Suchergebnisse

Both the federal and state governments have strong constitutional daims and political resources with which to influence the allocation of water resources. Until the 1970s. federal agencies were able to dominate kr setting goals and objectives. However, when the federal government attempted to implement a national water policy in the 1970s, effective opposition was mounted by the states. Both the states and the federal government now exert decisive influence in water policy.

Contributed articles

"Sustainable Water Resource Development and Management is a comprehensive volume on this important topic. It broadly covers the sources, availability, demand, and supply of water and its uses in irrigation and crop production in agriculture. It then delves into many specific aspects of water resource development and management, including irrigation creation and utilization, water storage efficiency, conveyance efficiency, distribution efficiency, and application efficiency, the role of water in plant systems and soil-water-plant relationships, estimating the water need for irrigation along with management strategies, water quality in agriculture as well as the impact of water quality on human health, water pricing, wetland management and water productivity, water pollution in agriculture and water contamination in urban and rural areas. Examples and case studies are included to illustrate and reinforce the text, such as reviews of river linking projects, adopted water management technologies for agricultural farms, important irrigation projects (both minor and major), and more. Written by two eminent researchers and scientists in agricultural water management, this informative volume is designed for students of agriculture, researchers, policymakers, and teachers engaged in the field of water management."--

AbstractCustomers, the public generally, the water industry, its regulators and the government are aware that water can be a scarce and costly product. Resource planning and development must increasingly be viewed as a combined package of water efficiency in (a) use, (b) metering and tariff policy, (c) leakage reduction, and (d) physical schemes.Droughts, fears over possible climate change, concerns about resources and the environment, a greater awareness of the role and costs of the water industry and statements by the Department of the Environment, the Office of Water Services, and the National Rivers Authority have added weight to this sensible shift in emphasis.However, society needs reliable water supplies and cannot completely rely upon the uncertain impact that demand side‐measures may bring about – nor, even where achieved and cost‐effective, on the important savings in losses. New resource schemes can take many years to implement. Therefore, in order to ensure adequate and reliable supplies, plans for new schemes must be brought to a state of readiness, and, in many cases, implemented.

At present, the field of social impact assessment for water resources development contains a proliferation of often divergent listings of indicators for social well-being. One of the major reasons for this is that underlying assumptions concerning the nature of social well-being and its measurement are usually left implicit. This article identifies seven issues and problems relating to SIAs that have contributed to these differing approaches. The seven issues and problems covered are: (1) levels of causation; (2) objective versus subjective conceptualization and measurement; (3) projective versus evaluative assessment; (4) economic versus social and psychological models of motivation; (5) equating microlevel components with macrolevel data; (6) homogeneous versus pluralistic views of American society; and (7) specific phasing. Priorities for future research are also suggested with respect to these issues.