Challenge of 

Water Management

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

CIRCULAR 414-B
Part B

The Challenge of 

Water Management

By Luna B. Leopold

CONSERVATION AND WATER MANAGEMENT

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 414-B

This vo/um« comp/«f» in four parts

Watbington I960
United States Department of the Interior

STEWART L. UDALL, Secretory

Geological Survey

William T. Pecora, Director

First printing 

Second printing 1962

Third printing 1965 

Fourth printing 1967

Free on application to fne U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, O.C. 20242
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 414

CONSERVATION AND WATER MANAGEMENT

PART B

The Challenge of Water Management

By Luna B. Leopold

Presented before the 50th anniversary meeting, Illinois section of 

American Waterworks Association, Chicago, III., March 11, 1959

In a sandy, riverside location in Wisconsin my 

family has a farm, once abandoned by a previous 

owner because it would not produce much corn. 

By the time we bought it for a pittance, only a 

few remnants of white pine remained from the 

magnificent stands made famous by Paul 

Bunyan. The variability of the glacial topography had resulted in an interesting mixture 

of prairie marsh, swamp woodlot, and sandhill.

We did not acquire this farm because it had 

a great potential for growing crops. Rather we 

were interested in the variety of ecologic and 

topographic types which, ev^n within the confines of our property, represented a condensed 

version of many different types of land in the 

Wisconsin countryside. It has also a very peculiar esthetic and historical interest. Marquette's 

canoes slipped quietly past our favorite fishing 

hole on the river. Passenger pigeons had once 

roosted in our great oaks. The few remaining 

white pines silhouetted against the sky-glow of 

evening made one think of the Round River 

and the Blue Ox.

All right, we had acquired this place. What 

were we to do with it. Its resources were 

narrowly limited and peculiar. They had little 

economic value. All the more reason that they 

should be appraised in order that they be fully 

utilized and appreciated. So, while we were

hammering and sawing the old stable into a 

useable homestead, we walked, sat, dug, and 

pruned in every coulee and covert, in every 

thicket and thatch. By compass and pace we 

mapped the boundaries, the vegetation, and 

sketched in the topography with notes on the 

distribution of soil and the occurrence of water. 

We counted the various kinds of birds and found 

there was a reasonable population of woods 

species, mostly transients. There were no 

pheasant, no quail, practically no grouse, and 

in spring only an occasional woodcock.

In conjunction with the analysis of what we 

had to work with we started immediately on 

the task of development. The techniques were 

chosen with an eye to specific goals. We 

wanted, over a long period of time, to grow a 

stand of conifers which would yield both 

pleasure to the eye and logs to the saw. We 

could see the possibilities of having quail, 

pheasants, grouse, and deer, and of extending 

the stay of some of the migrant species.

Se we set to work with shovel and axe, wire 

and nails, and a will to succeed. Trees were 

lopped so that they formed brush, piles. Wild 

grapes were brought in and planted on the 

brush piles. Grass was removed with a shovel 

where it was competing with desirable wild 

flowers. Little patches of corn and beans were 

planted to provide proper combinations of food 

and cover.
Within few years we had pheasants, grouse, 

and woodcock to shoot, wild flowers to delight 

the eye and the nose, and the annual increments 

on the stem of every pine were future increments 

of dollars in the bank.

The problem of appraisal, development, and 

management are similar, whatever the nature 

of the resource. Resources may be renewable 

or nonrenewable. With renewable resources 

our problem is to increase, insofar as possible, 

the take from each increment. With nonrenewable resources the problem is to develop in 

an orderly manner without waste.

As in other resource problems, it is necessary 

at the earliest possible stage to make an adequate 

appraisal, to estimate the characteristics and 

distribution of the resource, and, on the basis 

of the facts obtained, to map out a plan of 

development and management. The initial 

appraisal may be done by pace and compass or 

it may be done with the most modern scientific 

instruments. The appraisal, however complete, 

must be designed in such a way as to evaluate 

the various aspects of the resource and not 

merely one part of it.

A resource appraisal is not something that 

you do once and then forget, because the resource itself is constantly changing. It is therefore necessary to follow up the general study 

with continuing measurements, generally on a 

sampling basis.

There is another characteristic which is 

common to all resource problems. The resource 

appraisal, its development and management, 

must be based on an estimate of future needs 

in due relation to the potentialities of the available resource. On our farm we had to decide 

what it was we were trying to achieve. Many 

of our choices were between economic and 

esthetic values, because the esthetic values, such 

as scenery or solitude, could not compete dollarwise against other possible uses of the land. 

An initial decision had to be made concerning

the esthetic values which were to be preserved. 

