Water and the SouthwestWhat is the future? 

Water and the SouthwestWhat is the future? 

By H. E. Thomas 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 469 

Washington 

1962 
United States Department of the Interior 

STEW ART L. UDALL, SBCRBTARY 

Geological Survey 

THOMAS B. NOLAN, DIRECTOR 

Free on application to the U.S. Geological Survey, Washington 25, D. C. 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Introduction------------------------- 1 

Review of Senate Select Committee 

prints----------------------------- 1 

Critique ______ ---------_------------- 3 

Perspective------------------------- 6 

Page 

Seeking a balance-------------------- 8 

Increasing the supplY----------------- 10 

Feasibility and defeasibilitY----------- 14 

Conclusion-------------------------- 15 

Reference--------------------------- 15 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

Page 

Figure 1. Our water supplY---------------------------------------------------------- 2 

2. Consumptive and nonconsumptive water use---------------------------------- 3 

3. Use of industrial water ---------------------------------------------------- 4 

4. Water demand, actual and estimated, for the eastern and western parts of the 

United States ---------------------------------------------------------·- 5 

5. Precipitation is the source of our water supplY------------------------------- 6 

6. Precipitation and geology control runoff------------------------------------- 7 

7. The quality of water resources differs--------------------------------------- 8 

8. Trends in streamflow ____ -------------------------------------------------- 9 

9. Major water problems-------------------------------- ___ ------------------ 10 

10. The national water bank _______ --- _________ --------------------------------- 11 

11. Mining water __________ --- ___ --- ________________ -------------------------- 12 

12. Water waste in 17 Western States _________ .;._________________________________ 13 

III 

Water and the Southwest-· What is the future? 

By H. E. Thomas 

INTRODUCTION 

As a Nation we are ina better position than 

ever before to take stock of what we have, 

peer into the future, and plan to make the best 

of it. Partly this is because of the studies of 

water resources activities made for theSenate Select Committee which during the past 

2 years r ts published 32 reports (or prints) 

in 3 volumes of 600 to 700 pages each. Doubtless many of you have seen some of theee 

prints, and several may have contributed to 

them. They ar~ new to me, however, and at 

the risk of repeating what may already be 

well known to you, I should like to offer a 

brief review. 

REVIEW OF SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE PRINTS 

The first volume, on background, includes 

a number of prints, one of which gives a history of water resources during the past 50 

years, another incorporates the views and 

comments of the States, and a third provides 

projections of population and ·economic activity to 1980 and 2000. Three prints by the 

U. S. Geological Survey summarize the physical data and problems concerning water: a 

resource that is derived from precipitation 

which varies from place to place and fluctuates from season to season and year to year 

but which is a perennial supply whose longtermaverage evi.dently approaches a constant. 

(See fig. 1.) Of this average precipitation, 70 

percent returns to the atmosphere. The ~art 

remaining as surface water or replenishable 

ground water is about 1,200 billion ga.llons per 

day (bgd), which eventually runs off to the 

oceans. We are currentlywithdrawingaquarter of this--or 300 bgd--for municipal (24 

bgd), irrigation (138 bgd), and industrial (138 

bgd) uses (fig. 2), but only about 90 bgd is 

consumed in these uses, and more than 200 

bgd rejoins streams, so that runoff is still 

1,100 bgd. Most of this unconsumed 200 bgd 

has been used for cooling in industry (fig. 3), 

but the rest may carry chemical or organic 

residues that impair its quality. Projection 

of trends in water use, as shown in figure 4, 

indicates that the withdrawals by 1980 will 

be about 600 bgd--double that at present--

but most of the increase will be in the eastern half ofthe country, wherenonconsumptive 

uses are dominant. Thus even by 1980 the 

average runoff to the oceans will be close to 

1,000 bgd. This is the national average. 

The variations from this average can be 

shown in many ways. Precipitation divides 

the country into a humid East and an arid 

West, which has abundant precipitation only 

on mountain ranges and along the north 

Pacific coast. (See fig. 5.) Runoff reflects 

this same general pattern (fig. 6). The quality 

of water ranges widely and is generally best 

in the regions of greatest precipitation and 

runoff (fig,. 7). In each stream, and at each 

point on the stream, the runoff is likely to 

fluctuate seasonally and annually; in some 

regions we find alternating droughts and wetter periods, each of several years' duration 

(fig. 8). As a result of these variations, the 

Nation has a considerable variety of water 

problems (fig. 9). Here in the Southwest, we 

have nearly all the problems, although pollution and floods are less troublesome than 

in some other parts of the country. 

