the total sewage fromCamden and Philadelphia was treated;most smaller communities were discharg-ing raw sewage directly into the river.Industrial dischargers were adding to theproblem; over 200 industries in Philadel-phia alone were annually dischargingsome 90,000 tons of solid and semisolidwastes into the river or into the sewersystem. As dissolved oxygen was depleted,noxious hydrogen sulfide gases wereformed, causing waterfront residents inPhiladelphia to complain to PresidentRoosevelt as early as 1934. During WorldWar II, fumes of hydrogen sulfidecorroded the metal used for naval radarequipment while it was still on the assem-bly line.

Fishing declined drastically, withannual finfish catches after 1930 drop-ping to one tenth of the 1900 catch orless. Commercial shad fishing virtuallydisappeared, and oyster harvests sank toless than one fifth of their former size.The water in the estuary was so dirty that

it clogged ships’ engines, requiringexpensive repairs.

In 1936, the Interstate Commissionon the Delaware River Basin was createdto encourage the cleanup of theDelaware. Though it had no authority tocompel action, this cooperative effort—managed by the states of New York, NewJersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania—suc-ceeded in recommending minimumwater quality standards that all of themember states eventually ratified.Between 1936 and 1942, communitiesalong the river spent more than $10 mil-lion to build sewage collection and treat-ment plants, and by 1946 Philadelphiahad embarked on an $80 million sewerimprovement and treatment program.

In 1937, Pennsylvania passed theClean Streams Law, which broughtindustrial wastes under control. By 1961,71 percent of Pennsylvania’s industrieswere treating their wastes before discharg-ing them to rivers, compared to just 8percent in 1941.

By 1964, helped by federal and statefunds, all municipalities along theDelaware River Estuary had at least primary treatment. The river’s dissolved oxygen content improved, though otherindices showed no significant improvement in water quality. Furthertightening of water quality standards followed in 1967.

Over the past 40 years, water quality inthe Delaware has improved substantially,with the most significant progress since1980 (Figures 1.11a-1.11f). Though theDelaware is still the site of an enormousconcentration of industry—includingpetroleum refining and petrochemical





1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 19950

3

6

9

12

mill

igra

ms

per

liter

Figure 1.11a Mean Annual DO

Concentrations in Delaware

River, 1970-1995

Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and

1997 (OECD, Paris, 1997).

Note: DO = Dissolved oxygen.

Development, Environmental Data Compendium

Figure 1.11b Mean Annual BOD

Concentrations in Delaware

River, 1970-1995

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 19950

1

2

3

mill

igra

ms

O p

er li

ter

Note: BOD = Biochemical oxygen demand.


1997 (OECD, Paris, 1997).


1975 1980 1985 1990 19950.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

mill

igra

ms

per

liter

Figure 1.11c Mean Annual

Phosphorus Concentrations

in Delaware River, 1975-1995


1997 (OECD, Paris, 1997).


1975 1980 1984 1991 19950.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

mill

igra

ms

per

liter

Figure 1.11d Mean Annual

Nitrate Concentrations in

Delaware River, 1975-1995


1997 (OECD, Paris, 1997).


1975 1980 1985 1990 19930

6

12

18

24

mic

rogr

ams

per

liter

Figure 1.11e Mean Annual

Chromium Concentrations in



1997 (OECD, Paris, 1997).


1975 1980 1985 1990 19950

3

6

mic

rogr

ams

per

liter

Figure 1.11f Mean Annual

Lead Concentrations in



1997 (OECD, Paris, 1997).


plants, papermaking, chemical manufac-turing, metal processing, and food pro-cessing—the dissolved oxygen level hasimproved enough to maintain aquaticlife in all sections of the river. Commer-cial fishing, including a resurgence of theshad fishery, is continuing. The Delawareis extensively used as a recreationalresource. Greenway trails are being estab-lished, and public access to the DelawareEstuary has increased as a result of newpublic parks in the watershed.

Although there have been dramaticimprovements in the water quality in theriver, problems still exist. For example,water quality does not meet the standardfor swimming in the Philadelphia andCamden sections of the river, primarilydue to bacteria. Despite increased num-bers, levels of some anadromous fish havenot reached historic levels due to habitatperturbations and lack of coordinatedmanagement plans. Elevated levels of tox-ics have been detected in sediments,water column, and tissues of organisms,and fish consumption advisories exist inall three states. Heavy use of surface andgroundwater places a significant demandon the long-term water supply in thewatershed. Sprawl development causeshabitat fragmentation and consumeslarge amounts of natural habitat.

The Delaware Estuary Program wasestablished in 1988 under the CleanWater Act to address these and otherissues affecting the Delaware watershed.The program brought together stakehold-ers from all three states to identify themost important issues and develop a planof action. In 1996, the ComprehensiveConservation and Management Plan

(CCMP) for the Delaware Estuary wassigned by the three governors and EPA.Implementation of the plan is currentlyunderway.