We had to decide, for example, whether the 

one fertile part of our prairie should be devoted 

to growing wild flowers or corn. For us this 

choice was an easy one. The spring blush of 

gray and green, punctuated by the white pergolas 

of flowing baptisia, was far more important 

than the few dollars which the same area could 

yield in corn.

Though much more complex, the choice of 

the American people concerning the degree of 

pollution of our rivers is a matter of choice in 

which certain esthetic values may be obtained 

only at a certain economic price. But in 

choosing among various possible developments, 

these choices must be faced squarely.

In a resource problem the period of development is characteristically much shorter than the 

subsequent period of management. It did not 

take us very long to complete the construction 

of brush piles, the transplantation of flowers 

and trees, and the finishing of our rude homestead. Then followed, and continues, the constant culling of undesirable trees from the 

woodlot, the thinning, the weeding, and the 

seasonal burning of trash.

In the field of water, the United States has 

nearly completed the homestead and must now 

prepare with shovel and pruning shears to 

manage the developed resource. That we have 

reached this stage is abundantly clear in the 

recent realization that in much of the West the 

available water resource is nearly fully appropriated and being used. It is now necessary to 

inspect more carefully the nature of the unused, 

lost, or wasted portion of the resource to see 

whether it can be brought under control and 

managed for productive use.

In a recent paper Raymond L. Nace compiled 

a general budget of the total water resource of 

the world with special emphasis on the United 

States. He was concerned with identifying 

those general parts of the resource which are
most susceptible to unused management opportunities. He estimates that in the United 

States ground water occurring at depths less 

than 2,500 feet is equivalent to the total of 

all recharge during the last 160 years. There 

is, in other words, a sizable reserve which has 

been accumulating over a long period of time. 

Nace concluded that at the present time by far 

the greatest opportunity for new management 

practices lies in the field of ground water.

There is at this time only an incomplete 

picture of the water resources of the country. 

We have certainly not made more than a beginning on a real appraisal of the resource, State 

by State, with a quantitative picture of the 

water budget, however rough present knowledge 

would require such a budget to be. We in the 

water-resource field talk a lot about water appraisal, but when our activities are studied in 

detail it becomes apparent that our effort has 

been overbalanced, with disproportionate emphasis on the collection of data. We are not 

really translating enough measurement data in 

the manner that would be most helpful for true 

management. For example, estimates of groundwater resources, including the requisite subsurface geologic information, have been 

completed for only a few drainage basins in the 

United States. With regard to the surface-water 

resource, the samples represented by streamgaging data have been obtained at 10,000 sites 

in the United States. Although this is better 

coverage than in any other large country in the 

world, it still is not a large sample of the 3- 

million odd miles of surface streams which 

exist in this country. More of this information 

on streamflow must be analyzed, together with 

ground-water information, to compile a water 

budget for each basin, aquifer, or other hydrologic unit, so that the possibilities of management might be evaluated.

Though the period of development approaches 

maturity, and in some drainage basins in the

West development may be almost complete, we 

are hardly beginning to think about the much 

longer period ahead of us in which the principal water problem will be one of wise management. We still lack many of the elements 

essential for a program of wise management. 

First, though our store of facts is relatively 

good, we are deficient in translating these facts 

into adequate appraisals. More importantly, 

our basic knowledge of the mechanics and processes in the land portion of the hydrologic 

cycle is severly -limited. Yes, we know many 

details about the hydrologic cycle, but in terms 

of the kind of knowledge necessary for wise and 

efficient management of the water resource it is 

my opinion that our detailed knowledge of 

hydrologic principles is woefully short.

We lack a third important ingredient to any 

scheme of resource management. There must 

be certain generalized decisions concerning 

what we want to be and want to have as a 

people. These decisions can stem only from a 

philosophy which extends into the field of esthetic values as well as economic ones. As a 

people, we must decide what we want in the 

way of clean streams, of natural scenery and 

wilderness, and of other values for recreation 

and beauty which compete with the economic 

possibilities of resource development. The 

engineer has a peculiar responsibility in this 

field, which in my opinion is not now being 

adequately discharged. It is up to the engineering specialists in the field of water not only 

to analyze and appraise the magnitude and 

characteristics of the resource, but also to present this information to the public in such a 

way that a philisophy about management and 

use can gradually emerge. But even before we 

transmit our knowledge and facts to the public 

there is a need for the delineation of general 

concepts.

We in the engineering profession must ourselves analyze water problems and water facts
in terms sufficiently broad for us to develop 

generalizations on which we may base a professional point of view. I suggest here one 

such generalization: America is now entering 

a period when water management rather than 

water development is the major engineering 

task confronting us

If we accept this generalization as true, the 

nature and scope of necessary knowledge and 

data, management techniques and appraisal 

studies must be reframed in terms of the management challenge.

