A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
THE NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION AND THE WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL
In 1965 Congress passed the Water Resources Planning Act and thereby created a (federal) Water Resources Council. It also authorized the establishment of interstate water‐resource development commissions and grants to individual states. About four years ago, Congress went a step further and authorized the creation of a (nonfederal) National Water Commission to look after the long‐range problems confronting the US in its effort to preserve its water resources. The four articles that appear under the common title, “National Water Commission and Water Resources Council,” are adapted from four related papers presented at the Annual Conference, Washington, D.C., Jun. 23, 1970.
The lead article, by Schad, moderator of the joint discussion, is a response to questions that have been raised regarding the relationship of the National Water Commission and the Water Resources Council. Because it is made up of seven members who have no other position with the federal government, the Commission is in a position to obtain an overview of existing institutions and arrangements. The Commission's job is to come up with recommendations for measures to ensure that future needs for water and water‐related services are met efficiently. Under the terms of its charter, the Commission must work closely with the Council. The article details this relationship.
The second article, by Maughan, describes the makeup and operations of the Council. In the process, the author brings the reader up to date about a current significant activity of the Council: its study of a multiple‐objective approach to the evaluation of water‐resource programs and projects.
The third in this series of articles, by McFarland, is a critical appraisal of the relative merits of the Council and the Commission. The author contends that the Council has not done the job for which it was created. He ruminates about why this condition is so and suggests ways by which the Commission can avoid the same pitfalls.
The last article, by Verkler, describes some of the ancillary benefits that are an outcome of the work by both the Council and the Commission. The author contends that many of the methods applied to the preservation of our water resources can be adapted to land‐use planning. The article is, therefore, an exposition of methods and procedures along with suggestions as to their future application.
THE NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION AND THE WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL
In 1965 Congress passed the Water Resources Planning Act and thereby created a (federal) Water Resources Council. It also authorized the establishment of interstate water‐resource development commissions and grants to individual states. About four years ago, Congress went a step further and authorized the creation of a (nonfederal) National Water Commission to look after the long‐range problems confronting the US in its effort to preserve its water resources. The four articles that appear under the common title, “National Water Commission and Water Resources Council,” are adapted from four related papers presented at the Annual Conference, Washington, D.C., Jun. 23, 1970.
The lead article, by Schad, moderator of the joint discussion, is a response to questions that have been raised regarding the relationship of the National Water Commission and the Water Resources Council. Because it is made up of seven members who have no other position with the federal government, the Commission is in a position to obtain an overview of existing institutions and arrangements. The Commission's job is to come up with recommendations for measures to ensure that future needs for water and water‐related services are met efficiently. Under the terms of its charter, the Commission must work closely with the Council. The article details this relationship.
The second article, by Maughan, describes the makeup and operations of the Council. In the process, the author brings the reader up to date about a current significant activity of the Council: its study of a multiple‐objective approach to the evaluation of water‐resource programs and projects.
The third in this series of articles, by McFarland, is a critical appraisal of the relative merits of the Council and the Commission. The author contends that the Council has not done the job for which it was created. He ruminates about why this condition is so and suggests ways by which the Commission can avoid the same pitfalls.
The last article, by Verkler, describes some of the ancillary benefits that are an outcome of the work by both the Council and the Commission. The author contends that many of the methods applied to the preservation of our water resources can be adapted to land‐use planning. The article is, therefore, an exposition of methods and procedures along with suggestions as to their future application.
THE NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION AND THE WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL
Schad, Theodore M. (author)
Journal ‐ American Water Works Association ; 63 ; 109-110
1971-02-01
2 pages
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
The Water Resources Commission of Maryland
| Wiley | 1932