The second volume, on future needs, includes prints prepared by Federal.agencies. 

These prints give estimates on the future 

requirements for all contemplated uses, including municipal, industrial, pollution abatement, electric power, navigation, soil conservation, agricultural, reclamation, flood 

control, recreation, fish, and wildlife. In 

places of short supply, obviously, some of 

these uses are competitive for the available 

water. 

1 
2 WATER AND THE SOUTHWEST-WHAT IS THE FUTURE? 

FIGURE 1. 

The third volume, on meeting needs, includes prints on subjects ranging from reuse 

of water to desalination and weather modification, and I would like first to summarize 

the last and longest of these, one prepared 

by the Resources for the Future entitled 

"Water Supply and Demand." Dr. Nathaniel 

Wollman here relate_§ the natural variation 

in water supply to the estimates of future 

population, level of economic activity, use of 

water, and maintenance of satisfactory quality, as of 1980 and 2000. As to supply, he does 

not include ground water, except as it contributes to surface runoff. For future requirements he uses the estimates contained 

in the second volume. For the streams ofthe 

Nation he points out two broad essentials for 

meeting these requirements: storage for 

regulation of the variable flow and treatment 

of wastes to minimize the dilution required 

for maintenance of satisfactory water quality. 

His medium estimate for 1980 is that 525 

bgd (75 percent more than at present) will 

be required for a population of 240 million 

(33 percent more than at present). Wollman's "minimum cost" program to assure 

this quantity of usable water would require 

a capital investment of $2 billion annually 

and annual operating costs of about $ 2.4 billion. ·The GNP (gross national product) is 

projected to double by 1980--to an estimated 

$'1,060 billion. Thus this "minimum cost" 

program would require about 1 percentofthe 

projected increase in GNP. An encouraging 

note is that, if the GNP doubles while population is increasing only 33 percent, this program can be paid for by money that we don't 

ev.en receive today. 

This national picture is an aggregate derived from separate analyses for each of 22 

reasonably homogeneous water-resource regions. Four of these regions areintheSouthwest: the Colorado Basin, the Great Basin, 

the South Pacific (southern California), and 

the Central Pacific (the rest of California and 

southern Oregon). In these four regions the 

population by 1980 is predicted to be 60 to 80 
percent greater than in 1960--a rate of increase that will approach twice the national 

average. The Central Pacific region has sufficient water to meet the increased needs in 

1980 and even in 2000, provided maximum 

storage is developed for regulation. But according to Wollman, the other three regions 

of the Southwest have water supplies that will 

fall short of meeting projected needs. On the 

basis of his medium projections of population 

and economic activity, he predicts that consumptive use of water in 1980 will exceed the 

maximum total capable of being developed by 

maximum storage and by complete (97 percent) treatment of wastes in each of the 

three regions. He concludes that if the Southwest (I will use this term henceforth for his 

three regions--Colorado Basin, Great Basin, 

and South Pacific) is to share in projected 

population and economic growth one or more 

of the following adjustments in the projections for 1980 must take place: 

CRITIQUE 3 

1. An increase in water supplybyincrease 

in precipitation, increase in runoff, importation, or desalination. -

2. An increase in efficiency of water use 

beyond that which is anticipated. 

3. A reduction in heavy water-depleting 

uses in order to allow fulfillment of other uses. 

CRITIQUE 

My first reaction to these conclusions was 

to wonder whether the prospects are really so 

serious in the Southwest and to look more 

closely at the estimates pertaining to some of 

the items I know best--ground water for instance. Wollman did not consider ground water separately, and remarked that our knowledge of ground water is not sufficient to permit a satisfactory integration of ground and 

FIGURE 2. 
4 WATER AND THE SOUTHWEST-WHAT IS THE FUTURE? 

surface supplies. (See fig. 10 .) But his tabulations of present withdrawals for use include 

ground-water pumpage that has not reduced 

streamflow and will not be replaced by 

streamflow. As a result in the Colorado Basin, for instance, although the natural average 

runoff is only 13 bgd, irrigation alone can 

consume 14 bgd and yet leave an available 

supply of 3 bgd of streamflow. The apparent 

discrepancy is accounted for by pumping 

depletions from ground-water storage, especially in Arizona. Ground water is mined 

(fig. 11) in several places in the Southwest. 

