Norman Wengert November 1972 Completion Report Series No. 39

68653 .C6 NO . .. 39 ,copy 2 ARCHIVE INSTITUTIONS FOR URBAN-METROPOLITAN WATER MANAGEMENT: ESSAYS IN SOCIAL THEORY :x . 'J' by Norman Wengert November 1972 . ..... - .. ~ ... ~ -' _..•. .. ... Completion Report Series No. 39 COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY Institutions For Urban-Metropolitan Water Management: Essays in Social Theory Edited by: Norman Wengert Department of Political Science submitted to WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER Office of Water Resources Research U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D. C. 20240 The preparation of this report was supported jointly by the Office of Water Resources Research, U.S. Department of the Interior, and by Colorado State University, pursuant to Grant Agreement Number 14-31-0001-3183. Copyright: 1972. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES CENTER Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Norman A. Evans, Director @Environmental Resources Center Colorado State University 1972 1111111111111111 U18402 4846020 68653 .C6 NO. 39 1'copy 2 ! ARCHIVE Ii Preface This set of essays is a part of a larger state-of-the-art survey and literature review on the subject IJInstitutions for Urban Water Management. II As the survey progressed, and as the literature on the subject was reviewed, it became evident that a set of essays written by scholars from a number of discipline-s concerned with the subject might provide useful insights. As initially conceived, a few essays were to be pre pared, and these were to have served as a basis for a small working con ference.But as work on the project moved ahead, it became increasingly apparent that the field was highly unstructured, and it therefore was felt that a conference would not be very useful. Instead, invitations were extended to the several authors whose essays are included in this volume in the hope that some clarification of concepts might thus result, and that where differences existed, these might be highlighted. These objectives have, to a large extent, been accomplished, and the editor wishes to express his appreciation to the contributors. It is obvious, of course, that this is not the last word on the subject by any means. For reasons beyond the editor's control, the view points of economists and lawyers have not been included. But it is the editor's opinion that these essays nevertheles,s represent a significant contribution to social theory. It is hoped that readers will agree~ ,t Nonnan Wengert ii COroRADO STATE UNW. lIBRARIES T able of Contents Page Preface i i Table of Contents iii Chapter 1 Introduction, by Norman Wengert 1 , Chapter 2 Social Institutions: A Conceptual, Contextual, and Case Analysis, by Ed Knop 7 Chapter 3 Institutional Effectiveness and Accountability in Water-Resources Management, by W. Keith Warner 20 Chapter 4 Institutions and Urban Water Management -- A Public Administration Perspective, by Robert J. Mowitz 31 Chapter 5 Measurement of the Institutionalization Process in Urban-Metropolitan Water Supply and Waste Water-Treatment Programs, by Edward R. Kaynor 38 Chapter 6 Institutions and Urban Water Management, by Maynard M. Hufschmidt 46 Chapter 7 Some Problems of Institutional Analysis, by Vincent Ostrom 51 Chapter 8 Geographic Factors in the Design of Urban Water Management Institutions, by Leonard Zobler 64 Chapter 9 Institutions and Urban Water Management: A Systems View, by Jonathan W. Bulkley 77 Appendices A Condensation of "Institutions for Managing Lakes and Bays," by Lyle E. Craine 84 B Condensation of Institutional Arrangements for the Great Lakes: Final Report to the Great Lakes Basin Commission, by Lyle E. Craine 88 C Biographical Notes 92 iii Chapter One Introduction by Norman Wengert Colorado State University This volume of essays is a part of a state-of-the frequently served as an excuse to prevent examination art review and literature survey on the topic of "In of socio-political and socio-psychological aspects of stitutions for Urban-Metropolitan Water Planning, urban water planning, development, and management. Development, and Management," supported jointly by the Office of Water Resources Research (U.S. Department of As is documented in the Final Report, the litera the Interior) and Colorado State University. The ture survey on water institutions proved to be partic study proposal grew out of discussions in which it was ularly difficult because the quantity of literature recognized that the term,lIinstitutions" and its sev dealing explicitly with the subject of urban-metropol eral variants (e.g., institutional, institutional ar itan water institutions was limited. Although the rangements, institutional factors) were used with some term is used with some frequency, little attention has frequency in describing urban water situations. At been paid to its definition or to an elaboration of a the same time, it appeared that the term was not al conceptual framework which might be associated with ways used with precision, and that in fact it seemed the term. to have