Case Study: South FloridaWatershed

South Florida—the vast watershedbeginning at the headwaters of theKissimmee River, passing through LakeOkeechobee and the Everglades, andspilling out into Florida Bay—providesan interesting contrast to the history ofthe Delaware Basin.

Much more so than the Delaware, thesouth Florida watershed has a long histo-ry of attempts to physically modify therivers and ecosystem to accomodateregional development. Changes began in1882, with the channelization of theCaloosahatchee River and its connectionto Lake Okeechobee, resulting in a newwestward outflow from the lake. Fourcanals were cut from the lake southeastthrough the Everglades to the Atlantic. In1916, a fifth canal was constructed fromthe lake due east to the ocean, and thesouthern rim of the lake was diked andleveed for agriculture.

Flood control and mosquito controlwere the two primary reasons for the dik-ing, draining, and channeling of theKissimmee River, Lake Okeechobee, andthe Everglades. Major drainage controlsystems were built between the late 1930sand the 1960s as a result of the very dam-aging hurricanes of 1926, 1928, 1947, and1948. The 1928 hurricane was especiallydestructive, causing Lake Okeechobee tooverflow and killing some 2,500 people.



These disasters spearheaded the heighten-ing of the levee around Lake Okee-chobee, improving the linkage of the lakewith the Caloosahatchee River, diggingthe St. Lucie Canal, channelizing theKissimmee River, constructing the easternperimeter levee, and creating the Centraland Southern Flood Control District(later to become the South Florida WaterManagement District).

All of these changes had unforseenenvironmental consequences, includinguncontrolled drainage that threatenedfreshwater supplies, inadequate flood con-trol in wet years, huge muck fires in dryglades, and saltwater intrusion. To dealwith these new problems, Congress in1948 authorized a massive new projectthat included a 100-mile levee to protectlands to the east of the Everglades fromflooding and saltwater intrusion. The pro-ject also created an agricultural area andthree water conservation areas separatedby levees and regulated by canals andpump stations. The water conservationareas provide water to Everglades NationalPark, which was authorized in 1934 andestablished in 1947.

The reshaping continued in the 1960s.The Kissimmee River, which in its naturalstate included 103 miles of meanderingriver and 35,000 acres of wetlands, wasreduced to a canal 56 miles long. Trans-portation projects such as Alligator Alleyand the Tamiami Trail blocked the south-ward movement of water.

These massive changes had an enor-mous environmental impact. The wadingbird population in the ecosystem mayhave declined by as much as 90 percentsince the turn of the century. South Flori-

da now has 56 federally listed endangeredand threatened species—notably includ-ing the Florida panther—and 29 candi-date species.

The growth of agriculture, whichbrings nutrient discharges into a nutrient-poor ecosystem, has caused severe waterquality problems and changes in vegeta-tion; nutrient over-enrichment is consid-ered the main pollutant in the ecosystem.Native vegetation in many areas has givenway to dense stands of cattails, resulting infurther decreases in populations of localwading birds and other native species.Hydrological changes and agricultural practices also are affecting Florida Bay, where massive seagrass die-offs, algal blooms, and declines in popula-tions of fish, mangroves, and other specieshave been documented. Explanationsrange from hypersalinity (due to divertedfreshwater flows) and pollution to the nat-ural impacts of hurricanes and drought.

Exotic species, including Australianmelaleuca and Brazilian pepper, are proving to be a formidable long-termproblem. Melaleuca was introducedintentionally for its ability to dry upmarshes, and both it and Brazilian pepper tend to form dense stands thatcrowd out native species.

The effort to restore the Evergladesecosystem, which began in 1983 and iscontinuing today, is described in ChapterSix.

Case Study: The Sacramento-SanJoaquin River System

San Francisco Bay and the Delta com-bine to form the West Coast’s largest estu-



ary. The estuary conveys the waters of theSacramento and San Joaquin rivers to thePacific Ocean. It encompasses roughly1,600 square miles, drains over 40 per-cent of the state (60,000 square miles),and contains about five million acre-feetof water.

The estuary watershed provides drink-ing water to 20 million Californians andirrigates 4.5 million acres of farmland. Italso hosts a rich diversity of aquatic life.Each year, two thirds of the state’ssalmon pass through the Bay and Delta,as do nearly half of the waterfowl andshorebirds migrating along the PacificFlyway. In addition, the estuary’s waterenables the nation’s fourth-largest metro-politan region to pursue many activities,including shipping, fishing, recreation,and commerce.