At each place there may be sufficient water 

still in storage to last for many years, but 

such a supply is not perennial. If these 

current requirements must be met from the 

stream system eventually, they will add to 

the seriousness of the situation . 

A second item is Wollman's estimates of 

surface runoff. The calculation of total supply 

in the regions of the Southwest has complicaFRESH 

FIGURE 3. 

tions that do not arise in humid regions,_ where 

one can measure the quantity and quality of 

the water pouring into the ocean and see rather quickly what he has to work with and what 

he must do to get the optimum use of the resource. By contrast, no water flows to the sea 

from the Great Basin. Streams gain in some 

reaches, chiefly in their headwaters, and then 

lose by seepage to ground water, by diversions, and by evaporation. In the Southwest 

there are hundreds of closed basins where 

water may accumulate in the lowest part, 

either above or below ground, but where 

eventually all the water that falls as precipitation returns to the atmosphere (fig. 12). 

Significant natural losses are characteristic 

also of the Colorado River and its· tributaries. 

Here ground water maybe a significant but unmeasured part of the perennial supply, and 

thus a plus in our reckoning. However, it may 

be necessary to mine a large volume from 

ground-water storage in order to salvage the 

perennial yield now lost by natural discharge. 
If we were to recalculate the water supplies 

of the Southwest with full recognition of ground 

water and the salvageable natural losses, we 

would doubtless arrive at totals that are appreciably different from those used by Wollman. Such differences are to be expected and 

serve to point up Wollman's observation that 

there are inconsistencies and gaps in our 

existing knowledge and his r~commendation 

for an expanded research program in all 

phases of water occurrence, behavior, and 

use . Basically we are confronted by the mathematic al certainty that with a constant supply 

and an expanding demand created both by an 

increasing population and an increasing per 

capita use, e ventual shortage is certain. By 

comparison with the rest of the country, we 

have in the Southwest a combination of least 

supply and most rapidly increasing population 

which gives us good reason for greater 

concern. 

We can also agree with Wollman that ifthe 

population and economy are going to expand as 

projected, something must give. We must 

CRITIQUE 5 

FIGURE 4. 

either increase the supply beyond that which 

nature provides or we must allocate the 

available water to certain approved uses and 

users and deny it to others. Or we must increase the efficiency of water use beyond that 

which is anticipated. The increased efficiency 

anticipated by Wollman is to be achieved by 

maximum storage (in surface reservoirs, 

resulting in increased losses by evaporation 

as water is held over untU used) and by "complete" treatment (involving primary and secondary treatment of sewage, followed by 

sufficient dilution to make the mixture tolerable for further use). The Southwest has 

adapted these practices to a greater extent 

than many other parts of the country, because it has always had a more restricted 

water supply. But these standard operations 

of storage and treatment, advanced though 

they are in comparison with primitive practices, give us only a low order of efficiency 

in water use. The simplestproofofthis statement is in the fact that the specter of water 

shortage has been seen in localities in practically all States, yet nearly 95 percent of the 
6 WATER AND TiiE SOUTIIWEST-WHAT IS TiiE .FUTURE? 

natural runoff is still flowing to the sea. In 

other words, our standard bag of tricks is not 

enough; we will need more, and perhaps much 

more in the Southwest. 

PERSPECTIVE 

Let us pause now for a little perspective. 

Start with that of Colonel Glenn a few weeks 

ago, from an altitude of slightly more than a 

hundred miles. Most of his circuit around the 

earth was over water: oceans that have a 

total volume of 300 million cubic miles. Continents and islands were partly hidden from 

his view by water in the atmosphere--and 

these clouds generally give up only 5 to 15 

percent of their water when they are yielding 

precipitation to the land surface. Certainly 

no one not earthbound would suspect that 

earthlings could be short of water. The earthling knows, of course, that the water in the 

oceans is not "usable" until it is purified 

and that water in the atmosphere iE? not 

"usable" until it gets down to earth. 

