Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PNW gtr729
PNW gtr729
Department of
Agriculture
Water and People: Challenges
Forest Service
at the Interface of Symbolic
Pacific Northwest
Research Station
and Utilitarian Values
General Technical
Report
PNW-GTR-729
January 2008
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the
principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sus-
tained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry
research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and manage-
ment of the national forests and national grasslands, it strives—as directed by
Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or
part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice
and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,
1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-
3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer.
Editors
Stephen F. McCool was a professor (now retired) of Wildland Recreation Manage-
ment, College of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812. Roger N.
Clark and George H. Stankey were social scientists (now retired), U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Clark was
th
at the Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, 400 N 34 St., Suite 201, Seattle,
WA 98103, and Stankey was at the Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW
Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331.
Cover Photo
Kootenai Creek, Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness
Kootenai Creek is representative of the changing values and uses of water in con-
temporary American society. The creek flows out of the Wilderness to the Bitterroot
Valley in Montana, where its water is extensively used for irrigation of farmlands.
And yet, water from the creek maintains a certain symbolism not associated with its
more instrumental values. Water in the streambed contains an aesthetic valued in
situ and not for other uses. Water here is used by fish and other animals, by artists,
by recreationists, not only for drinking, but for appreciation as well. These sym-
bolic values, unfortunately are rarely considered in allocation strategies and pro-
cesses. Managers of wildlands then become the stewards to ensure that such values
are protected and accounted for in decisionmaking. Photo by Stephen McCool.
Abstract
McCool, Stephen, F.; Clark, Roger N.; Stankey, George H., eds. 2008. Water
and people: challenges at the interface of symbolic and utilitarian values. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-729. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 246 p.
The demand for water is rapidly increasing, but the uses to which that water is put
and the values society places on water are changing dramatically. Water is the source
of life, the sustenance for living, the resource needed for manufacturing, mining,
agriculture; the element required to grow our lawns, to water our landscaping, to
shower us with refreshment; it is the place where we play; it provides the snow for
our winter recreation, and it provides the habitat for much of our wildlife. Water in
contemporary American society is more than a simple physical entity, its symbolic
values, and noninstrumental uses are growing in significance. As with many Native
American cultures, water is as much a symbol as it is something to extract and use
in the production of commercial products. This book is about the issues associated
with these symbolic values and uses of water: the challenges they present—in our
language, in our allocation mechanisms, in our communication—the conflicts
raised; and the potential for resolving the difficult, contentious and complex issues
concerning the use of water for various purposes. It is as much about framing the
questions about symbolic values of water as it is anything else.
Keywords: Water, recreation, symbolism, uses and value.
Contents
1 Chapter 1: Water, Recreation, and Society: Shifting Demands, Rising
Concerns, Growing Complexity
Stephen F. McCool, Roger N. Clark, George H. Stankey, and Rhonda Mazza
1 Introduction
3 Society Affects, and Is Affected By, Water
7 Water and Recreation: Changing Conceptions
14 Framing the Challenge of Water in a Changing Society: A Problem in Itself
15 Goal and Purpose of This Publication
16 Organization of This Publication
17 References
19 Chapter 2: Symbolic Aspects of Water
Patricia Stokowski
19 Introduction
21 Traditional Approaches to Water in Recreation Resource Management
25 Historical and Cultural Approaches: Water as Symbol
25 Creation Myths
30 Flood and Baptism Myths
31 From Ancient to Modern Times
34 Discussion
37 Water Symbolism in Contemporary Recreation Resource Management
38 Agency Management of Water Recreation Resources
41 From Agency to Recreationists: Water Symbols on a Personal Level
43 Social and Community Issues in Water Management
49 Discussion
52 Conclusions
53 Acknowledgments
53 References
61 Chapter 3: Assessing and Evaluating Recreational Uses of Water
Resources in the Pacific Northwest: A Review and Synthesis
Christina Kakoyannis and George H. Stankey
61 Introduction
61 Recreation as a Symbolic Use of Water
64 Proposition 1: Population Growth and Migration Influences the Spatial
Distribution of Recreation and Affects Public Judgments of Acceptability
of Water Management Strategies
64 Population Growth
65 Regional Migration
67 Urban to Rural Migration
70 Proposition 2: Changing Demographics—Such as Age, Race, and Ethnicity—
Will Alter Trends in Water-Based Recreation That Require a Shift in Water-
Based Recreation Management in the Pacific Northwest
70 Age
72 Increasing Radical and Ethnic Diversity
76 The Combined Influence of Demographic Variables
77 Proposition 3: Knowledge of Other Causal Factors Affecting Recreation
Demand—Such as the Role of Technology and the Influence of Leisure Time—
Is Limited
77 Technology
79 The Influence of Leisure Time
81 Proposition 4: The Presence of Water Surfaces Is Essential to or Enhances the
Satisfaction of Reservationists Engaged in Most Outdoor Recreation Activities
82 Proposition 5: Available Data Suggest That Participation Levels in Water-
Dependent Activities Continue to Increase Although Participation Rates Are
Slowing. However, Flawed and Inconsistent Methodologies Limit Accurate
Analyses of Recreation Use Data
88 Proposition 6: Conflicts Over Competing Uses of Water—Including
Recreation, Municipal Uses, Industrial Uses, Irrigation, Habitat, Etc.—Will
Likely Grow in the Future
89 Recreation Versus Other Uses of Water
91 Interactivity Conflicts
92 Intra-Activity Conflicts
93 Recreation Substitutability
95 Management Implications
97 Proposition 7: Management Alterations of Flow Regimes Can Affect Water-
Based Recreation Opportunities and Experiences
98 The Impact of Streamflow on Recreation
101 Understanding the Impact of Changes in Flow
102 Implications for Research and Management
105 Equivalents
105 References
117 Chapter 4: Water Recreation Economic Values and Future Demands
Jeffrey D. Kline, Laurie L. Houston, and Michio Watanabe
117 Introduction
119 Economic Values for Water Recreation Demand
122 Example Values From Published Literature
125 Future Demands for Water Recreation
130 Future Demands for Nonrecreational Water Uses
132 Public and Domestic Uses
133 Industrial and Commercial Uses
135 Irrigation
137 Aggregate Future Demands
138 Conclusions
141 Metric Equivalents
141 References
147 Chapter 5: Symbolic Uses of River Recreation Resources: Whitewater
Boaters’ Special Places on the South Fork of the American River
Kelly S. Bricker and Deborah L. Kerstetter
149 Place Attachment
150 The South Fork of the American River
151 A Study of Special Places and the South Fork of the American River
154 The Symbolic Meanings Boaters Ascribe to Special Places on the River
154 Symbolic Meanings
154 Natural Environment and Recreational Aspects of a Special Place
155 Social and Recreational Aspects of a Special Place
155 Natural Environment and Human Aspects of a Special Place
156 Whitewater Boating on the South Fork of the American River: An Interpretive
Journey of Place Meetings
156 River Mile 0: The Put-In
158 River Miles 1–4: The Upper Reach
160 River Mile 5: Troublemaker Rapid
162 River Miles 6–10: The Coloma-Lotus/Bio Bio Run
163 River Miles 11–12: End of Quiet Zone/Turtle Pond Area
164 River Miles 13–15: Hastings Creek to Fowlers
165 River Miles 16–20: The Gorge
166 River Mile 20.5: Take-Out
167 Meanings Attributed to Special Places and Implications for Management
172 Metric Equivalents
173 References
177 Chapter 6: People of the River—People of the Salmon Wana Thlama—
Nusuxmí Tanánma
Elizabeth Woody
197 Metric Equivalents
197 References
201 Chapter 7: Institutional Mechanisms for Managing Water in the West:
Implications for Recreation
Sarah Bates Van de Wetering
201 Introduction
202 Historical Development of Western Water Institutions
202 Prior Appropriation
203 Water as a Public Resource
205 The Continuing Federal Presence
206 Consequences of Historical Institutions
207 Forces of Change
209 Evolution of Western State Water Institutions
209 River Designation Programs
210 Administrative Review of Water Rights Claims
212 Water Quality Protection
213 Instream Flow Protection Programs
216 Federal Institutional Changes
217 Environmental Protection Laws
220 Restoration Laws
221 Dam Removal and Reoperation
222 Indian Tribes’ Reserved Water Rights
223 Federal Reserved Water Rights
224 Emerging Innovations in Western Water Institutions
224 Watershed Approaches to Resource Management
229 Public-Private Partnerships to Enhance Streamflows
231 Conclusion
232 Metric Equivalents
232 References
237 Chapter 8: Sustaining Water as Symbol: Integrating and Designing
Research and Management
Stephen F. McCool, Roger N. Clark, and George H. Stankey
237 Introduction
238 The Role of Symbolic Values of Water in Contemporary Western American
Society
239 Barriers to Understanding and Action in Water Management Decisions
242 Institutional Design: A Critical Element in Water Management
244 The Way Forward
244 Identify Values
244 Consider Values
245 Manage Values
245 Conclusion
246 Literature Citations
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Introduction
The presence or absence of water has long shaped human society. Early civiliza-
tion was nurtured in the fertile flood plains of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.
Later, in the same region, drought led to societal collapse (Diamond 2004, Weiss
and Bradley 2001). As the foundation of civilizations has shifted from hunting-
gathering, to agriculture, to urban-industrial, people manipulated the supply of
fresh water with ditches, levees, reservoirs, and aqueducts. Revered for its life-
giving properties, water also holds sacred significance for many cultures, from the
ancient Nile River god, Sobek, to the Hopi snake (rain) dance, to Christian bap-
tisms. The history of water has long been typified by a dual role; a physical neces-
sity for life and a symbol for power and purpose beyond simple human survival.
As global populations have increased, so has demand for water to serve a host
of utilitarian uses, including irrigation for crops, use for industrial production, and
th th
consumption for domestic purposes. During the 19 and 20 centuries, institutions
were developed in the United States for managing water in ways that reflected
scarcity and emphasized its use for industrial and agricultural purposes to further
economic progress. Yet, even during this period, water’s value for a variety of
nonutilitarian purposes—recreation, amenities, subsistence, spiritual—remained
important.
For these values, which are more symbolic than utilitarian, water is not con-
sumed, transformed, or polluted; rather water in its in situ form is valued as it
exists and for the connections it represents. And that very character leads to issues
that challenge the current ways in which water is considered in contemporary land
management. The goal of this volume is to frame the dimensions of symbolic uses
1
Stephen McCool was a professor (now retired) of Wildland Recreation Management,
College of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812. Roger Clark and
George Stankey were social scientists (now retired), U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Clark was at the Pacific Wildland
th
Fire Sciences Laboratory, 400 N 34 St., Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103, and Stankey
was at the Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331.
Rhonda Mazza is a science writer/editor, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208.
1
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
of water to promote dialogue about how these values can be more completely
understood and considered in management. To do this, we focus on recreational
values because they are representative of the changing symbolic character of water
in land management.
Symbols involve meanings. A red, eight-sided sign is the international symbol
for “stop”; a skull and crossbones is the symbol for poison. In this sense, they
are denotative in character; i.e., there is an agreed-upon definition—a dictionary
definition, if you like. However, symbols also involve interpretations, which are
subjective assessments about meaning. When Norman Maclean wrote “A River Runs
Through It” in 1976, he was talking about more than the hydrologic characteristics
of Montana’s Blackfoot River. The river became a symbol for life and death, for
continuity, for connections among people and between people and nature.
Symbols and sym- It may be tempting to treat symbols and symbolic images as nothing but inter-
bolic images and esting notions or as having little significance for operating “in the real world.”
values are real, and After all, many symbols appear to have little direct practical application for eco-
they have direct nomic progress. The practical value of the symbolism involved in a view of the
impacts on our lives. Blackfoot River that thousands of people experience annually does not easily trans-
late into economic impacts, highway design, or silvicultural approaches to the sur-
rounding mountainsides. Our position is to the contrary; symbols and symbolic
images and values are real, and they have direct impacts on our lives. In the case
of natural resource management, it is the symbolic dimensions of forests, moun-
tains, wildlife, wilderness—and water—that lie at the root of much of the public
debate and controversy today. Ignoring these dimensions or discounting their
significance in day-to-day management only places today’s natural resource man-
ager at peril in a political system driven as much by abstract philosophies as by
pragmatic accomplishments.
Having said that, we must also acknowledge that symbolic uses and values are
often, but not always, difficult to define and measure: they frequently lack agreed-
upon meaning, and they are subject to multiple interpretations, which can change
over space and time. This is further complicated by the simultaneous utilitarian and
symbolic values given to water and because many of our utilitarian uses (such as
water for irrigating a hay field on a western ranch) have become symbolic them-
selves. To a rancher, water is more than sustenance for crops and livestock; without
it, hayfields could not be irrigated and stock could not survive. As such, this use of
water has come to mean a livelihood, a way of life, and the survival of a culture.
These complications leave us in the apparent dilemma of arguing that (1)
symbolic uses and values must be given greater attention in natural resource
2
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
management, but (2) we are not able to tell you what those symbolic uses and
values are or what they mean. Working through this dilemma not only requires
patience, but tolerance, as many people may view such discussions as threatening.
This opening chapter is intended to engage this dilemma and to offer the reader
the means to understand why the issue of symbolic uses and values is crucial to
fashioning more effective resource management strategies. We discuss the limits
of language regarding changing water uses and values and existing management
paradigms to conceptualize and manage for them. We propose outdoor recreation
as a proxy for a wide variety of symbolic uses of water. A central contention is that
much of the debate and conflict surrounding the management of water and the
integration of traditional, economic uses with emerging symbolic values derive
from inadequate attention to problem framing; therefore, we offer some specific
comments for better addressing this issue. This seems especially critical as future
demands for water—both traditional and symbolic—will continue to increase and
diversify, as will the potential for conflict over allocation and management. This
inevitably will require a critical examination of how contemporary institutional
barriers make it difficult to efficiently, effectively, and equitably allocate water
for diverse values. We close with an overview of the remaining chapters.
3
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
found, its quantity and quality, its dependability, and its timing—shapes the devel-
opment and exercise of a host of formalized rules and regulations that ensure its
availability for particular demands.