Before western water developmentbegan, about 40 percent of California’srunoff converged into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta on its way to SanFrancisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. A series of reservoirs, canals, and pumpstations now capture winter rains andsnowpack for diversion to Southern Cali-fornia, the San Joaquin Valley, and partsof the Bay area via the massive StateWater Project (SWP) and Central ValleyProject (CVP). The water deliveredthrough these huge systems has enabledthe state’s semiarid Central Valley tobecome one of the nation’s prime agri-cultural areas and has provided water tothe rapidly growing population in South-ern California.

These North-South transfers havecome at a price for the North. For exam-ple, Delta fishery resources have been

devastated. Fewer than 500 wild winterrun salmon have returned to spawn inthe Upper Sacramento in recent years,compared to 80,000 annually 20 yearsago. Causes of these dramatic declinesinclude overfishing, loss of habitat, waterpollution, dams, levees, obstructions, anddrought.

Water quality in the Delta also is atrisk. Concerns include salinity intrusioninto the western Delta from San Francis-co Bay, wastewater discharges that con-tain chemical pollutants, and the inflowof agricultural drainage water that maycontain pesticide residues and other toxicagents. The state is legally required toprovide an adequate amount of freshwa-ter to the Delta, but this requirementmay conflict with water transfers andlocal consumptive uses. This is especiallytrue during drought, when there may notbe enough water to fulfill all demands.

The conflict between water require-ments in the Delta and the transfer ofwater supplies to the southern part of thestate has proved to be one of the mostcontroversial water problems in the West.In 1982, California voters defeated a ref-erendum to build the “Peripheral Canal”around the Delta to improve the system’sefficiency. Northern Californians over-whelmingly rejected the proposal, appar-ently fearing that the Delta environmentwould not be adequately protected andthat populous Southern California wasattempting another “water grab.”Although there was more support inSouthern California, many in that part ofthe state feared the project’s high cost.

In 1987, as part of the National Estu-ary Program, EPA launched a San Fran-



cisco Estuary Project (SFEP). After fiveyears, the project’s public-private partner-ship approach reached its initial goal ofdeveloping a Comprehensive Conserva-tion and Management Plan (CCMP) forthe estuary. The CCMP addresses fivecritical issues: the decline of biologicalresources; pollutants; freshwater diver-sions and altered flow regime; dredgingand waterway modification; and intensi-fied land use. For each of these areas, theCCMP defines the problem, evaluatesthe existing management structure, iden-tifies goals for correcting the problem,provides a broad recommended approachfor achieving the goals, and provides spe-cific actions and objectives for carryingout the recommended approach.

However, many aspects of the SanFrancisco Estuary Project were not imple-mented. Thus, in 1993, state and federalagencies were being forced to make regu-latory decisions regarding implementa-tion of the Clean Water Act and theEndangered Species Act. In December1994, representatives from the state andfederal government signed the Bay-DeltaAccord, specifying how state and federalagencies would meet their regulatoryobligations until a joint state-federal com-prehensive water management andecosystem restoration program could bedeveloped. The accord led to creation ofthe CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

Specific concerns addressed by thisprogram include: water quality for bothdrinking and agriculture; the reliability ofwater supplies; the deterioration of fishand wildlife populations and habitat; andthe Delta levee system, which is now vul-nerable to natural disaster as a result of

neglect and a lack of financial resourcesfor needed maintenance. A federallychartered Bay-Delta Advisory Council,with 34 members from throughout thestate, provides regular guidance and isone of many avenues for public input.

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program iscarrying out a three-phase process toachieve broad agreement on comprehen-sive solutions for the Bay-Delta system.During Phase I in 1995 and 1996, theprogram worked to clearly define the fun-damental problems in the Bay-Deltaecosystem, developed a mission state-ment and general goals, and developedan initial set of alternative actions.

During Phase II, in compliance withthe National Environmental Policy Actand the California Environmental Quali-ty Act, the program is preparing a pro-gram-level environmental impact state-ment to identify impacts associated withthe various alternatives. After selection ofa preferred alternative, the third phasebegins with a site-specific environmentalreview. During Phase III, which willbegin in early 1999 and continue for per-haps 20 to 30 years, the preferred alterna-tive will be implemented.

THE RIVER RUNS DRY

Across much of the nation, droughtsand water scarcity are always a risk.

During the extreme drought in theMississippi watershed in 1988, for exam-ple, the barge system was severely tested.The Mississippi-based barge industry isone of the nation’s major conveyors ofbulk commodities. Some 300 tow and



barge companies haul nearly half of theentire Midwestern grain crop plus about40 percent of the nation’s petroleum and20 percent of its coal. All told, the indus-try earns about $1 billion per year.