FIGURE 5. 

Of our mineral resources other than water, 

we find very few ready for our use in the native state: gold nuggets, native copper, gem 

minerals, and a few others. The rest we must 

sort, grind, float, smelt, boil, condense, or 

otherwise refine and purify to make them usable. A large part of the cost of the usable 

products of these mineral resources is in 

this processing. If that cost for any specific 

product becomes exorbitant, we may be able 

to use a substitute that will serve our purpose 

at less cost. Thus our "requirement" for a 

specific resource is not necessarilyunalterable. 

What can we substitute for water? Here 

we are spoiled by the fact that nature is continually processing and purifying water in 

quantities that are very small in comparison 

with the total resource but large in comparison with our past needs. And this is done 

at no cost to us. Inevitably we have all been 

habituated to expect a lot for practically 

nothing. Within a month after I arrived in 

California, I re.ceived a bill for$6.75 for 
PERSPECTIVE 7 

water I had used during February, a winter 

month and the wettest in years. This is 

twice as much as I pay per month for garbage removal. But the water bill was for 

1,800 cubic feet, or more than 50 tons. Per 

ton the water, which I consider essential to 

my existence, cost me less than one-hundredth as much as the garbage which is 

nonessential. Nevertheless, fhe cost of the 

water was at the rate of $160 P.er acre-foot, 

and you know how unreasonable that sounds 

to our principal water users. 

As another perspective, 99.44 percent has 

been a well-advertised standard of purity 

for one industry. But not for water: raw 

sewage is generally that pure. "Water fit to 

drink, 11 according to U.S. Public Health 

Service standards, should be at least 99.95 

percent pure, and the impurities must be 

harmless to health. Water meeting these 

minimum standards is considered to be of 

poor quality in many parts of the country, 

and indeed it would be unsuitable for many 

uses. Thus, although water is an abundant 

FIGURE 6, 

resource, our high standards eliminate from 

consideration all but an infinitesimal fraction 

of the total. 

In perspective, then, "water shortage" is a 

frame of mind. Water is abundant enough that 

~ven today most of us pay only for its warehousing and delivery to the specific point 

where we want to use it. Thus we are conditioned to a .cost so low that it is hopeless 

to find any substitute, except other water. 

Our standards for "usable" water are so 

high that there is an impressive total of 

"other" water. This "other" water can be 

made usable for any purpose by processes 

that might make the cost considerably greater than the water provided by nature; and it 

is usable in its present state for some purposes, of which a prime example is cooling, 

but we would face the additional cost of dual 

distribution systems for the pure water and 

the "other" water. The "shortage" is actually in our willingness to pay any more for water than we have become accustomed to. 
8 WATER AND THE SOUTHWEST-WHAT IS THE FUTURE? 

SEEKING A BALANCE 

The projected "shortage" of water in the 

Southwest could be avoided by restricting the 

population and economic growth. Los Angeles 

attempted to turn back an advancing wave of 

population in 1934, but Los Angeleans were 

not as numerous then as now, and they lost 

the battle.Since then we have found that there 

is much profit in subdividing the desert, and 

limitation of population or of economic growth 

or of immigration to the Southwest will 

probably be attempted only as a last resort. 

Increasing the efficiency of water use is 

a more attractive objective for it would permit release of some of our existing supplies 

to new uses and users. Currently the principal use of water throughout the Southwest is 

for irrigation, and we all know that the present efficiency could be increased. W ollrnan 

anticipates widespread adoption of watersaving techniques by 1980, so that even though 

the irrigated acreage remains about the same 

as today, his projections presume that the 

FIGURE 7 . . 

irrigation water consumed in the Southwest 

will be about 3~ bgd less than the present rate. 

According to Wollman's tabulations, the 

item representing the greatest increase--

about 6 bgd--in consumptive use in the Southwest by 1980 is the requirement for fish and 

wildlife habitat. To some extent this requirement may be .tnet by water that we are unable 

to salvage and use fully before it accumulates 

in saline lakes and playas. Otherwise the 

maintenance of swamps and wetlands, in an 

environment more unfavorable than any other 

in the country, should rate a low priority 

among the numerous competing requirements 

for water in the Southwest. 