Let us clarify what we mean by management. 

By the management of money we think of 

making sound investments which give a satisfactory balance between risk of loss and financial 

return. Management of water might be considered to have analogous elements. To make a 

sound investment of water would be to apply 

water to uses which are fitting and reasonable; 

that is, uses which are in consonance with the 

supply, the variability that is characteristic of 

the supply, and with the quality. Risk of loss 

in the field of water might be defined as undue 

depletion or unnecessary degradation of the 

quality. The analogy to financial return might 

be to the number of times a given supply is 

used and the social values accruing from these 

uses.

To be more specific, let us consider some 

examples of water management, both theoretic 

and actual.

Probably the most obvious type of water 

management is by reservoir storage, impounding flow which occurs during periods of high 

runoff, and later releasing this stored water to 

supply needs during periods of low flow. A 

higher type of management is that concerned 

with releases from a reservoir when hydroelectric power is to be developed as well as, say, 

irrigation needs are to be met. Reservoir 

operation involving more than a single use of 

stored water is often specialized and complex.

Power demands have quite a different time 

schedule from irrigation demands. To generate 

the maximum amount of power while simultaneously meeting irrigation or municipal-water 

demands requires considerable skill. Also, 

scheduling reservoir releases for such multiple 

use becomes increasingly efficient with increased 

skill in forecasting, not only forecasting the 

timing and volume of demands, but forecasting 

the volume of expected runoff. Add to these considerations the relation of evaporation losses to 

area of exposed water-surface area, a factor of 

importance in semiarid or arid areas, and reservoir operation becomes an art requiring great 

skill.

In large river basins a system of reservoirs 

presents even more complicated problems. The 

need for unfilled reservoir capacity for flood 

control is sometimes a factor, though in most 

reservoir systems, flood-control capacity is generally kept separate and additive to capacity for 

holdover storage. In some places there is pressure to use flood-control storage capacity for 

municipal holdover storage. Where the engineer must do this, forecasting becomes imperative.

Reservoir operation is a form of water management in widespread use today. But, in the 

present discussion I wish to consider management in a larger context. Consider the much 

more complicated system of water relations in a 

drainage basin. Let storage be considered to 

include reservoir storage, ground or aquifer 

storage, and storage as soil moisture. Let water 

use include municipal, industrial, agricultural 

(both dry-farmed and irrigated), and recreational. 

Let water availability mean how much water is at 

a given place at a given time, but availability is 

interrelated to utility of water that is, the 

applicability of a given quality to a particular 

use.

If storage is to include the possibility of using 

aquifers as underground water reservoirs, much

10
additional knowledge is needed. Some of the 

advantages of underground storage are quite 

obvious. Evaporation losses would be minimized. Underground storage eliminates the 

gradual replacement of usable storage-capacity 

by sediment, a long-term disadvantage of surface reservoirs. But at present the techniques 

for getting surface water into an aquifer efficiently and in sufficiently large volume are 

inadequately developed. Only in a few exceptionally favorable geologic, topographic, and hydrologic situations is artificial recharge 

practiced at present. Infiltration by surface 

ponding involves difficulties in maintaining 

sufficiently high permeability. Well injection 

is hampered by tendency for clogging of pores 

by chemical precipitation, air bubble locking, by 

sediment or organic clogging. Induced infiltration by manipulation of ground-water levels 

and by operation of surface storage reservoirs is 

still in its infancy.

Management, in this broader context, then, 

implies foresight in identifying both possibilities 

and difficulties, and the initiation of investigations aimed at overcoming the difficulties.

Appraisal from the standpoint of management is not merely the collection or records. 

To record' history is neither appraisal nor management. History must be used to evaluate the 

characteristics of the resource which is appraised. 

Management is the projection of these characteristics and of this history into the future to 

forecast the results of various alternative actions 

and to develop plans which utilize these forecasted results to attain desirable or profitable 

results.

Such forecasts usually require additional or 

new knowledge and experience. Part of the 

task of appraisal is to identify the nature of 

such needed knowledge and experience and to 

arrange for obtaining it. Now in this setting, 

consider how management might mean both 

advance planning, and day to day operation.

Assume that an appraisal has been made which 

is sufficiently complete to allow some reasonable 

generalization to be made about the amounts, 

variability, and quality of water in various districts or areal units within the basin.

Industry is increasing. A particluar industry 

wishes to know the possible places where certain 

amounts of water would be available. The 

proper governing body would inquire first concerning the minimum quality characteristics 

necessary for that industry, and then about the 

amount and types of waste products which 

would be discharged. An inspection of the 

appraisal information would show areas where 

water exists which would satisfy the minimum 

quality requirements. An industry requiring 

water only for cooling might use a water higher 

in salts than would be needed for municipal 

use. The industry would be urged to use the 

lowest quality water which would meet the 

needs.