The study of water and its uses provides insight to the social foundations of
natural resources and their management. It is generally accepted that resources are
culturally defined because the resource holds value and utility for people. This is
an admittedly anthropocentric conception. For much of contemporary history, re-
The history of water sources have been defined within a commodity framework wherein their value was
resources in the revealed through the economic marketplace and expressed in monetary terms. How-
United States and ever, the cultural foundation from which natural resources gain definition also
elsewhere reveals implies these meanings can change over space and time, reflecting changing cul-
a continuous evolu- tural orientations. And often, such changing cultural orientations are reflected in
tion in the meanings the marketplace, such as the rapidly growing demand for kayaks and rafts used to
and importance navigate particularly challenging stretches of rivers. The stock, distribution, and
assigned them by character of resources, as well as the metric through which they are valued, can
society. differ in response to new technologies, new knowledge, and changing social values.
The history of water resources in the United States and elsewhere reveals a
continuous evolution in the meanings and importance assigned them by society.
Historically, water has been valued as an engine of economic development and as
the source of commodity and utilitarian values. For example, water fostered the
Nation’s agricultural development, and the hydropower it generated drove much
of the country’s urbanization and industrialization. Paris Gibson, the founder of
the city of Great Falls, Montana, envisioned harnessing the falls along the Missouri
River to fuel industrial development in a brand new community. And for a century,
the electricity produced by several dams in the city (nicknamed the Electric City)
were used by smelters, refineries, and other manufacturing plants that served as its
economic foundation. Few such plants remain, but the river has become a central
focus for recreation and aesthetics.
Industrial values and uses of water remain important today, and contemporary
management paradigms remain dominated by them. At the same time, however, the
definition of what constitutes the useful and beneficial uses of water is expanding.
In recent years, federal legislation such as the Clean Water Act, the Endangered
Species Act, and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act have provided a legal justification
that utilitarian, consumptive uses by humans are not necessarily the “best” uses for
water. Such laws begin to legitimize the utility of other values and uses related to
amenity, outdoor recreation, scientific, aesthetic, and spiritual purposes. These uses
enhance the quality of our lives, providing opportunities to “connect” with
4
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
nature and improve our understanding of the natural processes upon which society
depends.
It is relatively easy to talk about the value of water in traditional terms. Well-
defined metrics in economics enable ready calculation of the monetary value in
irrigating crops or providing a municipal water supply. It is more difficult to talk
about the value of water for uses that do not have a market price. For instance,
how does one calculate the aesthetic value of a waterfall or the tranquility of a
lake shore and incorporate it into a traditional management plan? Even the lack
of an adequate vocabulary to describe these uses and values makes it difficult to
incorporate them into a management plan. As a result, such values or uses often are
ignored or discounted in formal evaluation processes. And even if they are consid-
ered, the tendency is to redefine abstract, symbolic values of water and measure
them in highly reductionist ways. Attempts have been made to place monetary units
on these uses by using techniques such as contingent valuation—for example, a
survey might ask respondents to state how much they would pay to preserve a cer-
tain wetland—or a travel cost method that determines the value people place on a
scenic river by calculating how much they paid to get there. These techniques
attempt to translate one type of value in terms of another; but in doing so, there is
a risk that important dimensions and values may be lost in the translation.
Our capacity to de-
Although these uses and values such as amenity, subsistence, spiritual, and
pict accurately the
aesthetic are sometimes characterized as new, in reality, they have long been with
nature and charac-
us. And at times, we have formally recognized them. For example, in 1962, the
ter of these uses
Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission noted that water and the inter-
and values—new
face between water and land was the focus of much outdoor recreation activity; this
vs. old, traditional
interface continues today. Moreover, contemporary scientific studies have expanded
vs. contemporary,
understanding of the key role of water regimes in ecosystem functioning and in
symbolic vs.
maintaining and sustaining key ecological processes. As a result, the competition
nonsymbolic,
and conflict between recreation (such as camping in riparian areas) and such
consumptive vs.
ecological services has become increasingly recognized and a challenge to effec-
nonconsumptive—
tive and equitable resolution. And water serves as the medium that represents the
is limited.
connection between human life and the world around it, a key element of Native
American and other belief systems.
It seems obvious that managing to satisfy these various values and uses of water
is challenging. Yet, our capacity to depict accurately the nature and character of
these uses and values—new vs. old, traditional vs. contemporary, symbolic vs.
nonsymbolic, consumptive vs. nonconsumptive—is limited. And, as we argue here,
our aptitude to do something about it, even if we could depict these values, seems
5
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
even more limited. Our vocabulary reflects the paradigms of management that long
have dominated social discourse, and as new paradigms evolve, the language of the
old seldom is adequate in describing the new (Kuhn 1962). Terms such as those
above fall short of representing the rich and complex connections, meanings, and
relations that exist between uses; moreover, they convey a sense of either-or that
constrains the search for compatibilities and opportunities for integrated, mutually
beneficial decisions.
Language, with its imprecision and shifting meanings, troubles all fields where
precise words are imposed on imprecise concepts. Philosophers note that when
talking about an abstraction, we also must be able to talk about its opposite. For
instance, the concept of wilderness only holds meaning when taken as the opposite
of civilization (Nash 2001). Many of the values for water that fall outside tradi-
tional utilitarian definitions are abstract, often personal, and not necessarily shared.
In this publication, we contend that the term “symbolic” best describes these values.
Although linguistically “symbolic” and “utilitarian” are not natural opposites, we
believe the concept of symbolic embodies the broad, diverse collection of uses and
values—spiritual, amenity, aesthetic, historical, cultural—that have come to hold
increasing importance for many people but lie outside of formalized institutional
processes of water management. It is also a gesture in favor of moving beyond
traditional language, a necessity, we feel, in moving beyond the conventions of the
past 100 years of natural resource management that now constrain, rather than
nourish, society (Wilkinson 1992).
The emerging importance of symbolic uses and values of water raises a variety
of challenging questions. How does the spatial distribution of water supply and de-
mand affect these changes? What mechanisms are best suited for allocating water to
them? How are they impacted by more traditional uses? What are the compatibili-
ties, conflicts between them and other, again perhaps traditional, values and uses?
What are the drivers of such changes? Such technical questions trigger others re-
garding how resulting conflicts are addressed and resolved, the processes agencies
use to identify various water-dependent values, and how those values are identified,
displayed, and weighed. More challenges arise when we consider the adequacy of
existing institutions’ processes and capacity in making decisions about the inevi-
table tradeoffs that occur. To what extent are contemporary institutions suited for
management of these emerging uses and values of water? What is the capacity of
society to frame and resolve issues of water management today? How do existing
power structures influence these questions, and what do we do about them?
6
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
7
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Box 1. Conflict over water allocation in Owens Valley and Klamath Basin
When the rules and mechanisms society establishes to guide its actions fail
to evolve at a pace similar to society’s needs and desires, conflicts often arise.
This disjunction between institution and need is apparent in many water con-
flicts today. Originally, America’s water management institutions were
established to facilitate the Nation’s economic growth, primarily through
agricultural, industrial, and urban development. However, as we have pros-
pered and the population has grown and diversified, other uses and values for
water—amenity and aesthetic, scientific, spiritual—have grown in importance
and the traditional institutions of water resource management have struggled
to accommodate these values such as instream water rights to preserve fish
habitat. When these institutions fail, U.S. society resorts to litigation and
more legislation. As the institutional landscape becomes more complex, con-
flict can be built into the system; innovation is needed to craft institutions
flexible enough to manage natural resources effectively. Two examples in the
Western United States illustrate this point.
The saga unfolding in Owens Valley, California, has been well documented
in literature and film, such as in Roman Polanski’s Chinatown. To those eager
to sensationalize the conflict, it has lent itself well to deft depictions of good
and evil: hardworking farmers cheated out of land and water by slick-talking
businessmen from Los Angeles; a rural community sacrificed to quench the
thirst of a growing metropolis. At the heart of the story, though, is the shift in
water use and management paradigms. When White pioneers settled Owens
Valley in the 1850s, they displaced Paiute Indians and converted the watered
meadows of native grains to irrigated fields of domesticated crops. At the turn
of the century, Los Angeles was growing, and foresightful developers, keen
to cash in on such growth, realized more water would be needed. The Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) began buying land and
associated water rights in Owens Valley in 1905 and, by 1928, owned about
90 percent of the water-bearing land in the valley. The Los Angeles Aqueduct
transported water from the valley to the city 240 miles to the West. This
diversion, accompanied by drought in the 1920s triggered protests and de-
struction of LADWP property in Owens Valley, but ultimately most farmers
left by the 1930s. As the farms dried up, so did the rest of the valley. The
water diversions to Los Angeles drained Owens Lake and about 50 miles of
Owens River—wetland habitat for resident and migratory water fowl. This
management scenario is summed up in President Theodore Roosevelt’s
justification for enabling the Los Angeles water diversion; the water was
8
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Box 1. Conflict over water allocation in Owens Valley and Klamath Basin
(continued)
better used facilitating development of a growing port city on the West Coast
than supporting a small, isolated farming community (Walton 1992). The
institutions in place supported this paradigm.
The environmental movement in the 1960s and 1970s represented a shift in
society’s valuation of natural resources. The Endangered Species Act, Clean
Air Act, and Clean Water Act added another component to natural resource
management. People fighting the dewatering of Owens Valley suddenly had
another tool at their disposal. As Walton (1992: 6) put it, “Battles lost during
the 1920s in the name of community were pursued and finally won in the
1970s under the auspices of environmentalism.” This has not been a decisive
shift in the way natural resources are managed or allocated, however. Litiga-
tion between the LADWP and interest groups such as the Owens Valley
Committee and Sierra Club continues over the environmental degradation
occurring in the valley. As the institutional landscape becomes more complex,
rigid institutions can stymie efforts to achieve emerging uses and values,
resulting in gridlock and further litigation.
The Klamath Basin along the southern Oregon and northern California border
is also home to conflicts that illustrate the need for institutional innovation.
The Klamath Basin and Owens Valley are geographically similar and both
were considered prospective sites for Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the
early 1900s. Whereas in Owens Valley, the Reclamation project was rejected
in favor of the Los Angeles aqueduct, the project went ahead in the Klamath
Basin. Dams and canals were built to supply basin farms with a reliable
source of irrigation. The drama of the 1920s in Owens Valley was played out
in the Klamath Basin during summer 2001. A sustained period of drought,
coupled with new environmental regulations that increased the required
minimum water level in Upper Klamath Lake to protect endangered fish,
meant farmers below the lake did not get needed irrigation that summer. As in
Owens Valley during the 1920s, the headgate of a main irrigation canal
became the focus of local protest and civil disobedience; it was forced open at
one point to allow water to flow into the canal; farmers and supporters from
outside the region gathered to show solidarity, and both events captured the
attention of the national media. As in Owens Valley, the root of the conflict
over water use was fueled by different institutional paradigms working in
opposition to one another—leaving key stakeholders convinced the resource
was inequitably distributed and inefficiently allocated.
9
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
skiing might not evince much concern about changes in access or water quality if
that lake is one of several choices for skiing. On the other hand, a proposal to cover
a reservoir in a city park might elicit sharp response by regular park users because
of the meanings (e.g., it is an essential part of the neighborhood) attributed to it.
Such meanings extend beyond traditional values, such as the impact the lake has on
property values.
Water requires certain physical characteristics to be appropriate for certain
We contend that uses. Whitewater rafting, for instance, requires a certain range of water levels and
many conflicts arise gradient. As long as these characteristics are present, floating any river is acceptable
because some of to some whitewater rafters. Others, however, might have much more specific re-
the different mean- quirements that can only be satisfied in a very few places; for example, perhaps
ings attached to a only the Middle Fork of the Salmon River in Idaho has the qualities of challenge
specific water sur- and remoteness consistent with the experiences they seek. That setting has come to
face—particularly symbolize something more than what is offered by basic physical characteristics
those symbolic in needed for the activity.
nature—are not These aspects of place, then, provide a framework within which to consider
adequately defined, evolving constructs of water and recreation. Once understood, they identify poten-
expressed, or evalu- tial conflicts, clarify why conflicts occur, and might reveal ways to resolve them.
ated in utilitarian- We contend that many conflicts arise because some of the different meanings at-
oriented planning tached to a specific water surface—particularly those symbolic in nature—are not
frameworks. adequately defined, expressed, or evaluated in utilitarian-oriented planning frame-
works.
The appeal of water for recreation or as a backdrop for communities likely will
continue, and interest in water-related recreational activities likely will grow and
diversify, with new meanings and dependencies fostering not only emergent rela-
tionships but competition and conflict as well. For example, we know that motor-
ized uses of waters often conflict with nonmotorized uses. This often plays out in
spectacular settings such as the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, where for
decades, both motorized and nonmotorized rafters have battled for preference in
river recreation management. We also know that management actions can impact
the quality of water-based recreation opportunities. For example, changes in flow
regimes as a result of shifts in the operations of dams can affect the size, complex-
ity, and difficulty of rapids, important features to kayakers and rafters. Similarly,
strategies to protect riparian habitat (such as closures to human activity) have dis-
placed recreationists from their favorite fishing or camping places. Even though
such changes might have only relatively minor impacts on the physical characteris-
tics of the setting, they nonetheless can significantly impact place meanings and
10
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
dependencies. In short, they change the kind of place it is and its appeal to users.
Such impacts can lead to significant conflict because of the strength of those attach-
ments or nature of the dependencies involved.
In many ways, water-related recreation reflects larger social issues and changes
in society’s relationship with water. These interactions are particularly significant
in the Western United States but occur in the East, and indeed, globally as well.
First, water surfaces in the West are relatively rare and highly concentrated in
space. They are often over-allocated to a wide range of conventional uses. Mean-
ings have evolved for these water surfaces that are often not compatible with these
conventional, commodity-based uses. This means water is a focal point for multiple
uses, meanings, and values, many of which conflict with one another.