The drought began in the winter of1987 and continued through the follow-ing summer. By mid-June, 83 percent ofthe river basin was experiencing a severedrought. On June 8, a barge ran agroundnear St. Louis, marking the first in a seriesof navigational disruptions.

Fully loaded barges require minimumwater levels of 9 feet to operate safely. In1988, even carefully controlled and timedwater releases by the Army Corps of Engi-neers could not maintain such levels.

Under such circumstances, river managers had to fall back on other strate-gies, including dredging the blockedareas, limiting the number and weight ofthe barges pulled by a towboat, releasingmore water from upstream dams, orusing alternate navigation routes ormodes of transportation.

In 1988, managers drew on all of thesestrategies and more. In addition to peri-odic dredging, some barge traffic wasdiverted to the Tennessee-TombigbeeWaterway. Some grain shipments wereshifted to alternate ports and routes onthe Great Lakes instead of the Mississip-pi. By the time of the closing of the OhioRiver on June 14, 700 barges werebacked up at Mound City, a major grainport. With the barges not running and noempty barges arriving, grain piled up atthe port. More than $1 million worth ofcorn was simply stored on city streetsbecause there was no more room in thegrain elevators.

At one point, the Governor of Illinoisproposed to triple the normal waterreleases from Lake Michigan for a limit-ed time to help restore Mississippi Riverlevels. Governors of four Great Lakesstates threatened court action over themove, and the Canadian Ambassadordelivered a formal protest to the U.S.State Department. In the end, the Gover-nor of Illinois dropped the proposal.

All told, the economic losses due todisrupted barge transportation may havereached $1 billion.

For much of the area west of the Mis-sissippi, water scarcity is a fact of life thathas had an important impact on theregion’s development.

In February 1991, after four years ofsevere drought in California, GovernorPete Wilson established a Drought WaterBank to help deal with the water short-age. The bank’s charge was to purchasewater from willing sellers and sell it toentities with critical needs.

Water for the bank was acquiredthrough land fallowing (i.e., not plantingor irrigating a crop), using groundwaterinstead of surface water, and transferringwater stored in local reservoirs. Most ofthe 351 contracts negotiated were for fal-lowing land, but the largest acquisitioncame from transferring stored water. Ofthe 820,000 af purchased by the bank,about 400,000 af were disbursed for criti-cal needs and about 260,000 af were car-ried over into 1992. Some of the excesswater acquired was lost in conveyance orwas used to maintain water quality stan-dards in the Delta. The Water Bank ini-tiative continued through 1993.



Overall, the California Water Bankwas considered an effective effort to real-locate water. The adverse economicimpacts were minimal, and the Bank cre-ated substantial gains for California’s agri-culture and economy. But the effort wasnot without criticism. Some local com-munities worried about the possibleimpact on their tax base, and some ruralcommunities feared that water bankingcould accelerate their demise. Manywere concerned that urban areas coulduse the Water Bank as an excuse foravoiding water development, conserva-tion, or reclamation programs.

Elsewhere in the water-short West,supplies have been augmented throughthe transfer of water from one river basinto another by canal, aqueduct, or

pipeline. For example, more than 802million cubic meters of water are trans-ferred annually from the basins of theColorado, San Juan and Colorado riverson the Western Slope across the Conti-nental Divide to the Eastern Slope of theColorado, where 80 percent of the state’spopulation resides.

Groundwater has been one answer tothe water supply problem in the West.About 30 percent of the groundwaterused for irrigation in the United States ispumped from the High Plains aquifer,which underlies parts of Colorado,Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Okla-homa, South Dakota, Texas, andWyoming. In 1990, 15.6 million acre-feetof water was withdrawn from the aquiferto irrigate approximately 14 million



A nearly dried up stock pond in Brackettsville, Texas, in August 1980.Photo Credit:

USDA—95CS2427

acres. This intense use has led to signifi-cant declines from pre-developmentwater levels in many areas (Figure 1.12).In the central and the southern HighPlains, declines have exceeded 100 feet.Smaller, less extensive declines haveoccurred thus far in the northern HighPlains, where irrigation has been prac-ticed for a shorter time.

The Southwest also faces a fundamen-tal imbalance between water supplies anddemand. In an average year, there isinsufficient precipitation to meet demand(Figure 1.13). These areas use more than100 percent of their annual average pre-cipitation and either import water fromother watersheds or mine groundwater tomeet annual demand. Water use conflictshave existed in these areas for decades,

but the conflicts have intensifed asdemands have increased.

Where water demand exceeds 75 per-cent of available precipitation, water useconflicts are just beginning to emergeand will likely escalate if developmentshould increase demand. Much of theEast and parts of the Northwest haveabundant freshwater supplies, but eventhese areas have experienced water useconflicts and more may arise. Continuedgrowth will require some combination ofimporting more water and/or managingwater more efficiently.