We anticipate a considerable increase in 

requirements for municipal and industrial use 

by 1980, but those uses are chiefly nonconsumptive. For the Southwest, Wollman's estimates indicate that the water to be consumed 

b y these uses will be 1 to 1~ bgd. This increase is less than half the projected decrease 

in use for irrigation. We see the changeover 
SEEKING A BALANCE 9 

from rural to urban lands in all our metropolitan areas, generally with only slight 

change in water requirement per acre. 

The most challenging field for increasing 

the efficiency of water use in the Southwest 

is in the salvaging of water lost from our 

surface and subsurface reservoirs by evapotranspiration. The Southwest doubtless accounts for more than a quarter of the total 

43 million acre-feet (40 bgd) thus lost in the 

17 Western States (fig. 12). Lake Mead loses 

a million acre-feet (0. 9 bgd) by evaporation 

in years of moderately high stage, and almost 

another million acre-feet is lost to phreatophytes in the lower basin below Lake Mead. 

These losses alone take the equivalent of our 

commitment to Mexico for Colorado River 

water. Add to this the evaporation losses from 

other reservoirs, and the losses to phreato-' 

phytes along other stream-s, and you can see 

that you have--or rather you don't have--a 

large quantity of water that could be salvaged. 

FIGURE 8. 

The natural losses from the interior basins 

pose another type of salvage problem. The 

principal source of water is precipitation upon 

the mountainous rims of these basins, and the 

water diminishes in quantity and deteriorates 

in quality as it moves toward the lowest part 

of the basin, which is generally an area of 

natural discharge and probably an area of 

saline water and saline soils. Present users 

intercept the water en route, by means of 

dams, canals, and wells. Thenaturallosswill 

continue, however, until the water level in 

the lowest part of the basin is lowered beyond the rea,ch of phreatophytes. This generally requires mining of a large volume of water in order to salvage a relatively small 

quantity. 

For each of the 22 regions of the Nation, 

Wollman calculates the flow needed for dilution of wastes (that have been treated to the 

minimum required level) so that the water 
10 WATER AND THE SOUTHWEST-WHAT IS THE FUTURE? 

will be usable downstream. In the three regions of the Southwest he estimates that flows 

of about 10 bgd would be required for dilution 

even after all wastes had received "maximum" treatment. However, he points out 

that by 1980 the projected consumptive uses 

alone, without taking waste dilution into account, would exceed the maximum sustained 

flow capable of being developed from the present supply. In several of our basins there is 

no problem of dilution of the waste waters: 

Imperial Valley is an example where the water draining the salts from the irrigated area 

goes to Salton Sea where no further use is 

made of it. A different problem arises in the 

lower Gila basin, where maintenance of suitable salt balance also requires removal of 

salts from irrigated lands. Here a separate 

pipeline for waste waters, discharging to the 

gulf or to a desert basin, may pay for itself 

by reducing the amount of dilution flow rerequired in the Colorado River downstream. 

FIGURE 9. 

INCREASING THE SUPPLY 

Importation of water from regions of surplus to regions of deficiency is merely an 

extension of a basic concept of Western ci vilization: live in the dry valleys and enjoy the 

sunshine, and use the water from the mountains which have snow and rain and are less 

comfortable for living. Southern California 

thrives on imported water, and the California 

Plan is essentially one of moving water from 

areas of present surplus in the north to areas 

of deficiency in the south. Even in 1980 a surplus of water is forecast in the Pacific regions north of Mount Shasta. Hewever, one 

must anticipate greater use within the areas· 

of surplus, greater resistance to exporting 

water from those areas, and greater costs of 

pipelines and transport of water that may be 

imported into the Southwest. In any case importation ·does not increase the Nation's supply but merely redistributes it. 
INCREASING THE SUPPLY 11 

FIGURE 10. 

The net water supply of surface water and 

ground water would be increased by any reduction of that 70 percent of the precipitation 

that now returns to the atmosphere. Some 

opportunities have already been mentioned: 

suppression of evaporation from reservoirs; 

eradication of phreatophytes along streams, 

thereby increasing streamflow; and pumping 

from wells to salvage water now lost from 

basins of interior drainage. Among others 

that might be mentioned are: modification 

of land cover or control of snowmelt, either 

to increase runoff or to induce ground-water 

recharge; artificial recharge of ground water 

when surplus surface water is available; and 

storage underground rather than in surface 

reservoirs where there is opportunity. 