Second, in the Western United States, many of the lakes, streams, wetlands,
and rivers that people seek are on public land, or their waters originate on such
lands. These public lands often provide multiple uses and values. However, they
are governed by resource management institutions developed primarily to address
utilitarian meanings of land and water. Measuring and evaluating these meanings,
uses, and values occurs in a complicated, often poorly understood federal decision-
making milieu that interfaces with often equally obfuscating state adjudication
procedures. Institutions developed for water management have strict, generally
inflexible, ways of defining socially acceptable uses of water. They have created
rules and procedures for allocating water among competing uses. In addition, such
institutions have developed mechanisms for valuing water that give preference to
utilitarian values in management and allocation. Such institutions not only affect
how we manage water, but eventually changing values of water will affect institu-
tional design. Institutions are more than agencies and laws, and go to the very heart
of our society, how it achieves its goals, and what it is (see box 2).
Third, population growth and shifting demographics (e.g., ethnicity, age,
education) in the West have led not only to higher demand for scarce water sup-
plies, but also to a more diverse set of demands and meanings, reflecting differing
social preferences. Many of the demands do not fall under the traditional definition
of utilitarian. For example, water as an aesthetic backdrop for homes, businesses,
and communities; water as representative of pristine ecosystems; water for recre-
ation; and so on.
Finally, these changes occur at different spatial and temporal scales with
different rates of change. Water allocation institutions, for example, have proven
slow to respond to the rise of instream water use values (such as for fisheries
preservation), whereas population growth in many rural areas of the West has been
11
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
12
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
13
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
purely technical question (e.g., how much water for what) to one of values, pre-
ferences, and meanings. This shift challenges the appropriateness and capacity of
conventional technical-rational planning models. Third, increased understanding
of these nonutilitarian values of water will require integrating different forms and
sources of knowledge because the positivist traditions underlying contemporary
land use planning are not well equipped to deal with them. These ramifications also
emerge in a host of other natural-resource-related issues (e.g., forestry, wildlife).
As noted earlier, our discussion of the recreational use of water is grounded in the
assumption that it bears upon the larger societal issue of symbolic meanings of
resources and how those meanings can be effectively, efficiently, and equitably
managed.
14
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
applied to all values, it has proven less useful in resolving issues involving diverse,
nonutilitarian demands because it leads to neither understanding of the fundamental
underlying issue nor agreement on how the issue should be defined.
We are not arguing that technical analysis is inappropriate or invalid, but that
such analyses are inadequate when used in isolation and are particularly limited
when it comes to dealing with issues/conflicts fundamentally grounded in value
conflicts. As society increasingly values water for its nonutilitarian uses, meanings,
and merits, we would expect the limitations of technical analysis, used alone, to
become more evident, and that the sole use of technical analysis be more subject to
public scrutiny, academic debate, and political controversy. It is our position,
though, that analyses can be undertaken that inform and reveal symbolic values.
A central premise of
our discussion is
Goal and Purpose of This Publication
that although tech-
Gaps in our knowledge about water and societal uses and appreciation for it are a
nical knowledge
function of limited disciplined inquiry in these areas, new knowledge that has not
about water re-
been presented or synthesized in an easily retrievable manner, and fundamental
sources is a critical,
societal changes. Although the following chapters focus primarily on the United
necessary compo-
States, the problems, challenges, and remedies they describe are global in character.
nent of informed
With an expanding world population, water management issues will become more
decisionmaking, it
pressing as demands increase and diversify.
is not sufficient for
This publication attempts to narrow the gap of understanding about the sym-
ensuring better
bolic values and uses of water. A central premise of our discussion is that although
management.
technical knowledge about water resources is a critical, necessary component of
informed decisionmaking, it is not sufficient for ensuring better management.
Rather, increased attention must be given to describing and understanding the social
and institutional context within which water management occurs, including the
dynamic nature of changes in cultural uses, demands, and values for water. To give
15
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
16
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
recreation in chapter 7. Water law is complex and controversial; this chapter pro-
vides an overview not only of traditional institutional approaches but newer experi-
ments as well. In the final chapter, McCool and others discuss future directions for
research on water in contemporary American life, and share some observations
about the adequacy of current institutions to deal with symbolic aspects of water
and move forward.
References
Bardwell, L. 1991. Problem framing: a perspective on environmental problem-
solving. Environmental Management. 15(5): 603–612.
Diamond, J. 2004. Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. New York:
Viking Adult. 592 p.
Maclean, N. 1976. A river runs through it, and other stories. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press. 217 p.
Nash, R. 2001. Wilderness and the American mind. 4th ed. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press. 426 p.
Weiss, H.; Bradley, R.S. 2001. What drives societal collapse? Science. 291(5504):
609–610.
Walton, J. 1992. Western times and water wars. Los Angeles: University of
California Press. 378 p.
Wilkinson, C. 1992. Crossing the next meridian: land, water, and the future of the
West. Washington, DC: Island Press. 389 p.
17
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
18
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Introduction
Water is the original symbol of life, and as such, it represents creation, absolution,
and physical and spiritual renewal. Across all time, people of all cultures have
attributed to water a beauty, mysticism, and power beyond compare. Of the four
basic elements, water has the appearance of being the most human-like, the most
alive. Earth is massive and solid. Air has motion, but is generally invisible. Fire is
useful, though often unpredictable. But water is animated, full of motion. It skips,
falls, and jumps in and out of streams and over and around boulders; it absolves,
cleans, and renews; it changes moods over time; it murmurs, sings, and caresses,
or it thunders and roars in downpours, floods, and storms. Visible falling as rain,
flowing in streams, bubbling in mudpots, sprouting in geysers, and cascading in
waterfalls, water appears “as a complete being, with body, soul, and voice,” wrote
the French philosopher Bachelard (1983: 15). The Greek poet Pindar agreed,
beginning his Olympian One Ode (Instone 1996: 41) with the claim, “Water is
best” among the elements.
Although many people in Western society take water for granted, the magic of
water is apparent to those who are attentive. Writing about the effects of war in
Croatia and her sense of loss upon departing her ocean-side homeland, Ugresic
(1996: 217) explained her new-found attachment to another form of water:
Loren Eiseley (1957: 18) wrote of water’s mystery, “I examine one intricate
(snowflake) crystal on my sleeve before it melts. No utilitarian philosophy explains
a snow crystal, no doctrine of use or disuse. Water has merely leapt out of vapor
1
Patricia Stokowski is an associate professor, Rubenstein School of Environment and
Natural Resources, University of Vermont, 305 Aiken Center, Burlington, VT 05405.
19
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
and thin nothingness in the night sky to arrange itself in form….it is an apparition
from that mysterious shadow world beyond nature….”
Water may be lyrical and artistic, an evocative metaphor for life’s joyous and
meaningful experiences, but it also signifies danger, and gives rise to mourning:
…All love goes by as water to the sea
All love goes by
How slow life seems to me
How violent the hope of love can be…
Because its cultural Apollinaire [1990: 102]
and symbolic values Thus, Wendt (1969: 8) urged caution in considering water. He wrote, “There
are often neglected is a long thread linking Thales of Miletus [a Greek pre-Socratic philosopher who
and poorly under- developed a theory of water as the source of all life] and Edward Teller, the
stood, contemporary primordial element of water and the H-bomb.”
approaches to Because its cultural and symbolic values are often neglected and poorly under-
understanding water stood, contemporary approaches to understanding water tend to focus primarily on
tend to focus prima- its functional, utilitarian purposes. Worster (1994: 31) wrote, “Today water refers
rily on its functional, mainly to a commodity providing material comfort and prosperity….We expect it
utilitarian purposes. to be as clear, colorless, and odorless as we can get it, and then we dismiss it from
consciousness. With hardly any effort on our part, it comes gushing from a tap….”
That clean, plentiful water is necessary for life cannot be ignored. The human body
is about 65 percent water, and about 71 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered
by water (Miller 1998), although much of the Earth’s water is too salty for human
consumption or for industrial and agricultural use. Water resources are in short sup-
ply in some of the major population zones of the world, and water stress on hu-
mans, plants, and animals is becoming more common in some parts of the globe.
Even when water is plentiful, it is sometimes polluted, unavailable because of
diversions, or unpredictable in flow (e.g., places are subject to flooding, or fluctu-
ating levels of rainfall or snowpack). Water is thus political: those who control
waterflow and access have power, a point vividly realized by those living down-
stream from water sources and water managers.
Miller (1998: 7) defined a resource as “anything we get from the environment
(the Earth’s life-support systems) to meet human needs and desires.” The concep-
tion of water as a resource can be traced throughout all historical periods, but is
illustrated most vividly by the Romans, whose methods of aquatic engineering
were highly advanced and served public well-being; architectural remains of their
aqueducts, reservoirs, and several hundred public baths still exist today. Contempo-
rary natural resource managers tend to objectify water, focusing primarily on its
20
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
tangible, measurable aspects—its basic forms as lakes or rivers or icefields; its pre-
sence or absence in a setting; its descriptive qualities (size, depth, breadth, speed of
flow, turbidity, accessibility); and its quantifiable uses (navigation, irrigation,
border control, and so on) or aesthetic values (scenic qualities, recreational values).
The consequence is to treat water as a commodity whose economic values can be
estimated objectively for purposes of buying, selling, and trading. Little attention
is given to the symbolic aspects of water, or to the ways in which historic prece-
dents and cultural orientations toward water might lead to new understandings of
the roles and meanings of water for personal recreation experience and public lands
management.
The utilitarian view of water resources is the heritage of scientific rationalism
and materialism derived from world views that emerged and took root during the
th
18 -century Enlightenment period in Europe. Although they stimulated notable
scientific and technological achievements, these perspectives replaced and con-
cealed earlier philosophies that had more vividly elaborated the symbolic aspects
of water. To better understand contemporary functions, uses, and symbols of water,
this paper examines earlier ages when humans and nature-spirits were more closely
linked. The purpose of the historical review is to rediscover, describe, and analyze
the symbolic, noninstrumental values of water—an effort that should facilitate a
broader appreciation of this vital fluid and its roles in modern history. Following
this exploration, some new approaches to thinking about water in contemporary
recreation resource management are discussed. Considering water as an objective
resource is but one way of encountering that element. What other ways of seeing
Beyond their per-
can be derived from earlier mythological accounts? Can these other views offer
sonal uses of water
new ways of conceptualizing recreation experience? Finally, alternative approaches
at home and work,
to research and management are presented and discussed. The intent of the histori-
the varied settings
cal and cultural review of water symbolism is to suggest new policy agendas for
of leisure and recre-
agencies charged with protecting and wisely using the Nation’s public lands and
ation provide most
resources.
people with their
primary encounters
Traditional Approaches to Water in Recreation with water.
Resource Management
Beyond their personal uses of water at home and work, the varied settings of
leisure and recreation provide most people with their primary encounters with
water. Water recreation settings have always been highly valued by recreationists
(Kakoyannis and Stankey, this volume; Kline, this volume), and in their leisure and
travel, people apprehend water in all its varied forms. Water features are often the
21
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
basic components of natural and built landscapes—landscapes that are both gazed
upon in passive sightseeing, or actively used in outdoor recreation activity. These
Regardless of water landscapes include pools, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, or ocean settings, places used for
form or activity pur- fishing, boating, diving, swimming, and other water play. They also include places
suit, much recrea- where water transforms itself into frozen sheets and fluffy groundcover that allow
tion research tends skating, skiing, and sledding. Water creates a multisensory experience: people can
to refer to water as hear water, smell it, touch it, taste it—and can imagine and remember it. Its value
a tangible object, as is obvious: ranchers in the Western United States refer to the precious fluid as
a resource available “liquid gold”; ski resort managers have their own term for snow, “white gold.”
for human use and Regardless of water form or activity pursuit, much recreation research tends
subject to agency or to refer to water as a tangible object, as a resource available for human use and
community manage- subject to agency or community management and control. Traditional recreation
ment and control. research centers primarily around quantifiable topics that attempt to establish
scientific principles supporting human recreation choices, benefits, and conse-
quences. These include (1) economic aspects of water, including the market and
nonmarket values associated with water recreation and water-related aesthetic
decisions, such as second home purchases; (2) physical and physiological benefits
of water-related recreation activities; (3) psychological values, motives, and per-
ceived benefits related to water recreation participation; (4) social aspects of water
use, including onsite visitor activity patterns at specific water features; and (5)
aesthetic or scenic values of water in the landscape.
Representative examples abound; a few will suffice. Contributing to the exten-
sive literature about user norms and crowding behavior at recreation places (see
Manning 1999, Shelby and Heberlein 1986) are quantitative analyses of norms
expressed by boaters of all types, including whitewater river rafters (Roggenbuck
et al. 1991). Basic research about recreation demand for alternative boating loca-
tions and activities (Siderelis et al. 1995) and studies of recreation participation
(Bixler and Morris 2000) and recreation specialization in river settings (Kuentzel
and McDonald 1992) also compose a large portion of available research literature.
Economic analyses of water use have received increasing attention over the last
two decades, and include examples such as Connelly and Brown’s (1992) study
of anglers’ expenditures, and analysis of visitor’s willingness to pay for river rec-
reation access and experience (Loomis and Gonzalez-Caban 1997). Smith et al.
(1995) studied visual aesthetics associated with water clarity and color.
Despite the varied topics, most of these articles assume a relationship between
the water feature and the recreationists under study: water is essentially a backdrop
22
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
23
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
observed (p. 186), “Nature is a source of symbols that represent beliefs about life.
These beliefs govern personal conduct, rituals, and group interrelations, and form
the framework for a persona—a spiritual orientation to life.” Likewise, Finnish
researcher Aarne Reunala (1996: 228) identified certain archetypal symbols (a
World Tree, for example) and myths that underlay ritual ceremonies and emotions
(spiritual feelings) about nature in Scandinavian countries. Schroeder (1996: 85)
also discussed psychological perspectives about the genesis of archetypal symbols in
dreams and mythology.
Few of the authors specifically discussed water features in the landscape, but
two chapters stand out. Bob Budd, a Wyoming cowboy, explained, “The power of
water is never lost on the cowboy. Slow, soaking rains bring joy and contentment.