Case Study: Water Conflicts inthe South

Even in the eastern region of thenation, where water is relatively abun-



Figure 1.12 Areas of Water Table Decline in the United States

Source: U.S. Geological Survey.

dant, increasing demand and pressures tomanage water for a wider array of usescan lead to conflicts.

In the late 1980s, for example, theCorps of Engineers asked the Congressfor permission to reallocate 120 milliongallons of water daily from Lake Lanier tomeet metro Atlanta’s growing waterneeds. The state of Alabama, worriedabout the impact of this proposal, filedsuit in 1990 in U.S. District Court to barthe reallocation. Florida, which sharedAlabama’s concerns, later became a partyto the suit.

In 1992, the Corps and the governorsof Georgia, Alabama, and Florida signeda Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)that preserved the status quo while thestates negotiated a formal agreementabout how much water each state can

take from the Chattahoochee and Flintrivers. In the meantime, the statesembarked on a comprehensive study,including both the Apalachicola-Chatta-hoochee-Flint and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa river basins. The researcheffort includes studies of the demand forwater resources over the next severaldecades, the historic and present avail-ability of surface and groundwater, futuretrends in population and employment,the environmental needs of the basins,navigation-related water needs, and recre-ation-related water needs. The goal is todevelop strategies to guide water manage-ment decisions and a mechanism forcoordination of those decisions.

In March 1997, Georgia agreed toenter into two interstate compacts thatwill divide water from the region accord-



Figure 1.13 Freshwater Consumption as a Percentage of Local Average Precipitation

Greater than 150%100% to 150%

75% to 100%Less than 75%

Source: USDA/NRCS and Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Agricultural Research Service, HUMUS Project#RWH.1576, 1996.

ing to an allocation formula. A compactwith Alabama and Florida will divide thewaters of the Chattahoochee, Flint, andApalachicola rivers. Another compactwith Alabama will divide the waters ofthe Alabama, Coosa, and Tallapoosarivers. The compacts must be approvedby the state legislatures and ratified byCongress.

In order to prevent delays in imple-mentation, the allocation formulas will beworked out by the members of the com-pact commission after the legislation ispassed. The goal of the allocation effort isto establish an equitable allocation of theavailable water for various uses, includingdrinking, navigation, power generation,recreation, industry, and other purposes,and to find a reasonable balance betweenupstream interests such as metro Atlantaand downstream interests such as farmingand fishing industries.

THE RIVER RUNS OVERAn important thread of the nation’s

history deals with efforts to tame the

uncontrollable nature of rivers throughthe construction of dams, channels, lev-ees and dikes. Now highly regulated andcontrolled, rivers nevertheless are stillcapable of overflowing all such structuresand inflicting much suffering on sur-rounding communities.

The Great Flood of 1993 in the upperMississippi and Missouri rivers revived anational debate about floodplain man-agement and federal policies that datesback many decades (Box 1.3).

The debate has many facets, includingwhether the construction of an extensivesystem of federal and non-federal leveesand dikes along the river has actuallyworsened the severity of the flood byreducing available floodplain area;whether federal policies promote exces-sive floodplain development; andwhether people choosing to live on flood-plains should bear a greater share of therisk inherent in that decision.

The private and uncontrolled con-struction of levees and dikes along theriver in its early history raised some diffi-cult questions. Every such structure built



Box 1.3What is a Floodplain?

Floodplains are the relatively low and periodically inundated areas adjacent to rivers, lakes,and oceans. Floodplain lands and adjacent waters combine to form a complex, dynamic phys-ical and biological system that supports a multitude of water resources, living resources, andsocietal resources. Floodplains provide the nation with natural flood and erosion control, waterfiltering processes, a wide variety of habitats for flora and fauna, places for recreation andscientific study, and historic and archeological sites.

Estimates of the extent of the nation’s floodplains vary. In 1977, the U.S. Water ResourcesCouncil estimated that floodplains comprise about 7 percent, or 178.8 million acres, of thetotal area of the United States and its territories.

Source: Sharing the Challenge.

along one shore could increase the vol-ume and speed of flows on the oppositeshore or at sites downstream, thus creat-ing a situation in which the effort to pro-tect one community might worsen thedamage for others.

The need for greater coordinationbecame dramatically evident after themonumental Mississippi River flood of1927, which demonstrated the inadequa-cy of the flood control efforts that beganin the early 18th Century and that hadgrown over the years to an uncoordinatedamalgam of public and private systems(Box 1.4). In response, the 1928 FloodControl Act and the 1936 Flood ControlAct codifed a federal interest in the coor-dinated development and installation offlood damage reduction measures.