For increase in total precipitation, there is 

"cloud seeding" or weather modification, and 

our- success to date is still controversial, as 

shown in the divergent views expressed in the 

Senate Select Committee's prints. All are 

agreed that there is need for further fundamental research and controlled experimentation. To date the best proof of benefit has 

been from seeding of winter-type storm 

clouds in mountainous areas of the West, and 

the increase has been perhaps 10 to 15 percent above what would have precipitated naturally. Thus we appear to have the environment most favorable for success in, weather 

modification. Also, in the cloudless skies of 

extended droughts we have the most unfavorable conditions. 

Desalination represents a substitute for the 

atmospheric part of the hydrologic cycle, 

from evaporation to precipitation. Many processes have been developed, using distillation, 

freezing, electrodialysis, and solvent extraction, and severai of these have reached the 

dem.onstration-plant stage-. However, to quote 

from the introduction to the Senate Select 

Committee print "Saline Water Conversion": 

"Low.:.cost saline water conversion is a problem which has not been satisfactorily solved 

to date." 
12 WATER AND THE SOUTHWEST-WHAT IS THE FUTURE? 

FIGURE 11. 

Is there any doubt in your minds that salinewater conversion will eventually provide an 

important part of our fresh-water supplies? 

Plants producing millions of gallons per day 

have been operating for several years at 

Kuwait, Aruba, and Curacao, which are woefully short of conventional fresh-water supplies, and the cost is generally greater than 

$1.75 per 1,000 gallons. At the new Point 

Lorna plant at San Diego it is hoped that the 

cost of distillation can be reduced to less 

than $1.00 per 1,000 gallons. Intensive research is seeking new processes that require 

less energy or new forms of energy that will 

reduce the cost of desalination even further. 

Meanwhile, we can be assured that the costs 

of conventional water supplies to meet increasing demands of the future will be greater than the costs of water to us today, whether 

that additional water comes from more reservoirs, longer pipelines, deeper wells, or 

various salvaging and treatment techniques. 

Even now the cities along the coast may 

find it economical, as their requirements increase toward the limit of existing supplies, 

to supplement their supply by sea-water conversion and distribute the cost among all their 

consumers, rather than enlarge their supplies . 

by conventional methods. Eventually it may 

also be profitable to separate and market 

some of the salts that are extracted from the 

water. Inland, if water users wish to tap the 

unlimited source offered by the ocean, they 

must bear the costs of pipelines and pumping lifts in addition to those of the desalination process. Alternatively they maytapcontinental sources of brackish water, or even 

brines, subject to the limitation that these 

sources, like the continental fresh-water 

sources, will not be "inexhaustible." 

In some places desalination may be economically feasible on the basis that it results in far more usable water than the quantity actually processed. A saline spring discharging into a river, for instance, may require dilution by 50 units of river water in 

order to make the spring water usable--that 

is, the spring yields a small quantity of water to the river, but in doing so takes 50 times 
INCREASING THE SUPPLY 13 

that amount of river water down to the borderline of usability. Here the benefits of desalination would extend beyond the amount of 

water actually processed. 

This short summary of the opportunities 

for more effective use of the present supply 

and for increasing the supply of fresh water 

may seem to exude optimism for the future. 

The sober side is that these are not merely 

opportunities, but prerequisites, to the future 

welfare of the people of the West. And they 

require greater knowledge and greater effort 

than we have achieved to date, and a greater 

expenditure of funds than has been allocated 

to water up to now. 

If the future is to be as rosy as we hope, 

the science of hydrology must play an increasingly important role. Our knowledge of 

water, and our objectives in obtaining data, 

have expanded with the increasing development and use of water. Like the early settlers 

starting with one well or spring or diversion 

point on a river, the earliest data were concerned with immediate and local problems. 

With increasing demands upon a limited resource, it has been necessary to widen our 

horizons to entire streams and ground-water 

basins and, then, to major regions, and in the 

course of this evolution we are developing 

the broad natural interrelations of the water 

resources and of the modifications made by 

man. Projecting our present knowledge into 

the future we can see ti;J.at catastrophe can result from ignorance of these potential effects 

and also that knowledge can be the basis for 

successful management and use of water to 

meet our needs. We don't yet have all the 

knowledge we need. 