Little attention has A good snowpack tempers the difficulty of deep powder and ice on the meadows.…
been devoted to Cowboys think of water always” (Budd 1996: 172). Magary wrote, “Every kind
studying symbolic of water…has been used as a metaphor for some kind of spiritual realization. The
meanings of water- advent of rain, thunderstorms, mist, and fog require a slowing down as well as a
related recreation loss of control over our rationally planned experiences” (Magary 1996: 298). He
experiences and argued (p. 299) that land managers should design landscapes to foster spiritual
encounters (such opportunities: “Restraint exercised by public agencies toward spiritual things, the
as those related willingness to provide a space—but not fill it—is analogous to the silences that are
to emotion, artistry, essential in music.”
spirituality, and Despite these efforts, traditional recreation research and management ap-
place-based senti- proaches tend to objectify water. Water is defined as a resource and is characterized
ment) or consider- by observable features and qualities. Little attention has been devoted to studying
ing symbolic issues symbolic meanings of water-related recreation experiences and encounters (such as
related to water those related to emotion, artistry, spirituality, and place-based sentiment) or consid-
in management ering symbolic issues related to water in management decisions. Both researchers
decisions. and managers tend to favor a rational, scientific model that privileges disciplinary
investigations and emphasizes quantitative analyses. Qualitative analyses (specific to
some schools of scientific reasoning in several social science disciplines) are slowly
becoming more common, but critical analyses drawn from liberal arts and humani-
ties (classics, religion, philosophy, history, and so on) are rarely employed in
resource management analyses or decisions.
It is evident that water has functional, aesthetic, and symbolic meanings, but
the symbolic characteristics are often down-played or ignored in current research.
Thus, the following sections of this chapter attempt to recover some of the histori-
cal and cultural meanings associated with water symbols in order to understand
what is lost when symbolic aspects of water are ignored.
24
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Creation Myths
At the root of all water stories are creation myths. Throughout time and across
diverse cultures, water is featured in creation stories as the source of all life. The
Book of Genesis, the first segment of the Old Testament, begins with the words:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth; the earth was waste and
void; darkness covered the abyss, and the spirit of God was stirring above the
waters” (St. Joseph Edition of the Holy Bible 1963: Gen. 1: 1-2). The generative
25
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
26
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
all the pieces of Osiris’ body except the genitals. These significant parts remained
in the river, restoring to the Nile River its symbolic role as a source of life and
fertility.
Death, resurrection, and precious fluids that could stimulate new life were all
central elements in the Osiris myth and also appear in other cultural versions of the
story. As Schama (1995: 257) observed, “Death and sacrifice…are the precondi-
tions of rebirth. Blood is miraculously transubstantiated into water (and indeed into
wine…)….The connection between sacrifice, propitiation, and fluvial abundance
seems to have occurred in all the great river cultures of antiquity.” Blood, water,
and wine also feature in later religious belief systems, such as the Roman Catholic
teachings about Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection, including the sacrifice of his
human body that obtains salvation (rebirth) for believers.
Other classical deities also featured in the interpretation of water symbols. In
ancient Greek mythology, Uranus (the god of heaven) and his mother/wife Gaea
(the god of Earth) were the parents of Oceanus, the son who was god of a great
ocean river imagined to encircle the world and give life to all things. Poseidon
(Greek god of the sea) succeeded Oceanus, and Poseidon and his Roman counter-
part—Neptune—evolved into the most powerful of the numerous marine deities.
Neptune, according to the fables, used his trident to control the natural elements,
stopping storms and directing the ebb and flow of the tides. Another child of
Uranus, his daughter Aphrodite, was born of sea foam (her father’s semen spilled
upon the ocean waves). Aphrodite is known as the goddess of love and beauty; her
Roman counterpart was Venus (pictured in painter Sandro Botticelli’s Early Renais-
sance masterpiece, “The Birth of Venus,” circa 1480).
In addition to the major gods in Greek and Roman mythology, there were
numerous divine spirits associated with natural settings such as rivers, springs, can-
yons, woods, and the sea. These nymphs, naiads, Nereids, and others often traveled
in groups as consort to a more powerful god. Living on Earth so close to humans,
they also offered their powers of protection, nourishment, and fulfillment in love,
to the mortals. The Greek hero Achilles was said to be the son of a sea nymph and
a mortal.
Whereas the Mediterranean Sea and the Nile River were the primary sources
of creation myths among ancient Greeks, Romans, and near Eastern civilizations,
the Yellow River is the focus of Chinese creation myths and the Ganges River in
India is sacred to Hindus. These societies developed myths of creation that were
similar in form to those of other ancient peoples: gods and people were born of the
sea, and the world was composed of sacred water sources (Whitcombe 2001). For
27
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
example, in the Chinese worldview, woman, who illustrated “the fertile, moist,
receptive principle in nature” represented the life-giving quality of water. “Women
appeared in mythology and literature as visible forms of the moist soil and the
watercourses that make it wet. Both were receptive to the blazing, impregnating
rays of the masculine sun and the benign influence of the radiant, superincumbent
sky” (Schafer 1973: 7).
The generative powers of the water cycle for agricultural production and
human well-being were thus repeated in Chinese mythology in a form similar
to those found in Egyptian, Greek, and Roman cultures. Rainmaking rituals,
common to many agricultural societies also institutionalized the close relation-
ships with the gods. Native American dances during drought periods, east European
harvest ceremonies, and Buddhist, Indian, and African rituals, although varied in
form, were all intended “to attract the attention of the deities, thank them, invite
their pity, and persuade them to keep the celestial waters flowing” (Croutier 1992:
35). Thus, Servid (2000: 53) could write that a coming rainstorm “consecrated” the
earth and made it holy:
Water deities in Chinese mythology were often given the form of dragons
because, “In China, dragon essence is woman essence” (Schafer 1973: 28). This
symbolic usage contrasts with imagery in other cultures, where dragons were
conceived as water monsters—malevolent male spirits that reflected the potentially
angry and threatening nature of waters. Bachelard (1983: 15) observed that, in
many myths, water transforms from a female-nurturing symbol to a male-violent
symbol as it becomes “angry” and dangerous. Smith (1995) also described clashes
between gods of the sky and the waters (visibly signified by thunderstorms) in
Ojibwe mythology, where the underwater dragons fight the sky for control over the
world.
A nearly universal myth, Croutier (1992: 31) explained, “involves a many-
headed serpent or dragon that threatens to destroy the people of a given land unless
28
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
29
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
One of the reasons why the flood narrative may have diffused as
Dundes hypoth- widely as it undoubtedly has—even to peoples who live far inland
away from natural floods—could be attributable to its symbolic
esized that the flood
content. For example, inasmuch as all human neonates are so to
myth is so widely
dispersed because speak delivered from an initial flood (of amniotic fluid) when the
it has deep symbolic sac breaks, it is not impossible that the creation of the world was
thought to have occurred in parallel fashion.
relevance: the birth
of the world is repli- Dundes also proposed an interpretation of the flood myth that privileges male
cated in the birth of dominion of the world, explaining that, “…most flood myths involve male gods
every human being. destroying the world but saving a male survivor to repopulate the earth….Noah’s
wife does not even have a first name” (Dundes 1988: 170). He believes this to
initiate “a patriarchal period of human history” (p. 178). But, Romanian-born
philosopher Mircea Eliade offered a broader view of the symbolism of the flood
that transformed the event from a “profane” to a “sacred” form. He wrote (Eliade
1959: 131), “From the point of view of structure, the flood is comparable to
baptism, and the funeral libation to the lustrations of the newborn or to the spring
ritual baths that procure health and fertility.”
If uncontrolled, floodwaters can be marshaled, eventually and with the help of
the gods, into more manageable flows, then consecrated waters can be derived from
30
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
ordinary fluids. Holy waters appear in most cosmologies in the form of rivers,
streams, and springs that become sites of rituals symbolically associated with
birth and death (Croutier 1992). Examples are available from most religions. The
Bible states that John the Baptist anointed Jesus in the River Jordan, and Christian
baptisms thus are celebrated to bless newborns and adults. Orthodox Jews take
ritual baths to purify themselves before participating in sacred events. In January
2001, an estimated 25 million people journeyed to Allahabad, India, to participate
in the Kumbh Mela—a spiritual event derived from Hindu mythology that draws
pilgrims from around the world to bathe in the Ganges and Yamuna Rivers
(www.kumbhmela.com). Other faithful make pilgrimages to shrines like the one
at Lourdes, France, where miracles associated with spiritual healing waters are
said to occur. Orthodox and Catholic Christians ritualize the rebirth and cleansing
processes by dipping their fingers as they enter or exit churches in water that has
been blessed and made holy. In all cultures, washing and cleansing the dead is a
way to purify the body before it is buried, burned, or transported across a real or
imagined river as the spirit makes its way into the afterworld.
Traditions associated with baptism and other purification or cleansing ceremo-
nies present paradoxes. Birth and death, symbolized in these water rituals, are two
ends of a lifeline—but they are also parts of a natural circle of life that continually
progresses through seasons, celestial patterns, and repetitive natural events (like the
water cycle). Eliade (1959: 130) explained the baptismal symbols in the following
manner:
31
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
that of baptism, have been expanded to accommodate other life activities and
meanings. For example, in China, “From birth to death, every important phase of
life had some ceremonies related with water” (Lianfen 1993: 55), including bathing
ceremonies for newborns, adolescents, and members of wedding parties, formal
rites for tea drinking, and ritual cleansing and transport of bodies across rivers at
The history of water death. Similar symbolic practices are replicated in many societies, although as
symbolism does not people become more dependent on technology and less cognizant of, or attentive
end with ancient to, natural processes, cultural memories of the meaning of water rituals are reduced
societies. or disappear.
Nevertheless, the history of water symbolism does not end with ancient societ-
ies. One visible modern representation of water symbolism can be found in the
development of spas and resorts that provide opportunities for people to “take the
waters” for restorative purposes. In these places, many of the classical symbols of
water have been reinterpreted in terms of physical and mental rejuvenation. Water
deities may not be prominent, but their healing powers remain in the elaborate
physical settings of spa bathing and cleansing rituals. The history of the develop-
ment of spas and seaside resorts, water performances (water ballets, ice shows, and
water-based cinema performances), and more recent corporate efforts to market
bottled water for health purposes, go beyond this chapter (but see Croutier 1992,
Towner 1996, among others). Nevertheless, these modern developments can be seen
as secularized applications of the ancient symbols, played out in new contexts and
new social realities.
Throughout history, water has also been employed as a dominant feature in all
forms of artistry and artistic expression. Water has been used symbolically and
realistically in paintings, music, and architecture as a surface that reflects meaning
back to a viewer or listener. It also is used to subtly transport the external observer
more deeply into the realm of meaning. Most people are familiar with classics such
as the Impressionist paintings of Claude Monet (The River, 1868; Water Lilies,
1904), or the “liquid languages” of water in classical music (Handel’s Water Music;
Debussy’s La Mer; Wagner’s The Ring of the Nibelung), and the use of water in
literature and poetry, shown in American poet laureate Robert Penn Warren’s poem,
Love Recognized (1990: 135), excerpts of which are as follows:
32
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
The hydrologic cycle itself has also been a topic of interest to artists because
it is “a concept that has been found to be eminently serviceable in explaining the
harmonies of nature and the wisdom of nature’s God” (Tuan 1968: viii). Dickson
th
explained that 17 century poets dramatized the hydrologic cycle in metaphorical
and allegorical texts. He wrote (1987: 2), “The endless circulation of water usually
serves as a metaphor to present the descent of grace and regeneration of the soul
and the consequent ascent or reintegration of the soul with its heavenly source.”
Specific aspects of circulating waters are also featured in other contexts. Frank A river is one of the
Lloyd Wright’s architectural masterpiece, the Fallingwater home (designed in 1935 great metaphors in
and built in a forest along a stream’s waterfall in western Pennsylvania) is a famous literature, art, and
example of sympathetic merging of landscape with human experience. Likewise, culture.
the Strauss Blue Danube Waltz and Smetana’s The Moldau are more than pretty
tunes about big rivers—they are the lyrical melodies and rhythms of national af-
filiation and shared identity coursing through the lives of citizens of their countries.
Finally, one should not ignore the central image of rivers in symbolic accounts.
A river is one of the great metaphors in literature, art, and culture. The notable
rivers of the world have many practical functions, but they also symbolize the
movement of time and history, and thus serve as receptacles of cultural memory
and identification. They also symbolically illustrate the central notions of journey
and quest; Joseph Conrad’s story, “Heart of Darkness,” is a paramount illustration.
Seelye (1977: 6–7) observed that rivers in the eastern seaboard of America set the
stage for citizens to imagine a western frontier: “Because of the primacy of rivers
in the exploration and settlement of the Atlantic seaboard, waterways in the North
and South (played significant roles)….the river is a defining agent in the metamor-
phosis of colonies to republic, serving as entrance or border but always as a symbol
of what might be obtained beyond.” River waters are also metaphors for living
processes, as Aldo Leopold (1966: 188) explained:
One of the marvels of early Wisconsin was the Round River, a river
that flowed into itself, and thus sped around and around in a never-
ending circuit. Paul Bunyan discovered it….No one has suspected
Paul of speaking in parables, yet in this instance he did. Wisconsin
not only had a round river, Wisconsin is one. The current is the
stream of energy which flows out of the soil into plants, thence
into animals, thence back into the soil in a never ending circuit
of life.
33
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Although rivers may symbolize circularity, they are also usually linear in flow
(even if they meander). Thus, as Bachelard (1983: 6) observed, “One cannot bathe
twice in the same river because already, in his inmost recesses, the human being
shares the destiny of flowing water. Water is truly the transitory element.” The
Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, wrote, “As they step into the same rivers, different
and <still> different waters flow upon them” (Fragment 12; in Robinson 1987).
Interpreters of classical thought believe that Heraclitus was referring to not only a
physical river, but to the “river of existence” (Robinson 1987: 114). Rivers may
change, but they remain unified; the same is true for people, as well as for the
universe itself. Thus, the original creation, flood, and baptismal waters are symbols
of a broader abstraction: “the river is a striking example of precisely that which
preserves structural identity and unity while undergoing constant and predictable
change of content” (Robinson 1987: 84).
