Intergovernmental responsibilities for water supply and sewage disposal in metropolitan areas. Page: 9
This book is part of the collection entitled: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Government at all levels, regardless of the particular role
of an individual agency, is faced with the constant problem of
balancing and adjusting the claims of various interests--of urban,
industrial, agricultural, navigation, flood control, conservation,
and recreation--in the allocation, regulation, and development of
a scarce resource. Conflicts arise because of competition between
different users. Should water in an arid western State be diverted
from irrigation to meet burgeoning urban needs? Can Chicago divert
Lake Michigan water for its sewage treatment requirements and
possibly imperil shipping interests throughout the Great Lakes?
Should New York City be permitted to tap the headwaters of the
Delaware River to the possible detriment of downstream industrial
users?
Other conflicts involve like uses. Within metropolitan areas,
there is competition for sources of both surface and ground water
as well as for water courses to deposit sewage effluents. Such
competition is often centered in the suburban areas whose limited
resources make them heavily dependent on nearby surface or ground
water supplies. Also on the increase are conflicts between metropolitan
areas over water. Dallas and Fort Worth, rivals on many
issues, have united to resist the efforts of Houston to tap a river
considered vital to future development of the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
The Southern California megalopolitan complex has been engated in a
long and relatively unsuccessful struggle with urban and agricultural
interests in Arizona over the use of Colorado River water. More
fruitful for the parched Southern Californians has been their struggle
for a share of the water surplus in the northern half of the State.
The first round of this battle culminated with the passage of the
Feather River bond issue which will finance in part facilities to
bring water'from the north to Los Angeles and its sprawling environs.
Most of these conflicts are not merely the result of inadequate
communications or a failure to plan. In most areas where such
conflicts arise, there are not sufficient quantities of water at
comparable prices and quality to supply all users. Quite clearly,
the stakes for the contestants in terms of protecting investments
and insuring future development are tremendous. Competition for the
use of existing supplies of water will always exist; it is not likely
to be eliminated through indefinite expansion of supply or through
the perfection of planning and administrative devices. Furthermore
as Hirshleifer, DeHaven, and Milliman point out:
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Intergovernmental responsibilities for water supply and sewage disposal in metropolitan areas., book, October 1962; Washington, D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1424/m1/21/?rotate=90: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.