Economics and, its unregimented relative, 

politics, will be the determining factors in 

the proportion of the GNP allocated to water 

development and use, and in the choice of 

specific projects for making, storing, purifying, salvaging, or efficiently using water. 

Hydrology can assist in these choices by assessing the regional or long-range benefits 

and costs which may be obscured by, and in 

FIGURE lZ. 
14 WATER AND THE SOUTHWEST-WHAT IS THE ,FUTURE? 

conflict with, the local and immediate benefits of specific projects. A major difficulty 

here is that our existing developments~ existing patterns of use, and existing patterns 

of thinking tend to create a rigidity that 

hinders change for the better. 

FEASIBILITY AND DEFEASIBILITY 

Feasibility has become an important word 

in the vocabulary of all those concerned with 

water-resource activities. It represents their 

best judgment of the overall worth of a project, 

generally on the basis of a cost-benefit ratio 

or similar yardstick. This best judgment is 

achieved through the combined talents of the 

water users, hydrologists, economists, financiers, lawyers, and elected representatives of the public. But we know that standards 

have changed through the years with advancing 

technology. Today we are doing many things 

that would have been classed as unfeasible 

a few years ago, and we now seriously question proposals that may be well within the 

range of feasibility by 1980. 

In this gradual evolution it is far easier 

to accept the new than to put off the old. Lot's 

wife became famous, and saline, for her inability to break off sharply with the past, and 

we all have that trait to some degree. Here I 

should like to bring in a word that is. very 

little used, except by lawyers: defeasibility, 

the capability of being undone or annulled. The 

word may be applied to ideas and concepts 

that are relics of the evolutionary process, 

now outmoded and hampering our progress. 

In a sense, "feasible" has two opposites: 

"infeasible" --not capable of being done; and 

"defeasible"--capable of being undone. 

In my own field of ground water, I believe 

"safe yield" deserves consideration as a defeasible concept. Defined several decades ago 

as the rate at which water can be withdrawn 

from an aquifer without depleting the supply 

to such an extent that withdrawal at that rate 

is no longer economically feasible~ it would 

appear to offer a means of insuring perennial 

ground-water supplies, and several States 

. have laws restricting development to the safe 

yield. Such laws may provide satisfactory 

solutions to problems restricted to a single 

aquifer or to short-range economics. But 

in the broad view, if the water does not come 

from storage within the aquifer it must deplete the supply somewhere else in the 'integrated hydrologic system; on the other hand, 

wholesale depletion may be economically 

feasible in the long-range view if it results 

in building up an economy that can afford to 

payfor water from a more expensive source. 

My prime candidates for defeasibility are 

some of the time-honored concepts concerning property rights in water, a touchy subject 

to bring up in a group concerned with land, 

mortgages, an,d the property rights that may 

be an essential part of the security for these 

mortgages. These water-rights concepts have 

been developed by tremendous effort extending over many decades, even more than a 

century, but chiefly with an objective that 

amounts to fitting a round peg into a square 

hole: the round peg symbolic of the drop of 

water--fluid, dynamic, moving from place to 

place, variable in quantity and quality; the 

square hole symbolic of land parcels--solid, 

static, rigid, unmoving. In the process we 

have created a pseudohydrology that is aweinspiring· but unacceptable to the scientist. 

For example, I would not dare use the term 

"percolating water" now that it has been 

worked over and rolled out into a monomolecular film covering everything, and yet is 

defined so negatively that it would seem to be 

the embodiment of the mathematical vCT:" 

I would not suggest anything so drastic as 

abolishing water rights, which are essential 

to the orderliness with which we can distribute the variable supplies of water and 

which could not be overthrown without the 

danger of overthrowing also the Government 

and the Constitution on which it is based. But 

there is need to adapt our concepts of water 

rights to the dynamics of the flow systems 

that characterize our water resources. Flexibility Will become increasingly important 

in the future, to adaptto regional variations--

greatest natural water loss in the Southwest 

deserts, greatest surplus in the Pacific 

Northwest, inost economical places for seawater conversion along the California coast 

and the lower Colorado basin. "Adapt" is a 

word that is easily said, but we all know that 

no one holding a valid water right would accept any change unless he had advantages 

at least as great as those afforded by his 

present right. 