Starting in 1936, the Corps focusedon major rivers and the development ofcongressionally approved plans for reser-voirs, levees, channelization, and diver-sions. In the upper Mississippi Riverbasin, the Corps constructed 76 reservoirscontrolling a drainage area of almost370,000 square miles and containing atotal flood storage volume of 40 millionacre-feet of water. In addition, the Corpsconstructed over 2,200 miles of levees inthe upper Mississippi basin. River com-munities also were protected by an esti-mated 5,800 miles of non-federal levees.

Did the federal effort help reduce thedamages during the 1993 flood? TheJune 1994 report of the InteragencyFloodplain Management Review Com-mittee concluded that the federal systemhad worked essentially as designed andthus significantly reduced the damages topopulation centers, agriculture, and

industry. The Committee estimated thatreservoirs and levees built by the Corpsstored 22.2 million acre-feet of water dur-ing the period of peak flooding and thatfederally constructed levees had prevent-ed substantial damages to communitiessuch as St. Louis, Kansas City, and thelow-lying areas of Rock Island andMoline, Illinois. All told, the committeeestimated that Corps-built reservoirs andlevees prevented more than $19 billionin damages, and that watershed projectsbuilt by the Soil Conservation Service(now NRCS) saved an estimated addi-tional $400 million.

Levees can cause problems in somecritical reaches by backing water up onother levees or lowlands, but the Com-mittee concluded that flooding in 1993would have covered much of the flood-plains of the main stem lower Missouriand upper Mississippi rivers whether ornot levees were there. A modeling analy-sis estimated that if all the non-urban lev-ees were absent, the peak stage at St.Louis in 1993 would have been reducedby 2.5 feet. Even at that level, the floodwould have been more than 17 feetabove flood stage and almost 4 feet high-er than the previous known maximumlevel recorded during the flood of 1973.

The Committee concluded that “lev-ees did not cause the 1993 flood. Duringlarge events such as occurred in 1993,levees have minor overall effects onfloodstage but may have significant local-ized effects.”

The Committee, however, did con-clude that the uncoordinated develop-ment of private and other non-federal levees throughout the Upper Mississippi



Basin failed to provide a soundly engi-neered flood-damage reduction systemfor the basin. It also noted that levees provide only a fixed level of protectionand are subject to overtopping duringlarger floods, a fact that many in thebasin had failed to understand.

A second issue in the debate iswhether federal policies are actually cre-ating incentives for development infloodplains. Critics point to the fact thatthere were some 10 million homes in the100-year flood plain and to cases like thatin Chesterfield, Missouri, where an

industrial park sited behind an agricultur-al levee suffered extensive damage duringthe 1993 flood. All told, about $390 bil-lion in property was thought to be at risk.

While some federal programs didindeed seem to reduce the risk of flood-plain development, it was apparent thatmany of those at risk failed to participatein those programs. For example, theCommittee found that only 20-30 per-cent of eligible homeowners and localgovernments were enrolled in theNational Flood Insurance Program. Theyconcluded that the fact that communities



Box 1.4The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927

In Rising Tide, author John M. Barry writes eloquently of the Great Mississippi River flood of1927, which devastated a vast area and forced over a million people out of their homes.

Greenville, Mississippi, was protected from direct assault by the river by a large levee. Themajor break in the levee occurred north of Greenville, long before the flood waters describedreached the city. The city was also protected by a smaller, local levee. A break in this small-er levee is described here by Barry. The flooding in Greenville began on April 21, 1927.

“The Greenville protection levee stood eight feet high. The water paused briefly, then rippedthe levee apart as smootly as if unzipping it.

“Then came the chaos.Water roared and hissed, the fire whistle blasted, church bells clanged,animals barked and neighed and bellowed in terror. In Newtown, the black neighborhood clos-est to the protection levee, hundreds of families began to wade through the rising water tothe Mississippi levee, the highest ground in the Delta.

“Rescuers were depositing thousands of refugees from all over the Delta on the levee, to jointhe city’s own thousands already there. Farmers moved cattle, mules, horses, and pigs to thelevee as well. The Mississippi River lay on one side, the flood on the other. The levee crownwas only 8 feet wide, its landslide slope an additional 10 to 40 feet wide before touching water.A line of people already stretched north from downtown for more than a mile.

“Martial law solved little. Virtually the entire county was underwater, as much as 20 feet ofwater. The current everywhere was ferocious. People took shelter in railroad boxcars, in theupper stories of cotton gins, oil mills, houses, and barns. Thousands clung to roofs or trees,or sat on the levee awaiting pickup.

Weeks after the levee broke, water was still pouring through both the Mounds Landing breakand the city’s protection levee.”