Discussion
What can be learned from reading about historical and cultural approaches to water
symbolism? Schama (1995) drew several conclusions in his own comprehensive
cross-cultural analysis of water. The first is that ancient cosmologies used water to
symbolize the circular flow of the necessary fluids of life. As Schama (1995: 258)
explained,
34
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Further, Schama concluded that many of the creation myths seem ultimately
concerned with the source of sacred waters—and thus with the genesis of the
physical world, including the creation of both mortals and deities. This preoccupa-
tion was eventually represented in controlled designs of natural and built landscapes
(such as parks, gardens, and royal grounds) that featured mysterious pools, gushing
fountains, and other waters in motion. By the time of the Renaissance, “All the
elements of a new sacred hydraulics were coming together: the Christianized
memory of the Nile and its cult of vital fertility; the mystique of the Source of
Creation, made visible through the miraculous mechanics of (technologies for
ornamental hydraulics); the renovatio of the Roman tradition for flowing water”
(Schama 1995: 288). Classic examples of the resulting civic/religious partnerships
are evident in the exuberant Bernini fountains in Rome, created during the middle
1600s. Of Bernini’s “Fountain of the Triton,” Schama wrote (p. 291), “The whole
celebration ecstatically extended through brilliant, pressurized jets shooting hydrau-
lic hosannas into the Roman sky.” Controlling the source of water through technical
advances gave implicit support to the primacy of technological knowledge, and
encouraged people to believe that questions about the source of the world and
human life could be answered with science.
Finally, Schama concluded, the unity of the world in modern times is revealed
in the complex merging of pagan and Christian water symbols. These images
persist in our dreams and memories, in the unexplored depths of our cultural (if not
genetic) heritage, and in the subtle metaphors that pervade historical consciousness.
Although the nature-gods of earlier societies may have been replaced with scientific
rationalism and technological progress, water symbols and their implicit meanings
remain and have evolved for contemporary applications. Couched in new civic and
religious forms, informed by Enlightenment rationalism and scientific analysis,
these symbols still retain a measure of power over human consciousness and action.
Thus, one should not fall into the trap of romanticizing the past, or imagining the
world of antiquity as a purely symbolic world, displaced during the Renaissance,
Industrial Revolution, and recent time periods by utilitarian perspectives. Glacken
(1967: 118) explained:
35
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
36
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Finally, the claim that entities (deities, rulers, agencies) have achieved and retained
power by controlling water symbols and representations is a reminder that language
and power are basic components in the social construction of meaning, and both
must be considered in creating alternative schemes of water management.
The conclusions noted above link historical and contemporary approaches to
water symbolism and recreation. The remainder of this chapter explores these
issues more fully by considering the implications of water symbolism for recreation
management and research.
37
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
38
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
from nature, water loses its personal, subjective relevance and becomes an object
that can be manipulated to achieve managerial goals.
The second concept, management, reinforces the position of external control
and authority. Resource managers define agency goals while operating under
bureaucratic processes that privilege actions associated with controlling, consum-
ing, and allocating water resources. Typically, managers enact planning processes
that are based on scientific, technological, socioeconomic, and political consider-
ations. Within these frameworks, organic symbolism that gave social and cultural
meaning to water is subjugated to instrumental approaches that advance agency and
public goals. Indeed, new water symbols are created in the transformation, as
th th
Worster (1994: 33) noted: “The leading symbol of (19 and 20 century) conquest
of water is the large masonry or concrete dam, and arguably it is the leading icon
of progress throughout the world today….The dam represents the blessings of
technology, economic development, and modernity.”
The image of a dam illustrates that contemporary resource agencies are not
bereft of water symbols, but the pertinent symbols of current times are not those
of antiquity. Traditional water symbols, though, have not disappeared in modern
times. As they become mediated from within agency management frameworks,
traditional symbols become secondary to newer symbols and meanings that emerge
from management imperatives formalizing functional relationships between hu-
mans and nature-as-resource.
How can recreation resource managers working within agency contexts facili-
tate opportunities for symbolic appreciation of water in natural landscapes? Tradi-
tional processes of resource allocation tend to differentially affect groups of cit-
izens. Rationing systems, including payment schemes, permitting, and carrying
capacity limits, are examples of policies that tend to favor some visitors over
others. Agencies also favor certain kinds of participation styles over others (co-
ordinated and permitted river access for rafting companies, for example, rather
than allowing free-for-all entry). These choices are intentional rulings that do not
allocate or distribute water resources equally; they are rational because to do other-
wise might diminish resource quality, adversely affect visitor experience, or nega-
tively influence management capabilities. Nevertheless, these approaches often
produce contentious outcomes.
Reliance on market-based solutions may not solve those problems. A colleague
recently relayed a story about visiting a park in Costa Rica where, for a small entry
fee, visitors could soak in thermal pools and waterfalls in a lush forest setting. The
39
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
river that formed these attractions also spilled out into a meadow outside the park,
and it was there—near the parking lot—that local people went to bathe and relax
in the hot springs. Their complementary experience was free, but it had none of
the privacy or scenic amenities that park visitors could purchase with the entry fee.
Even if people are eminently adaptable to conditions, one must conclude that the
Encouraging the market solution failed. By treating the recreation experience as a commodity to be
use of water sites bought and sold, it created an inferior activity for local residents while also rein-
for varied symbolic forcing social class divisions.
purposes (including Allowing or encouraging the use of water sites for varied symbolic purposes
those that may be (including those that may be considered spiritual or ritualistic) will require new
considered spiritual management approaches. Water allocation decisions are, after all, ways of defining
or ritualistic) will reality. To see water in its symbolic form, as more than an objective resource, re-
require new quires both imagination and conviction that a new approach will ultimately foster
management a more philanthropic attitude that better serves nature as well as humans. Manage-
approaches. ment practices that extend beyond park and forest borders—those that consider
entire water systems as relevant and meaningful for human well-being, and that
foster collaborations with local communities—would seem fairer, more benevolent,
and ultimately more sensitive in allocating recreation opportunities and fostering
symbolic appreciation. Yet, social inclusiveness may not be easily obtained, and
may require setting-based or time-based use zones to accommodate various types
of recreation symbol-seekers. It may also require a rethinking of pricing schemes
and access issues. There is value, though, in the effort toward diversity, community,
and inclusion. Resurrecting symbolic approaches to water and incorporating these
into resource planning and practice may help expand an agency’s repertoire of
visions, policy choices, and opportunities for dialog with constituents.
Another way to enhance symbolic aspects of natural environments might be to
redesign landscapes in ways that afford more diverse and meaningful encounters
with nature. A model for this effort can be found in Litton et al.’s (1974) analysis
of the aesthetic values of water in natural landscapes. Litton and his collaborators
developed a landscape assessment system based on visual inventory and documenta-
tion of water qualities, surrounding land forms, and associated vegetation features.
Although they did not specify a definition for the term “aesthetic,” the authors did
relate aesthetic appreciation to scenic landscape factors, nonmonetary values, and
quality aspects of recreation experience. They also identified three operational
criteria for analyzing aesthetic qualities: unity, variety, and vividness. In their
discussion of future research needs, the authors noted the relevance of water
symbolism for resource management:
40
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
People differ in the symbolic associations they have for water (and
water resources). These associations may provide a key to under-
standing people’s aesthetic preferences. Some examples of
symbolic associations for water are: purity, power, timelessness,
refreshment, life support, wildness, distance, serenity, continuous-
ness, challenging (to navigate or cross), unpredictability. This area
is essentially unexplored.
41
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
nonsymbolic landscapes? How does use intersect with symbolic value: do symbols
or meanings change if the water features are transformed? Additionally, how should
managers deal with nonvisual aspects of water?
Despite the lack of knowledge about these issues, evidence exists to suggest
that organic symbolic meanings are already inherent in many recreation pursuits,
even if unexamined by either users or managers. River rafting, sea kayaking, and
associated activities provide examples of the journey or quest symbolism applied
to recreation activity. Also, researchers and participants consistently claim that
symbolism related to contemplative experience and spiritual renewal is a central
feature of many types of wilderness experience. Similarly, adventure recreation
activities have been described as producing “flow” experiences (Csikszentmihalyi
1990), a term that recalls creation and journey metaphors of water, where people
are carried along on the crest of meaningful, fluid experience. The pleasure of
water in natural settings is at least partly attributable to the notion that, whatever
form it takes, water is unpredictable and potentially uncontrollable, and thus has
unexpected possibilities. As Logan (1975: 98) explained,
42
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
opportunities that would enhance symbolic water experiences and involve recre-
ation participants in closer relationships with natural environments. What is needed
is creative thinking about the symbolic values of the water recreation experience.
Many of the administrative tasks performed by resource managers are routine
and cyclical, but science-based management of resources should not mean that mass
production of recreation experiences is the desired outcome. Creativity in manage-
ment planning and design are possible avenues for fostering symbolic meanings
that enrich recreation experience. An example is provided by Croutier, who wrote
about visiting Bad Ragaz, Switzerland, and participating in a ritual dinner that
celebrated the start of a new hunting season; the meal comprised a variety of local
game. The author wrote (Croutier 1992: 145), “Our host told me that each hunter
had to be over 50 years old, was allowed only one deer a season, and was required
to go up into the mountains and feed an animal in winter.” What is represented in
this example is a policy that facilitates intimate experience with nature (the “re-
source” aspect is secondary) such that individual experiences, hunter responsibility,
and meanings of nature are given primacy. Although this personal approach might
be difficult to accommodate under large-scale, bureaucratic management ap-
proaches, it can serve as an ideal for developing water-based schemes that base
allocation decisions on local, community, or ecocentric criteria.
43
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
agencies and communities. The active participation of geographic and interest com-
munities in management efforts that attempt to foster symbolic appreciation of
water and other natural features is desirable for many reasons. Grassroots planning
processes can support ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially mean-
ingful natural places, as poet and author Gary Snyder proposed (1995: 229, 235) in
an essay entitled, “Coming into the Watershed”:
Innovative ways of
designing land- The surface (of the earth) is carved into watersheds—a kind of
scapes and ecosys- familial branching, a chart of relationship, and a definition of
tems should also place….Watershed consciousness…is not just environmentalism,
encourage new not just a means toward resolution of social and economic
ways of imagining problems, but a move towards resolving both nature and society
human communities with the practice of profound citizenship in both the natural and
and their relation- the social worlds.
ships with water.
Innovative ways of designing landscapes and ecosystems should also encour-
age new ways of imagining human communities and their relationships with water.
Working within current public-private property arrangements, one might envision
the creation of new water trails, grottos, or interpretive exhibits that facilitate
symbolic appreciation of water while maintaining resource area boundaries. Or,
traditional notions of property rights and boundaries could be challenged. Rather
than viewing forests, parks, and water resources as separate areas set apart from
other regional landscapes and managed by agencies external to a local community,
for example, these places might be reconceptualized as public interaction spaces.
Redesigning traditional recreation sites—campgrounds, picnic areas, trails, beaches,
or other sites near water features—for many different kinds of cultural uses might
foster new kinds of community involvement. Integrating resource management
personnel and programs into community settings (school activities, municipal
planning projects, land conservation programs) would also broaden the conception
of resource area borders, and could strengthen relationships between agencies and
communities.
Communities of locale and sentiment can also provide focal settings for basic
research about noninstrumental values of water. People understand the meanings
and functions of water primarily through their participation in and attachments to
local places. Typically, individuals first enjoy water recreation in the company of
their immediate family, and the water settings they initially encounter are those in
local neighborhoods and communities. Indeed, many communities take advantage
of the appeal of water recreation places by designing community gathering places
44
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
around local water features. Many town squares have fountains; city parks often
include ponds and lakes; rivers meander through downtown areas. Even fire hy-
drants are summer recreation places for children in urban neighborhoods. Seaboard
and river cities have redeveloped their waterfronts for active and passive recreation,
linking history with commerce and leisure uses. Residents of island communities
gather at the ferry dock to greet neighbors and catch up on local news. Community
festivals and celebrations are held at waterfront parks. Theme parks, ice arenas, and
public swimming facilities offer water-related entertainment that draws residents
and tourists alike for socializing and pleasure.
All these are examples of shared community interaction spaces evolving
around local water features. A further example is offered from personal experience,
as members of my own neighborhood shoveled snow after a winter storm that
brought local traffic and business to a near-standstill. The snow was light and
cleansing, glittering in moonlight, slipping into small avalanches with each new
shovelful, piling up in mountains that made valleys of driveways and the street
itself. Neighbors helped dig each other out while children slid down the massive
piles and pelted each other with snowballs. People walking dogs and sliding down
the unplowed road on cross-country skis stopped to talk. Winter is a hibernating
season in Vermont, so it was the first time my neighbors had seen one another in
weeks. The hard work of shoveling was made easier by those interactions. For
those of us who experienced the event, snow now symbolizes the community of
our neighborhood.
Geographic communities also fulfill another special function: they provide set-
tings where leisure and recreation opportunities can be seen as “shadow measures”
for the symbolic meanings of water. Shoveling snow with neighbors is restorative
of both personal well-being and communal spirit. Uninhibited play around foun-
tains, on beaches, and at hydrants brings both children and adults into contact and
conversation, fostering public discussion while participants enjoy the cleansing
spiritual and physical aspects of water. Observation of lakes and other water bodies
across the seasons, a casual leisure pursuit, reveals the passage of time, connecting
people to the natural world in a pleasurable way while symbolizing the passage of
life. Even engineered water features retain a measure of water’s symbolic value.
The Ballard Locks in Seattle, Washington, for example, draw scores of local
people and tourists each day for passive recreation and entertainment. Visitors
enjoy watching commercial and pleasure boats bobbing through the channel, sal-
mon jumping up the fish ladder, and whiskered sea otters cracking abalone while
45
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
floating along on their backs. The symbols of water journeys and the circularity of
Because contempo-
nature are implicit in the activities of the locks, a subtle message of nature-human
rary water symbols
connectedness evoked by water.
emerge in local
Because contemporary water symbols emerge in local contexts, their meanings
contexts, their
contribute to a shared sense of place and community. The topic of sense of place is
meanings con-
becoming increasingly prominent in scholarly research journals and other public
tribute to a shared
media. Academics interested in recreation, geography, rural communities, and other
sense of place and
disciplines, as well as popular writers, have been using the term to elaborate and
community.
explore meanings of human experience in natural environments. In general, the
concept refers to the emotions people experience, and the behaviors they enact,
when they develop special attachments to landscapes, settings, and communities
(Moore and Graefe 1994, Stokowski 1991, Williams et al. 1992). A person’s sense
of place may be intangible, but it is expressed as emotions, attitudes, behaviors, and
relationships that are observable.