The areas which might supply such water 

would then be considered in terms of the effects 

of the pollutants to be discharged. One area 

might have sufficient flow during drought 

periods to dilute industrial pollutants enough 

to make treatment unnecessary. Another area 

under consideration may not be so blessed. For 

use of the latter, any permit to use water would 

include a provision that the industrial user 

undertake a specified type and degree of treatment of wastes before they are liberated into a 

stream.

Management implies foresight that such 

choices will have to be made. It requires particular kinds of information and data, and the 

utilization of such information for advising the 

industry and for the decisions concerning the 

issuance of water-use permit.

A municipality foresees the need for additional 

water. From the appraisal data, various physical alternatives could be visualized. Analysis 

of these data, coupled with experience of water

11
users in the area, might point to such alternatives as new surface reservoirs or a well field 

to develop ground water for the new supply. 

Let us assume that a surface supply might be 

developed, but would compete with certain 

recreational and wildlife needs. A financially 

cheaper solution could be the development of 

wells tapping a ground supply. But assume 

that the aquifer is already fully utilized for 

supplementary irrigation.

It is not sufficient to say that municipal use 

has a higher priority than agricultural use. 

Though this may be sound as a broad generalization, it is not a criterion which by itself can 

lead to a decision in a case like the one cited, 

because life and health are not at issue.

Legal doctrine similarly would not necessarily 

lead inexorably to a single, clear-cut answer. 

In the field of ground water particularly, it is 

difficult even under optimum conditions to 

define what water belongs to whom. Much 

depends on the hydrologic relation of recharge 

area to point of use, on the relation of surface 

streams to recharge, on the effects of withdrawal 

location and amounts to the rate and source of 

recharge. In other words, a legal doctrine may 

be quite clear, but its meaning and application 

in any given instance depends greatly on hydrologic facts and physical interrelations.

Nor does the administrative machinery of 

boards, committees, or executive directors, however powerful or well coordinated, either prevent or solve water problems. Two things are 

vitally necessary for such officers or groups to 

be effective. First is an understanding of the 

hydrologic environment within which their 

authority is exercised. Second is a social environment, meaning an informed public, whose 

aspirations and needs are known. These aspirations must be voiced with at least some 

attention to both the hydrologic environment 

and the broad social needs of community and 

State, rather than merely to local and financial

aspects. It is obvious that both of these requirements demand both facts and knowledge about 

the water resources and the physical relations 

affecting the resource.

There are some outstanding examples indicating that some areas and some groups are 

entering the phase of water management which 

I am trying to picture. One of the most significant and far-sighted is indicated by a recent 

action by the State Engineer of New Mexico, 

S. E. Reynolds. Recognizing the hydrologic 

fact that surface streamflow is intimately interconnected with ground water in the premeable 

valley deposits of the Middle Rio Grande 

Valley, the State Engineer declared that with* 

drawals of ground water in that valley would 

be considered to be the same as diverting water 

from the river and, therefore, subject to the 

same rules of appropriation. This decision is 

outstanding because it exemplifies so clearly 

that hydrologic principles can and must eventually become one of the bases for administrative 

action.

Water problems do not arise until competition 

develops. As long as the supply is adequate, 

problems are minimal. But as development of 

water supply progresses, and particularly during 

periods of less than normal supply, competition 

intensifies.

It is my opinion that no law, no series of 

permit regulations, no priority-ordering among 

municipal, industrial, and agricultural use will 

automatically solve such problems. Nor do I 

believe than an appropriation rather than a 

riparian doctrine would necessarily prevent the 

problems from arising. In fact it is open to 

question whether one kind of doctrine rather 

than another would necessarily, by itself, make 

the problems more amenable to solution.

It is exactly in this sense that I stress the 

idea of water management rather than recommend specific kinds of legislative doctrine, rules 

of priority among uses, or administrative pro12
cedures. Management connotes the application 

of data and knowledge in a framework of flexibility of action. Management implies the use 

of liberal horsesense rather than horsepower. 

But horsesense can be used to good advantage 

only when there is sufficient knowledge to 

permit choices to be framed in some sort of 

rational and logical terms. Pure guesswork is 

not the same as the use of horsesense.

Thus, no matter what type of resource use is 

under consideration, whether a farmstead, a

river basin, or a State the boundaries of which 

include many kinds of natural resources, management should accompany development. But 

development and management depend on an 

adequate system of continuing appraisal. We, 

the engineers and other scientific personnel who 

consider ourselves experts in the field of water, 

are still trying to run a mechanized complex of 

water development with a tool kit for water 

appraisal limited to a screwdriver and a pipe 

wrench.