Source: Barry, John M., Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How it Changed America(Simon and Schuster, New York, 1997).

choosing not to participate still receivedsubstantial disaster assistance was one ofthe factors explaining the low enroll-ment. “Provision of major federal disasterassistance to those without insurance cre-ates a perception with many floodplainresidents that purchase of flood insuranceis not a worthwhile investment,” theCommittee found. Critics also noted thatthere were many other federal post-disas-ter assistance programs available. Theseinclude grants and Small BusinessAdministration loans for homeownersstruck by catastrophic flooding, compen-sation to farmers under the crop insur-ance program for the value of crop losses,and federal public assistance grants tolocal governments to rebuild damagedpublic buildings and infrastructure.

The Committee concluded that “indi-vidual citizens must adjust their actionsto the risk they face and bear a greatershare of the economic costs.” They rec-ommended that the federal governmentimprove its marketing of flood insuranceand enforce lender compliance rules,and “reduce the amount of post-disastersupport to those who were eligible to buyinsurance but did not to that level need-ed to provide for immediate health, safe-ty, and welfare.”

The report also suggested that theadministration “give full consideration toall possible alternatives for vulnerabilityreduction, including permanent evacua-tion of floodprone areas” and “creation ofadditional artificial and natural storage.”



Residents of Louisa County in Muscatine, Iowa, wade through a flooded-out neighborhood in July 1993.

Photo Credit:USDA—93CS0380

In short, the priorities should be: first,avoiding inappropriate use of the flood-plain; second, minimizing vulnerabilityto damage through both structural andnonstructural means; and third, mitigat-ing flood damages when they do occur.

In the wake of the flood and the inter-agency report, the Clinton administrationmade substantial revisions to federalfloodplain management policies and pro-grams. The emphasis of the reforms is toreduce the loss of life and propertycaused by floods and to restore the natur-al resources and functions of flood plains.

In September 1994, Congress and theadministration agreed on a package ofamendments to the National FloodInsurance Program. The reforms extend-ed the waiting period that applies beforeflood insurance coverage becomes effec-tive from 5 to 30 days, increased the dol-lar amount of flood insurance coverageavailable for residences from $180,000 to$250,000, and prohibited post-disastersupport to those who could have pur-chased flood insurance but did not. Theamendments also incorporated the pro-tection of natural resources and functionsof floodplains into the program’s commu-nity rating system, as an incentive toreduce insurance premiums in commu-nities with exemplary floodplain manage-ment programs.

The Administration and Congress alsoagreed in 1994 on reforms to the cropinsurance program that provided for cata-strophic crop insurance protection.Other 1994 legislation required commu-nities to develop and implement flood-plain management plans in association

with the construction of a Corps of Engi-neers flood damage reduction project.

The Administration implemented amarketing strategy called “Cover Ameri-ca,” designed to improve participation inthe flood insurance program. In less thantwo years, the new strategy contributed toa 22 percent increase in the number ofhouseholds signed up for the program.

To encourage responsible rebuildingin the floodplain in the aftermath of the1993 Midwest floods, the federal govern-ment provided funds to acquire, relocate,or elevate over 12,000 flood-damagedproperties in about a dozen states. Insome cases, entire communities, such asValmeyer, Illinois, were relocated. Over40 towns asked for at least some realestate to be bought by the relocation pro-gram. Several communities in the Mid-west that flooded again in 1995 werespared repetitive and expensive flooddamage as a result of the relocation andbuy-out program. Most of the fundingcame from the Department of Housingand Urban Development’s CommunityDevelopment Block Grant program. Theflexibility of the CBDG program allows itto play a major role in repair and restora-tion efforts, as well as in acquisition,relocation, and replacement of damagedproperties.

The Department of Interior’s Fish andWildlife Service (FWS), through itsNational Wildlife Refuge land acquisitionand Partners for Wildlife programs, also isparticipating in the new floodplain initia-tives. To restore and protect fish andwildlife habitats of national importance,FWS made extensive use of voluntarycooperative agreements with private



landowners, local soil and water conserva-tion districts, The Nature Conservancy,Ducks Unlimited, and other organizations.

To respond to landowners and leveedistricts who sought alternatives to restor-ing flood-damaged lands to pre-floodconditions or repairing levees, theAdministration has taken several steps.First, it implemented the EmergencyWetlands Reserve Program. In situationswhere the cost of levee repair and landrestoration was greater than the agricul-tural value of the land, landowners couldnow choose to restore the lands as wet-lands, instead of trying to rehabilitate thelands for agricultural production. Thisoption not only gave the landownersdirect benefits in helping to extricatethem from flood-prone lands, but benefit-

ed the surrounding areas by adding morewetlands and reducing the region’s vul-nerability to flooding. Since the 1993Midwest floods, NRCS has restored andacquired easements on about 86,000acres in the Mississippi and Missouririver basins. NRCS will be enrolling anestimated additional 5,800 acres in 1996,bringing the total to 92,000 acres.