A major attribute of a water right is security in the use of water. There is little 

concern over water rights when the supply 

exceeds the needs of all potential users, but 

water deficiency or even the threat of insufficient supplies can make water rights a 

prime concern. Judging by the attitude of 

most urbanites who are served by an efficient municipal water system, people do 

not have an instinctive interest in water 
REFERENCE 15 

rights as such, and are quite willing to delegate their worries to the waterworks, if 

they have assurance of water when and where 

they want it. It can safely be predicted, however, that if the increasing use of water continues without a concurrent program that will 

give assurance to the users of a perennial 

su.pply, the competition for water will make 

water rights of dominant concern. 

Water rights also confer upon certain users 

tremendous advantages in water costs. Recently the San Francisco Chronical reported 

in its column "100 Years Ago Today" that 

floods along the Sacramento River had caused 

so much loss in livestock that the price of 

beef had gone up to 12 cents a pound. Do you 

know anyone who buys steaks at that price today on the strength of a right established in 

1862? But some of our contemporaries obtain 

water at very low cost based on rights developed in that year. Because of differences 

in rights. some people may pay several times 

~s much for water as do others obtaining water 

from the same source. Water rights by their 

relation to water cost can thus be an obstacle 

to comprehensive water-resource management of broad regions, although this obstacle 

has been overcome in many places an,d can be 

generally overcome by bargaining, compromise, and eventual agreement on pooling of 

rights. 

Where water rights protect and sustain 

gross ineffiCiencies in water use, the community may have the power to tax or charge 

for the water wasted. The definition of "beneficial use" can be progressively tightened so 

that losses now considered "unavoidable" can 

be increasingly charged as a responsibility 

of the right holder. Thus a water right may 

eventually carry not only the assurance of a 

share of the water but also a share of the 

responsibility for such items as evaporation 

from reservoirs, phreatophytes along ditches 

and canals and along streams, and contaminants and pollutants in nonconsumptl vely· 

used water. Where pumping from wells causes 

a progressive depletion of storage--and the 

implication that eventually someone must 

provide a substitute water ·supply or absorb 

the population that cannot subsist after the 

present supply is exhausted--a possible solution may be a severance tax on the water 

(rather than a tax benefit based on a depletion 

allowance to the "owners" of the water, as has 

been proposed in some regions). 

Within a month after I came to California, 

the electric company had me on its mailing 

list. My bill for electricity amounted to about 

2 ~ cents per kwhr. I know that others are on 

different- rate schedules, and some may pay 

more, whereas others are charged a far lower 

rate. I also received an envelope full of 

literature, from which I l~arned that the 

four private utilities in California are closely integrated for power interchange. Of all 

the kilowatts I use, I haven't the least idea 

where any originates, and I don't care. To 

me, the essential feature is that electricity 

is there when I need it or want it--and I 

appreciate that more fully after 2 years in 

Africa. I would like to see water similarly 

served to the people to meet their needs, 

. according to fair rate schedules that would 

doubtless vary according to the use. Then 

the property rights in water could diminish 

in significance. 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion as to the future, we can be 

sure that water supply in the West will continue to present many problems, undoubtedly 

of increasing complexity. We can be sure also 

that our water supplies will become increasingly expensiye. If we do nothing constructive, 

we will pay heavily for controversies over 

division of the limited supplies that nature 

will provide. Jf we continue the present 

trend of modest development and improvement, we will still not have enough for our 

foreseeable requirements in 1980. And if 

we do meet those foreseeable requirements, 

we must have more knowledge, more effort, 

and more enlightened attitude of the public. 

Water, H20, is sufficiently abundant that we 

may have several alternative means or combinations of means of providing a specified 

quantity at a desired standard of purity. Our 

choice then becomes one of greatest benefit 

at least cost from the viewpoint of the public 

as well as the individual. Necessarily in 

effective economic planning for the future, 

planning of water use will be an inseparable 

compo:rtent. 

REFERENCE 

U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on 

National Water Resources, 1959-60, Water resources activities in the United 

States--Committee prints 1-32: U.S. 86th 

Cong., 1st and 2d sess., pursuant to Senate Res. 48. [Prints are independently 

paged.] 

INT.DUP.,D.C.62- 16670