Whereas encounters with nature may create a sense of place for specific indi-
viduals, much of what people know or feel about places is mediated by others, as
explained by the sociologists Peter Berger and Hansfried Kellner. These authors
wrote (1964: 1), “The reality of the world is sustained through conversation with
significant others.” Ryden (1993: 241) elaborated, “Places do not exist until they
are verbalized, first in thought and memory and then through the spoken or written
word.” If a sense of place is sustained through interpersonal interaction and partici-
pation in community, then water symbols are etched in collective consciousness,
identity, and memory through language. Symbolic meanings of water can be seen
as social constructions, made visible in the images, narratives, and myths of people
who share a common experience of place. As Johnstone (1990: 5) explained, “Just
as narrative structures our sense of self and our interactions with others, our sense
of place and community is rooted in narration. A person is at home in a place when
the place evokes stories, and, conversely, stories can serve to create places.” Thus,
resource places are not only objective sites existing in a landscape or a local com-
munity, but are places of social encounter, experience, and recollection “remem-
bered in the stories, language, and history we collectively share as members of a
human community” (Stokowski 2000).
Imagery is one form of language used in illustrating how humans imagine the
world and explain their interactions with it. Ingram (1998: 155) wrote that, “More
than merely conveying reality, images actually construct reality….different images
give credibility to alternative and competing models of how the world works and
46
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
where the power and moral responsibility lie.” Images are often used in construct-
ing symbolic explanations about human relationships with water, but images are
complex and go beyond pure logic. Images and symbols are created not only from
scientific facts, but also from artistic, spiritual and humanistic ways of knowing
that can be called “fundamental tools of imagination” (Lopez 1986: 224).
The use of imagery in water symbolism can be seen in a recent conference
program of the International Water History Association (IWHA). Formed in 1999
with the goal of “promoting understanding of the history of the control and use
of freshwater resources throughout the world” (www.iwha.net), this organization
devoted a segment of their 2001 conference in Bergen, Norway, to the theme
“Images of water in religion, myths, literature and art.” Four other themes were
drawn around functional uses of water (water ownership, the history of hydrology,
water in social development and poverty, and sanitation and health), but about 35
papers were presented in the “Images…” thematic area. The IWHA conference
theme reinforces the idea that emergent culture continually influences the creation
and institutionalization of water symbolism.
One imaginative application of imagery is evident in the use of metaphor. In
an essay about spiritual values of nature, Schroeder (1996: 91) observed that,
“Because the deeper values of nature are rooted in an experiential dimension for
which there is no clearly delineated, objective structure, a conceptual understand-
ing of these values is most naturally formed in terms of metaphors.” Many of the
water-based landscapes protected and managed by public agencies are unique or
memorable in their composition and arrangement of natural features—and so evoke
deep feelings and attachments from visitors. To know natural places in metaphori-
cal terms is to enjoy new ways of experiencing and remembering nature. Makine’s
(1998: 17) story about a Russian village provides an evocative example of the
power of water and nature metaphors:
And spring did come: one fine day the village broke its moorings.
Our river began to move. Vast acres of ice began their stately
procession. Their progress grew faster; the glittering layers of
water dazzled us. The raw smell of the ice mingled with the wind
from the steppes. And the earth slipped away under our feet. And
it was our village, with its izbas, its worm-eaten fences, its sails
of multi-colored linen on the lines, it was Svetlaya that was
embarking on a joyful cruise….The voyage did not last long. A
few weeks later the river returned to its bed and the village landed
on the shores of a fleeting Siberian summer.
47
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Images and metaphors are often basic elements in narratives about place.
People relate to the natural world in a myriad of ways, and their symbols are re-
vealed in narratives. Narratives are the stories people tell to organize their experi-
ence of the world, and in instances where symbolic relations are elaborated in
stories, the resulting narratives are simultaneously rich as well as insufficient. For
To fully appreciate example, Lopez (1986: 208) wrote of explorers who described seeing the aurora
water symbolism, borealis, “It is unusual in the literature of exploration to find a strictly consistent
one might look to reaction, but virtually everyone who wrote down his thoughts about the aurora
the power of narra- described, first, the inadequacy of his language, and second, a pervasive and stilling
tive to present spiritual presence.”
ways of knowing To fully appreciate water symbolism, one might look to the power of narrative
and experiencing to present ways of knowing and experiencing the natural world beyond scientific
the natural world rationalism and objectivity. Narratives are important not because of their truth con-
beyond scientific tent (which may vary) but because they establish connections between and among
rationalism and people and place, help organize human memory, and are used in public discussion
objectivity. to legitimize social action (see Stokowski 1996 for examples). Images, metaphors,
and narratives do not only report on the world, they are the forms of language that
help structure social reality. New approaches to water management may require
new languages of agency and community involvement.
What new understandings could be obtained by closer examination of people’s
imagery, metaphors, and narratives related to water and its symbolism? Ingram
(1998) believes that the language and policies associated with water allocations
have divided people, forcing them to compete rather than collaborate, and that
better solutions exist in creating outcomes that benefit entire communities of
people. Her test for equity in water allocation policies includes five criteria:
reciprocity, value pluralism, participation, promises, and responsibility—values
that could emerge as central in developing new symbolic approaches in water
management.
A focus on language also introduces the issue of power (Stokowski 2002).
How is water defined in outdoor recreation settings? Are there alternatives to de-
fining water as resource? Who participates in creating the definitions, and who is
excluded? How are symbolic meanings and images applied in managerial action?
If there are conflicts over definitions and uses of water, how are those conflicts
addressed and resolved? How can different values for water features be compared?
These questions illustrate the political aspect of water, its symbols, and the
discourses of water use and management. They also suggest that there are many
48
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Discussion
In the transformation from the ancient world of spirits to a world organized
according to science, personal relationships between humans and the natural
world have been replaced by objective laws and principles. Science considers
natural elements to behave in regular and predictable ways, removed from the
realms of emotion and capriciousness, such that the actions of nature can be antici-
pated and measured. Ancient cultures, however, experienced natural events as the
whims of deities: the gods acted over people by creating floods, storms, droughts,
and other natural events. Merchant (1992: 43) argued that, in ancient times, “The
image of the earth as a living organism and nurturing mother served as a cultural
constraint restricting the actions of human beings….As long as the earth was con-
ceptualized as alive and sensitive, it could be considered a breach of human ethical
behavior to carry out destructive acts against it.” The post-Enlightenment practice
of conceiving the Earth as a machine-like system distances people from nature as
well as from the consequences of human actions in nature.
Contemporary approaches to recreation resource management are scientifically-
based and utilitarian in scope. The symbols associated with current conditions are
those that favor control over nature, agency progress, and managed human encoun-
ters with nature. Behind these images, though, are many examples of people—
individually or collectively—seeking meaningful encounters with water and other
natural elements. The symbolic power of water known to the ancients and members
of earlier cultures has not disappeared. It is hidden behind the prevailing resource
management philosophies of contemporary land management agencies. These
agencies operate under bureaucratic imperatives that feature symbols associated
with resource management; incorporating organic symbols into current manage-
ment practices may require alternative visions of reality.
49
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
The mountain brook and Otter Creek both mark watering places—
where the rising, falling, turning, carving constancy of current
shows “water” to be not just a noun but also our most perpetually
active verb. Intransitive, it rushes with no destination, completed at
every standing wave within the gorge. Transitive, it waters the new
shoots that make a landscape live.
Images of nature as alive have not disappeared in current times, but the associ-
ated symbols and meanings have taken on new social and cultural forms. Natural
spirits have been linguistically removed from the contemporary world of objective
reality and re-directed to exist primarily in the abstract world of the arts and
humanities. From there, though, they continue to reach out to us, as seen in
Nabokov’s (1995: 435) elegant description of a lake in his short story, “Cloud,
Castle, Lake”:
Nabokov’s story reminds us that there are alternate realities and approaches
to nature for those who are open to innovative thinking. Water symbolism is not
absent from contemporary life, but an understanding and appreciation of water
st
symbols in the 21 century will require a relaxation and replacement of purely
objective criteria that typifies current resource management practices.
Expecting resource agencies to change their typical ways of conducting busi-
ness is unrealistic. Thus, the review of issues related to water symbolism in contem-
porary recreation resource management suggests three practical alternatives for
future agency direction—and one other unusual alternative. First, an agency may
50
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
51
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Conclusions
In Aristophanes’ comic play Lysistrata (written about 411 B.C.), the women of
Athens refuse to sleep with their husbands until the men stop fighting wars and
agree to make peace (in van Ghent and Brown 1968). Their vow was repeated in
Sirt, Turkey, in summer 2001, where women of that village, “tired of hauling
water…have been refusing sex until the men of the village provide running water
to the village” (Burlington Free Press 2001: 10A). If utilitarian aspects of water
can be addressed with symbolic actions, then it is not so extraordinary to suggest
that recreation management may be equally transformed by approaches that foster
symbolic meanings. Recreation places are not merely background to human experi-
ence, but rather are integral sites linking people and nature in close relation. Ian
McHarg (1969: 19) provided direction for future management actions when he
wrote:
52
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
References
Apollinaire, G. 1990. “Mirabeau Bridge.” In: Farrell, K., comp. Art and love: an
illustrated anthology of love poetry. Boston, MA: The Metropolitan Museum of
Art (NY) and Bulfinch Press: 102.
Berger, P.; Kellner, H. 1964. Marriage and the construction of reality. Diogenes.
46(Summer): 1–24.
Brick, P.; Snow, D.; van de Wetering, S. 2001. Across the Great Divide:
explorations in collaborative conservation and the American West. Washington,
DC: Island Press. 256 p.
Budd, B. 1996. Lessons from the cinnamon mare. In: Driver, B.L.; Dustin, D.;
Baltic, T.; Elsner, G.; Peterson, G., eds. Nature and the human spirit: toward
an expanded land management ethic. State College, PA: Venture Publishing,
Inc.: 171–176.
53
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Burlington Free Press. 2001. Village water might flow; sex to follow.
August 16: 10A.
Connelly, N.A.; Brown, T.L. 1992. Item response bias in angler expenditures.
Journal of Leisure Research. 24(3): 288–294.
Croutier, A.L. 1992. Taking the waters: spirit, art, sensuality. New York: Abbeville
Press. 224 p.
Dickson, D.R. 1987. The fountain of living waters: the typology of the waters of
life in Herbert, Vaughan, and Traherne. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri
Press. 218 p.
Douglass, R.W. 2000. Forest recreation. 5th ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland
Press, Inc. 392 p.
Driver, B.L.; Dustin, D.; Baltic, T.; Elsner, G.; Peterson, G., eds. 1996. Nature
and the human spirit: toward an expanded land management ethic. State
College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. 497 p.
Driver, S. 1996. Values of nature for artists and artists’ interpretations of these
values for society. In: Driver, B.L.; Dustin, D.; Baltic, T.; Elsner, G.; Peterson,
G., eds. Nature and the human spirit: toward an expanded land management
ethic. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.: 185–192
Dundes, A. 1988. The flood as male myth of creation. In: Dundes, A., ed. The
flood myth. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 167–182.
Eiseley, L. 1957. The immense journey. New York: Time Incorporated. 210 p.
Eliade, M. 1959. The sacred and the profane: the nature of religion. San Diego,
CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers. 264 p.
54
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Field, D.R. 2000. Symbiotic relationships between national parks and neighboring
social-biological regions. In: Machlis, G.E.; Field, D.R., eds. National parks
and rural development: practice and policy in the United States. Washington,
DC: Island Press: 211–218.
Flora, C.B.; Flora, J.L.; Spears, J.D.; Swanson, L.; Lapping, M.B.;
Weinberg, M.L. 1992. Rural communities: legacy and change. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press. 334 p.
Frazer, J.G. 1961. Adonis, Attis, Osiris: studies in the history of oriental religion.
New Hyde Park, NY: University Books. 321 p.
Glacken, C.J. 1967. Traces on the Rhodian Shore. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press. 763 p.
Ingram, H. 1998. Place humanists at the headwaters. In: Rothman, H.K., ed.
Reopening the American West. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press:
155–167.
Instone, S., ed. 1996. Pindar: selected odes. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips
Ltd. 224 p.
Ions, V. 1982. Egyptian mythology. New York: Peter Bedrick Books. 144 p.
Kemmis, D. 1990. Community and the politics of place. Norman, OK: University
of Oklahoma Press. 150 p.
55
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Litton, R.B.; Tetlow, R.J.; Sorensen, J.; Beatty, R.A. 1974. Water and
landscape: an aesthetic overview of the role of water in the landscape. Port
Washington, NY: Water Information Center, Inc. 314 p.
Logan, B. 1975. The land remembers: the story of a farm and its people. New
York: Avon Books. 277 p.
Magary, F. 1996. A few observations on design for spiritual values. In: Driver,
B.L.; Dustin, D.; Baltic, T.; Elsner, G.; Peters, G., eds. Nature and the human
spirit: toward an expanded land management ethic. State College, PA: Venture
Publishing, Inc.: 291–299.
Makine, A. 1998. Once upon the river love. Strachan, G., translator. New York:
Penguin Books. 224 p.
Manning, R.E. 1999. Studies in outdoor recreation: search and research for
satisfaction. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 374 p.
Martin, R.P., ed. 1991. Bulfinch’s mythology: with introduction, notes, and
bibliography. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. 732 p.
McHarg, I. 1969. Design with nature. Garden City, NY: The American Museum of
Natural History and Doubleday & Co., Inc. 197 p.
Merchant, C. 1992. Radical ecology: the search for a livable world. New York:
Routledge. 276 p.
Miller, G.T., Jr. 1998. Sustaining the Earth: an integrated approach. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Co. 336 p.