In 1996, the Administration broad-ened its authority under emergency floodcontrol repair and restoration law to allowconsideration of non-structural alterna-tives to levee repairs. After a flood hasdamaged levees, the Corps of Engineerscan now assist landowners in exploringthe most efficient way to reduce futureflood risk instead of being limited strictlyto rebuilding to pre-flood conditions.



Civilian volunteers and National Guard personnel build a sandbag levee at Valley Junction, Iowa,trying to stop flooding of the Raccoon River in July 1993.

Photo Credit:USDA—93CS0295

The Administration has created intera-gency task forces that meet after a floodto coordinate in planning structural andnon-structural levee repairs and associat-ed restoration. These task forces poolexpertise from throughout the govern-ment to advise and assist landowners.

In the 1996 farm bill, some of theAdministration’s initiatives on floodplainmanagement were made permanent andbroadened. For example, the EmergencyWetlands Reserve program’s option toretire lands voluntarily with a floodplaineasement was added to the EmergencyWatershed Protection program. The billalso created a new Flood Risk Reductionprogram, in which farmers could requestthat USDA offer them their projectedfuture farm program benefits up-front forfarm acreage located within the flood-plain. The goal of the program is toremove any incentives created by USDAprograms that may encourage intensivenew row-crop production in floodplains.In this way, farmers can easily move tomore suitable lands located in less vul-nerable areas.

The Administration also adopted anumber of measures to accelerate assis-tance, response, and recovery. Thesemeasures include pre-deploying materialand supplies in anticipation of a flood;allowing the Corps of Engineers toimplement a “quick repair option” for

severely damaged levees, to provide short-term protection while the larger restora-tion is under planning and design; andexpediting the Federal Highway Adminis-tration’s procedures to provide the stateswith the funds necessary to begin repairsto Federal-aid roads and bridges damagedby disasters.

The 1993 flood led to significantchanges in floodplain management,decreasing incentives for floodplaindevelopment, providing new alternativesfor floodplain use, increasing enrollmentin the National Flood Insurance Pro-gram, and expediting federal assistanceand recovery programs. The Administra-tion is continuing to refine its flood andfloodplain management efforts.

In short, American rivers formed thebackbone on which we built a nation.From our early days as a country, theimportance of water and waterways wasclear, but only recently did we under-stand that development and pollutioncould devalue and destroy these preciousresources. Today, a shift to thinking aboutrivers in a much broader context, bothenvironmentally and in terms of governance, has created not only newattitudes but new institutions and mecha-nisms for decision-making. Broader participation characterizes these newapproaches. Chapter Two looks at someof these efforts.





REFERENCESBerger, John, “The Kissimmee Riverine-Floodplain System,” in National Research CouncilCommittee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems, Restoration of Aquatic Resources (NationalAcademy Press, Washington, DC, 1992).

Blake, N.M., Land into Water—Water into Land: A History of Water Management in Florida(Florida University Press, Tallahassee, FL, 1980).

Davis, Steven M. and John C. Ogden, eds, Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration, (St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL, 1994).

Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality, The Delaware RiverBasin—An Environmental Assessment of Three Centuries of Change (CEQ, Washington, DC,1975).

Hairston, Julie, “States’ ‘water war’ unlikely to be resolved until ‘98,” Atlanta Business Chroni-cle (September 6-12, 1996).

Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force, The Ecosystem Approach: Healthy Ecosys-tems and Sustainable Economies, Vol. III, Case Studies (National Technical Information Ser-vice, Springfield, VA, 1996).

Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee, Sharing the Challenge: FloodplainManagement into the 21st Century (Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1994).

Lodge, Thomas, The Everglades Handbook: Understanding the Ecosystem (St. Lucie Press,Delray Beach, FL, 1994).

Patrick, Ruth, et. al., Surface Water Quality: Have the Laws Been Successful? (Princeton Uni-versity Press, Princeton, NJ, 1992).

U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, Preparing for an Uncertain Climate,Vols. 1 and 2 (OTA, Washington, DC, 1993).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, America’s PrivateLand: A Geography of Hope (USDA, Washington, DC, 1996).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Status and Trends of the Nation’s Biological Resources (Gov-ernment Printing Office, Washington, DC, forthcoming).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, National Water Quality Inventory:1994 Report to Congress (EPA, Washington, DC, 1996).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, National Water Quality Inventory:1996 Report to Congress (EPA, Washington, DC, 1998).

Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission, Water in the West: The Challenge for theNext Century, public review draft (October 1997).

Documents

Part II Along the American RiverCHAPTER ONE Along the American River A merica’s rivers are an integral part of ... and coasts. The placement of subjects in these chapters is only