several definitions, meaning different things to different people. It was because of this apparent The difficulty with the word "institution" (and confusion that the state-of-the-art review seemed its several variants) stems in part from the fact that justified, since the purposes of such reviews include it has traditionally been used in several disciplines clarification of meanings and development of more pre with related but not necessarily consistent meanings, cise concepts. connotations, and implications. As investigations into the state-of-the-art progressed, it became in Two initial premises of the survey were quickly creasingly evident that: dispelled. One of these was that there would be a substantial body of literature dealing explicitly with 1. Many uses of the term, particularly with ref institutions for urban water management. The other erence to urban-metropolitan water problems, did not was that a working conference focusing on two or three include careful definitions; seminal essays would provide a useful way of reaching consensus on the conceptual content of the term. With 2. Many users of the term were unaware of the respect to the first premise, very little explicit lit theoretical literature on the subject of institutions erature was discovered. With respect to the second, and did not seem particularly concerned with what that it seemed more reasonable to ask a group of recognized literature may have said on the subject; scholars to contribute essays in which they developed their understanding of the term and appraised its 3. There was little harmony or consistency among utility for dealing with urban-metropolitan water uses either in the practical literature dealing with planning, development, and management. The present water problems, or in the theoretical literature deal collection of original essays is the result. ing more generally with institutions; There is clearly no consensus among the authors as 4. Many uses of the term were in fact without sig to the proper meaning and use of the term institution, nificant meaning (e.g., one article reviewed suffered although perhaps a thread of agreement can be found in little when the word "institution" was systematically the several essays. But more important is the fact deleted~); that the topic has been addressed directly and forth rightly, and perhaps the next step will be to try to 5. When the term institution was used it expressed reach agreement. In any case, each of the essayists or connoted many different ideas, one of the most fre speaks for himself. quent being as a synonym for organization. It is this usage as a synonym for "organization" Some Preliminary Conclusions that is most to be regretted. Yet it appears fre quently in this sense, particularly in federal govern The conclusions of the state-of-the-art review and ment documents and reports. In my opinion, this usage literature survey are presented in the Final Report of which equates institution with organization in the the project, and it serves no purpose to repeat that most narrow, structural sense (i .e., a box on an or material in great detail here. It is, perhaps, useful ganization chart) is most unfortunate because it tends to note that in addition to the several specific defi to lead to misconceptions with respect to institution nitions which can be identified in articles and re al development and change, and implies simplistically ports which utilize the term, it is often used as a that institutions, like organizations, can be altered, kind of "black box" to explain away what might be adapted, or abolished at will. Organizations can be called the human dimensions of particular situations. established by legislative or executive command, and For example, failures of plans or programs, or inef in some states, the people, through referenda, may fective administration, are often simply attributed to change organizational arrangements, e.g., a city may "institutional inadequacies." And problems seem to be move from a mayor system to a city manager system. designated lIinstitutional" when they involve intransi But such changes are often superficial , unl~~ neiated gent socio-political problems or reflect deep-seated to 6un.damenta.£. c.han.g~ in. the attitud~, penc.eptio~, social values and beliefs. Thus the term has not in- an.d expec.tatio~ (the behavion) 06 the a66ec.ted c.iti- zeno. Putting a policeman's uniform on a man does not cesses; and law with forms of responsibility and con make him a policeman. To suggest that organizational trol. In economics a school of thought is designated tinkering will solve urban-metropolitan water problems lIinstitutional,lI but this has a very special meaning. may lead to a serious misdiagnosis of the nature of the problems involved. A few years ago Professor Thomas W. Martin (1968) wrote: Many studies, such as those by the Advisory Com mission on Intergovernmental Relations, have identi The concept of social institution is per fied the fact that water functions are highly fragmen haps one of the oldest and most widely used ted in many metropolitan regions.

Load more