Moore, R.L.; Graefe, A.R. 1994. Attachments to recreation settings: the case of
rail-trail users. Leisure Sciences. 16: 17–31.
Murray, A.S. 1970. Manual of mythology: Greek, Roman, Norse, and Old
German, Hindoo and Egyptian mythology. Facsimile reprint of the 1885
edition. Detroit, MI: Gale Research Company. 368 p.
56
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Nabokov, V. 1995. Cloud, castle, lake. In: Nabokov, V., ed. The stories of Vladimir
Nabokov. New York: Vintage International: 430–437.
Reunala, A. 1996. Cultural and spiritual forest values in Scandinavia. In: Driver,
B.L.; Dustin, D.; Baltic, T.; Elsner, G.; Peters, G., eds. Nature and the human
spirit: toward an expanded land management ethic. State College, PA: Venture
Publishing, Inc.: 225–233.
Roggenbuck, J.W.; Williams, D.R.; Bange, S.P.; Dean, D.J. 1991. Riverfloat
trip encounter norms: questioning the use of the social norms concept. Journal
of Leisure Research. 23(2): 133–153.
Ryden, K.C. 1993. Mapping the invisible landscape: folklore, writing, and the
sense of place. Iowa City, Iowa: Iowa University Press. 362 p.
Schafer, E.H. 1973. The divine woman: dragon ladies and rain maidens in T’Ang
literature. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 264 p.
Schama, S. 1995. Landscape and memory. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 652 p.
Seelye, J. 1977. Prophetic waters: the river in early American life and literature.
New York: Oxford University Press. 423 p.
Servid, C. 2000. Of landscape and longing: finding a home at the water’s edge.
Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions. 198 p.
Siderelis, C.; Brothers, G.; Rea, P. 1995. A boating choice model for the
valuation of lake access. Journal of Leisure Research. 27(3): 264–282.
57
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Smith, T.S. 1995. The Island of the Anishnaabeg: thunderers and water monsters
in the traditional Ojibwe life-world. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Press.
236 p.
Snyder, G. 2000. Blue Mountains constantly walking. In: Kaza, S.; Kraft, K., eds.
Dharma rain: sources of Buddhist environmentalism. Boston, MA: Shambhala
Publications, Inc.: 125–141.
St. Joseph Edition of the Holy Bible. 1963. Genesis 1: The book of Genesis; The
Old Testament. New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co. 334 p.
Stokowski, P.A. 1996. Riches and regrets: betting on gambling in two Colorado
mountain Towns. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado. 338 p.
Tuan, Y-F. 1968. The hydrologic cycle and the wisdom of God: a theme in
geoteleology. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. 160 p.
Van Ghent, D.; Brown, J.S., eds. 1968. Aristophanes’: Lysistrata. In: Continental
literature: an anthology. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott Company: 314–352.
Vol. 1.
58
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Warren, R.P. 1990. “Love Recognized.” In: Farrell, K., comp. Art and love: an
illustrated anthology of love poetry. Boston, MA: The Metropolitan Museum
of Art (NY) and Bulfinch Press: 135.
Wendt, H. 1969. The romance of water. Grundy, J.B.C., translator. New York:
Hill and Wang. 228 p.
Wescoat, J.L., Jr. 2000. ‘Watersheds’ in regional planning. In: Fishman, R., ed.
The American planning tradition: culture and policy. Washington, DC: The
Woodrow Wilson Center Press: 147–171.
59
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
60
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Introduction
This chapter presents a literature synthesis regarding the interactions between water
(excluding snow and ice) and outdoor recreation. Water long has played a signifi-
cant role in the types, patterns, and levels of recreation use, and studies of projected
trends in recreation use suggest a continuing close link between water and recre-
ation. Although the extent and rate of changes in the biophysical system (e.g.,
global warming, species extinction) are subject to dispute, there is more certainty
and consistency in projections of socioeconomic changes (e.g., population growth,
Water possesses a
technological trends). Because these social and economic changes promise to be
complex array of
profound (Rayner and Malone 1998), it is important to understand their impact on
symbolic meanings.
water resources.
These meanings
often have ancient
Recreation as a Symbolic Use of Water
origins, some
As Stokowski discusses in chapter 2, a symbol is an image that represents some-
shared across
thing else. Water, she argues, possesses a complex array of symbolic meanings.
cultures, others
These meanings often have ancient origins, some shared across cultures, others
unique.
unique. One particular meaning focuses on the notion of rejuvenation—both
physical and mental—and the idea that water is the source of life. In other words,
water is critical to re-creation of both individuals and societies. In more contempo-
rary terms, water has become a critical element in the recreation behavior of many
people. The importance of water to recreation gained serious attention as early as
1962 with publication of the Outdoor Recreation Resource Review Commission
report, Water for Recreation—Values and Opportunities, and has gained subsequent
confirmation in a host of empirical and policy studies over the years. Whether in it
(swimming), on it (boating), using it (fishing), or looking at it (camping), water is
common to many forms and styles of recreation.
1
Christina Kakoyannis was a research associate, Department of Forest Resources, Oregon
State University; she is now an AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow at the
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460;
George Stankey was a social scientist (now retired) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Science Laboratory, 3200 SW
Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331.
61
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
The reasons for this are complex and varied. They certainly transcend a tauto-
logical explanation; that is, people like to be around water because they like it.
Clearly, people undertake water-based recreation activities because they find some
kind of value in it. Moreover, the provision of opportunities for such activities
generally is taken as a social good, that benefits not only the individual but the
larger society. The nature of the particular values derived from such engage-
ments, however, is less than apparent. The question has attracted the attention
from philosophers to policymakers, and a host of typologies and classification
schema have emerged. For example, a recent review by Putney (2003) examining
the values associated with natural settings described recreational values as a subset
of a broader group of intangible values, as distinguished from material or instru-
mental values, such as biodiversity conservation or the provision of medicinal wild
Fishing involves species for human health. These recreational values involve qualities that engage
more than catching humans with the environment in ways that “restore, refresh, or create anew through
a fish; it can be stimulation and exercise of the mind, body, and soul (i.e., re-creation)” (Putney
symbolic of a life- 2003: 7).
long journey, an The interaction between human behavior (e.g., a recreational activity, such as
opportunity for fishing) and a biophysical setting (e.g., a lake) yields experiences for the partici-
spiritual renewal, a pant. However, as Stokowski discusses, the experiences that both motivate and
reliving of the past, emerge from this interaction can take on highly symbolic aspects. Fishing, for
or the capacity to example, involves more than catching a fish; it can be symbolic of a life-long
demonstrate one’s journey, an opportunity for spiritual renewal, a reliving of the past, or the capacity
capacity to stand to demonstrate one’s capacity to stand independent of civilization. In short, the
independent of apparently obvious, even transparent activity of fishing is, in reality, a complex
civilization. expression that can only be understood in terms of the symbolism served by such
an activity and the setting in which it occurs. And as Stokowski’s chapter reveals,
water has long served as a powerful symbol of various human connections—with
one another, with life, with history, with nature. Accordingly, human activities,
such as recreation, that are dependent upon water become ways in which these
symbolic meanings play out.
However, our capacity to describe and depict these activities and their associ-
ated meanings is limited. In particular, the symbolic meanings of recreational
engagements in water environments are poorly understood. The reasons for this
differ. Contemporary planning approaches focus largely on the quantitative and
observable aspects of recreation behavior—how much, when, where, for how long,
by how many, etc. Such a perspective gives little attention to underlying motiva-
tions or to other qualitative aspects of the behavior. But it is also a function of the
62
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
63
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Our discussion focuses on the United States, with a particular emphasis on the
2
West and Pacific Northwest. However, many of our findings generalize to other
regions of the country and overseas; e.g., the general aging of the population, with
its attendant impacts on recreation participation patterns and rates, is a phenomenon
shared across many Western industrialized societies.
As suggested above, the body of knowledge regarding water-based recreation
is necessary but not sufficient to understand the complex symbolic role of water
in such behavior or to frame appropriate management programs and policies. As
Stokowski concludes “The symbolic power of water…is hidden…behind the pre-
vailing resource management philosophies of contemporary land management
agencies…incorporating organic symbols into current management practices may
require alternative visions of reality.” In this sense, this chapter provides a rudi-
mentary base of knowledge from which such alternative visions might become
fashioned.
Many different
societal trends will Proposition 1: Population Growth and Migration
influence water- Influences the Spatial Distribution of Recreation
based recreation
and Affects Public Judgments of Acceptability of
in the Pacific North-
Water Management Strategies3
west, but none
appear to have as A discussion of recreation trends must account for the major determinants of those
great a potential recreation trends—population change, migration, and demographic components of
impact as popula- population. An understanding of these population shifts is critical to understanding
tion growth and the future of outdoor recreation trends in the United States in general and the
the demographic Pacific Northwest in particular.
components of
Population Growth
population change.
Many different societal trends will influence water-based recreation in the Pacific
Northwest, but none appear to have as great a potential impact as population
growth and the demographic components of population change. Although popula-
tion growth rates in the United States have been declining for some time, the 1999
estimates for the population growth in the Pacific Northwest show a rapid increase
2
In this report, “Pacific Northwest” refers to Alaska, Oregon, and Washington.
3
Much of the research literature discussing the link between demographic changes and
recreation is not specific to water-based recreation. Therefore, key drivers of change will
focus on how demographic variables influence general recreation. The few examples of
research studies that examined the effect of demographics on water-based recreation are
included.
64
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
in population for all three states (table 1, fig. 1). Both Oregon and Washington
th
were within the top 10 fastest growing states in the Nation in the 1990s (10 and
th th
7 , respectively), while Alaska was 13 . Furthermore, if census 2025 projections
for population growth in the region are reasonably accurate, the population of all
three states will grow between 31 and 43 percent in the next quarter century (U.S.
Demographic com-
Census Bureau 1997). Considered by itself, this dramatic increase in the Pacific
ponents of popula-
Northwest population suggests that additional demands will be placed on natural
tion growth such as
resources for recreation in general and on water resources in particular. Assuming
migration, shifting
the acreage of federally owned lands remains relatively constant, the increase in
age structure, and
population will decrease the amount of federal public land available per person.
shifting racial com-
However, it is not enough to consider the effects of increased population growth
position confound
alone. Demographic components of this population growth—such as migration,
the effects of popu-
shifting age structure, and shifting racial composition—confound the effects of
lation growth on
population growth on management of natural resources in the future (McCool and
management of
Kruger, n.d.).
natural resources
Regional Migration in the future.
Not only will population increases have profound impact on future recreation
patterns and management of water, but the spatial distribution of this population
growth across the United States will further complicate future scenarios. The trend
throughout the United States is for residents to migrate from the Northeast, Mid-
west, and Plains States to the South and the West; the growth in the Pacific North-
west reflects these national migration shifts (fig. 1). The population of the Pacific
Northwest continues to grow owing to natural increase (births minus deaths) and
increased international and domestic migration. Census projections for net domestic
and international migration into the Pacific Northwest estimate that Oregon and
Washington will continue to rank high in both net international and particularly Whether or not the
net domestic migration (table 2), whereas Alaska’s rate of immigration will slow. population is grow-
Whether or not the population is growing or declining in specific regions of the
ing or declining in
country holds important implications for the conflicts between water for recreation
specific regions of
and other uses. Current trends hold particular significance because they reveal a the country holds
general pattern of migration from more water-rich regions of the United States important implica-
towards more arid, Western States. These regional migration patterns could have
tions for the con-
dramatically different effects on diverse regions of the country—bringing increased
flicts between water
conflicts over scarce water resources in some locations (e.g., southern California) for recreation and
and less impact in regions of lower growth, particularly those already with an other uses.
abundant water supply (e.g., Michigan). Even in the Pacific Northwest, a region
65
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Table 1—Population and percentage population change for the Pacific Northwest
1999 Population 2025 Population
population change population change
State (estimate) (1990–1999) (projection) (1999–2025)
Percent Percent
Alaska 619,500 12.6 885,000 43
Oregon 3,316,154 16.7 4,349,000 31
Washington 5,756,361 18.3 7,808,000 36
Figure 1—Percentage of population increase for the United States, 1990–1999 (U.S. Census
Bureau 2001).
Table 2—Projections for net domestic and international migration for the Pacific
Northwest, 1995–2025
Net domestic State Net international State
State migration ranking migration ranking
Alaska -84,000 37 th 28,000 41 st
Oregon 712,000 8 th 197,000 19 th
Washington 931,000 5 th 394,000 11 th
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2001.
66
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
67
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
68
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
of the U.S. population—a very diverse population that is ever evolving in the types
of recreation it demands.” By influencing the predominant values held by the local
citizenry, population change will therefore create new challenges for resource man-
agers who will need to adapt to shifting recreation needs and shifting notions of
what are acceptable water management strategies. Without a better understanding
of the nature of these changes, particularly in terms of their connection with the
symbolic values of water, managers will lack preparedness for the magnitude and
direction of future recreation and water management needs.
The shifting composition of incoming residents is important because research Rudzitis and
suggests that new inmigrants often hold differing values and attitudes regarding Johansen (1989,
natural resource management than long-time rural residents. Rudzitis and Johansen 1991) noted that
(1989, 1991) noted that rural migrants held higher levels of environmental concern rural migrants held
and were more likely to support management of public lands for environmental higher levels of
benefits instead of commodity production. In an examination of migration patterns environmental con-
in Maine in the 1970s, Ploch (1978) noted that families migrating to rural counties cern and were more
were younger, smaller in size, more educated, and more likely to hold professional likely to support
and managerial occupations than were Maine residents. The author also noted that management of
the inmigrants’ desire to maintain the rural atmosphere and quality of life for public lands for
which they migrated could conflict with local individuals’ desire to promote eco- environmental
nomic growth. Fortmann and Kusel (1990) found little difference in environmental benefits instead
attitudes of long-time residents and newcomers, but instead found that, because of of commodity
their willingness to express dissatisfaction with forest management decisions, new- production.
comers provided a “voice” for pro-environmental attitudes already existing in the
community. These findings suggest that the migration of politically savvy newcom-
ers to rural communities will increase local scrutiny of natural resource manage-
ment decisions.
Most research has found that new residents differ from long-term residents in
terms of demographic variables; many studies have examined the influence of these
differences in demographic characteristics on environmental concern and knowl-
edge. Although these studies have mixed findings, generally they suggest that levels
of environmental concern are influenced by gender, residence, political ideology,
education, and particularly, age. Typically, researchers have found that women,
urban dwellers, people with a liberal political ideology, well-educated people,
and younger cohorts tend to show more environmental concern than their more
conservative counterparts (Jones and Dunlap 1992, Steel et al. 1994, Van Liere
and Dunlap 1980). Thus, the makeup of individuals migrating into a region can
69
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
70
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
percent of their population over 65 years of age. By 2025, 48 states are expected to
have over 15 percent of their population over 65 years of age (U.S. Census Bureau
1997). In the Pacific Northwest, both Oregon and Washington are expected to have
high percentages of older Americans by 2025 (table 3).
The increasing proportion of the population of people over 65 years of age
reveals the importance of examining specific components of population change in
Population aging
the United States. Models that only use total population of the Nation to understand
likely will have a
and predict the future pattern of outdoor recreation will be inaccurate owing to the
great impact on
confounding effects of age or racial makeup, for example, on recreation behavior.
recreation participa-
Without a better understanding of changes in these variables, it is difficult to esti-
tion trends because
mate how projected population increases will affect future demand for recreation
the relationship
or for specific facilities and programs.
between age and
Population aging likely will have a great impact on recreation participation
participation is often
trends because the relationship between age and participation is often negative
negative (i.e., as age
(i.e., as age increases, participation decreases), particularly in high-intensity ac-
increases, participa-
tivities such as water skiing. For activities such as motorboating, the relationship
tion decreases),
is more stable, or shows the highest rates of participation at middle age. Thus, the
particularly in high-
demand for some activities will grow faster than the population grows, whereas
intensity activities
others might drop. One complicating factor is that people over 65 today are more
such as water
active than the same cohort decades ago. Although Wood et al. (1990) noted that
skiing.
the population of 70 to 90 year olds are healthier and more mobile today than their
predecessors and still participate in recreational activities, the nature of these act-
ivities appears to change over their lifetimes. For instance, Luloff and Krannich
(1990) found that hunters tended to be younger on average than were anglers.
Specifically, they found that 2 percent of hunters were over 65 years of age,
whereas nearly 7 percent of anglers and 7 percent of nonconsumptive recreation
participants were over 65 years of age. These findings suggest that participation
rates in hunting are likely to be more negatively affected by the population aging
than participation rates in fishing.
71
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
4
An ethnic group is typically defined as a collection of people (e.g., Hispanics) who have
in common a particular set of attributes such as language, culture, or religion (Husbands
and Idahosa 1995). In contrast, race is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary (2000)
as a “local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct
group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics” (e.g., African Americans,
Asians).
72
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Table 4—Population in racial and ethnic groups, 1995 and 2025 projection
Alaska Oregon Washington
Race and ethnic groups 1995 2025 1995 2025 1995 2025
Percent
Non-Hispanic White 73.0 57.1 89.5 82.0 85.0 76.1
Non-Hispanic African Americans 4.0 3.9 1.7 2.0 3.1 3.1
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander 4.3 21.5 2.8 4.7 5.0 8.8
Non-Hispanic Native American/ Eskimos/Aleuts 15.0 10.7 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.8
Hispanics (any race) 3.8 6.7 4.8 9.8 5.2 10.2
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 1996.
73
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Caucasian anglers gave greater importance to fishing as a sport. Studies have also
shown differences in the manner in which the groups typically participate in rec-
reational opportunities. Studies have shown that Hispanics, more so than Cauca-
sians, tend to recreate in larger groups—typically expanded family groups—and
when camping, prefer campsites with other campers nearby (Hutchison 1987).
Hutchison and Fidel (1984) found that the average size of recreating Mexican-
American groups was 5.7, whereas the average size for recreating Anglo groups
was 2.5 persons. In addition, their research noted that Mexican-American recreat-
ing groups more often contained people of mixed ages. Among Caucasians and
African Americans, it has been noted that African American households show a
preference for meeting people—particularly peers—and recreating in group-based
activities in developed urban settings, whereas Caucasian households show a pre-
ference for individual-oriented wildland recreation and for getting away from
others in their outdoor recreation experiences (Dwyer and Hutchison 1990,
Edwards 1981, Irwin et al. 1990).
Furthermore, even accounting for sociodemographic characteristics such as
income, some studies have noted that African American households were less likely
to travel long distances to find recreational opportunities than Caucasian households
(Dwyer and Hutchison 1990, Kelly 1980, Washburne and Wall 1980). This helps
explain why African Americans have lower participation rates in activities such as
wildland recreation that require extensive traveling. Manning (1999) summarized
findings from studies that examined differences in recreation participation between
Caucasians and minority groups. In general, this work reveals that minority groups,
as compared to Caucasians, tend to use highly developed, urban recreation facilities
close to home; recreate in larger groups that contain a diversity of ages; participate
in more sport and fitness-type activities; stay longer; and participate in land-based
activities more than water-based activities (Manning 1999).
There are two major theories as to why significant differences exist in recre-
ation participation patterns among racial and ethnic groups: the marginality and
the ethnicity explanation (Husbands and Idahosa 1995). The marginality theory
explains the racial and ethnic differences in recreation patterns through the groups’
differences in demographic variables (such as age and urban-rural distribution),
poverty, and discrimination (Washburne 1978). The theory posits that differences in
these characteristics lead to differing opportunities to access recreational resources
(Edwards 1981). It acknowledges that traditional minority participation rates may
not reflect their real demand for recreation (Dwyer 1995). Historically, African
74
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Americans have had more limited recreational experiences than Caucasians in part
owing to lack of resources (e.g., money) and reduced access to both public and
private recreational opportunities.
The second major theory—ethnicity theory—posits that recreation differences
are a function of the values, norms, and experiences of different ethnic groups
(Husbands and Idahosa 1995). Meeker et al. (1973) suggested that African Ameri-
cans’ preference for urban-based activities results from their view of the city as a
place of greater refuge from racism than natural landscapes. Although national
parks are seen by Caucasians as virgin lands (e.g., the “Garden of Eden”) un-
touched by human activities where one could find escape from civilization, the con-
ception of nature as separate from people was not a significant part of the cultural
systems of groups such as Native Americans.
Unlike the culture of European settlers where nature was considered separate
from human activities and thus needed to be protected from civilization, the culture
of African Americans and Native Americans ascribed more to a philosophy in
which humans are more integrated with natural processes (Meeker et al. 1973).
Furthermore, Taylor (2000a) noted that since their inception, national parks and
wilderness areas have been used primarily by middle class Caucasians and that
minority populations traditionally have felt uncomfortable recreating in these areas.
This reluctance likely was formed and sustained by the celebration of Caucasian
“discoveries” of areas previously known to, and used by, Native Americans and
Chicanos, the lack of minorities employed in land management agencies, and the
lack of minorities in books, guides, and film footage of wildland areas.
The differences between these theories hold certain implications for recreation
management as the diversity of the United States increases over time. If research
suggests that the marginality hypothesis accounts for most of the differences in
recreation participation among racial and ethnic groups, then programs could be
developed to make recreation more accessible to individuals at all socioeconomic
levels. On the other hand, if research suggests that cultural norms and values
account for variations in recreation participation, then recreation managers could
attempt to focus more of their efforts on activities preferred by those racial and
ethnic groups whose populations are increasing (Edwards 1981). A better rec-
ognition of how race and ethnicity influence the meaning of recreational activi-
ties is needed for resource professionals to manage natural resources for diverse
participants.
75
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
76
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
77
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
political system with regard to recreation, at least in theory. This is particularly true
of older Americans who typically are more politically active than younger cohorts
(Steel et al. 1998). On the other hand, improved access resulting from technologi-
cal advances can lead to detrimental impacts on surrounding riparian habitat.
Improved access expands available recreational sites by allowing individuals to
recreate in locations previously considered too remote. Improved access can
intensify the use of existing sites that are vulnerable to recreational pressure.
Furthermore, to some individuals, the mere presence of technology in wildland
areas is antithetical to their value systems, as evidenced by the controversy over
snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park.
Advancements in technology also influence demographic trends, such as the
urban to rural migration pattern, that affect water-based recreation and manage-
ment. Johnson and Beale (1998) noted that advances in transportation and commu-
nication (e.g., satellite technology, the Internet) have given people the ability to
reside in nonmetropolitan communities without needing to consider proximity
to urban areas or the availability of local employment. Improvements in transpor-
tation corridors also have resulted in growth of rural counties that are now consid-
ered within commuting distance to major metropolitan centers. Johnson and Beale
(1998) also observed that urban to rural migration is sometimes fueled by negative
aspects of technology; e.g., traffic congestion in urban areas has increased people’s
desire to leave cities for less populated rural areas. The growing numbers of people
migrating into rural counties likely will increase recreation pressure in these
locations and, as a result, also will increase conflicts over management of water
resources for differing uses and values. As previously discussed, technological
advances not only will increase population growth in remote, rural counties, but it
will also increase the number of individuals holding different values, beliefs, and
knowledge regarding natural resource management.
Another trend that will impact water-based recreation and management is the
information technology explosion. As before, this trend will result in both positive
and negative impacts for management of recreation and the water resource. The
increase in information technology will expand opportunities for individuals to
obtain information about recreational activities and potential recreation sites with
relative ease (e.g., through Web sites). The Internet gives management agencies
the ability to spread real-time information about recreational opportunities. How-
ever, Stankey (2000) noted that not only is there a possibility for dissemination of
inaccurate information about a recreation site, such as on unofficial Web sites, but
78
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
79
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
those without children. These findings were consistent with most research on
leisure, which has found great variation in leisure time among different groups
of individuals.
It is generally acknowledged that, for whatever reasons, Americans feel more
pressed for time now than ever before (Lagerfeld 1998). Davidson (1994) sug-
gested that Americans’ real or perceived decline in leisure time results from five
“mega-realities”: population growth, increasing volumes of information, increasing
media coverage, growth in the paper trail, and an overabundance of choices. For
example, the author noted that increases in knowledge and mass media coverage in
Americans’ percep- the United States overwhelm people by bombarding them with information, while
tions of their leisure population growth has contributed to increasing gridlock on transportation routes
time are more impor- and longer commuting times for work and other tasks. Furthermore, Schor (1991)
tant than their actual pointed out that consumerism (e.g., trying to “keep up with the Joneses”) locks
leisure time be- workers into a work-and-spend cycle. For the purposes of understanding leisure’s
cause it is their impact on recreation trends, Americans’ perceptions of their leisure time are more
perception that will important than their actual leisure time because it is their perception that will
influence decisions influence decisions regarding when, where, and how often to recreate.
regarding when, The quality of leisure time is as important as the quantity. For example,
where, and how Bittman and Wajcman (2000) found that although men and women have similar
often to recreate. amounts of free time, the nature of their available time suggests that a gender
gap in leisure exists. By comparing time diaries in 10 countries, the authors discov-
ered that men’s leisure was more likely to be uninterrupted and of longer duration
and was less likely to be associated with unpaid work such as child care than was
women’s leisure. There are some indications that, in general, Americans’ recreation
patterns are shifting owing to changes in the duration of leisure time. Americans
are now more likely to split their leisure time into several, small mini-vacations or
long weekends rather than go on a few extended vacations (Hartmann et al. 1988).
In addition, Lime et al. (1995) noted that developed and accessible recreation areas
have experienced greater growth in visitation than backcountry settings.
This trend can have an important impact on recreation patterns resulting in an
increase in the numbers of visitors at urban-proximate recreation sites, particularly
day-use sites, and a decrease in the numbers of visitors to more remote locations
that require more travel time or longer stays. In combination with preferences for
water-related recreation, this shifting pattern of leisure time suggests increasing
pressure on water resources near urban areas. This will place further pressure on
water resources for different values such as clean drinking water, riparian habitat,
or industrial use. In contrast, these trends suggest that wildland recreation might
80
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
face less pressure as people have limited time to reach those sites. In general, trends
in leisure time suggest that water recreation management requires focusing on sites
located near population centers.
81
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
setting. Studies of campground users consistently have found that access to water
is one of the most important characteristics that recreationists look for in a campsite
(Clark et al. 1984, Lime 1971, Moore et al. 1990).
Other studies found that campers place high importance on recreating near an
accessible body of water (Bumgardner et al. 1988, Lucas 1970) and that the
amount of land/water edge and surface water are positively related to increased
scenic value of the area (Zube et al. 1975). In a survey of visitors to the Aravaipa
Canyon Wilderness in Arizona (Moore et al. 1990), respondents ranked 13 charac-
teristics of the Canyon in order of importance; water was the most frequently men-
tioned item. In a study developing a typology of site attributes desired for camping,
Brunson and Shelby (1990) noted that one of the three most important attributes
needed to provide a minimum-level quality camping experience was proximity to
water. Water is important not only as an essential component of water-dependent
recreational activities, but also as an “aesthetic backdrop for non-water oriented
activities” (Field and Martinson 1986). In a study of how people make choices
about recreation sites, Vining and Fishwick (1991) asked 10 subjects to verbalize
their thought processes as they chose between 45 pairs of outdoor recreation sites.
The authors noted that most subjects used the presence and absence of water in
their evaluation. The study also revealed that water was considered more important
than simply serving as a “medium” for conducting an activity. Instead, attributes
of water (e.g., miles of shoreline) were associated with contributing to the peaceful
or secluded atmosphere of a site. Thus, not only is water essential for many water-
based recreational opportunities, but these studies also indicate that symbolic
aspects of water, such as its restorative capacity, also are important to the quality
of outdoor recreational activities.
82
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
A limitation to the compilation of accurate recreation use data stems from the
lack of cost-effective, valid sampling methods. Consequently, although numerous
research studies have collected recreation data, our ability to compare across these
different studies is limited. Currently, recreation data are not comparable or consis-
tent enough to compare information from one year to the next (Loomis 2000).
For example, depending on the survey, questions referring to boating can include
sailing, canoeing, kayaking, rowing, floating, rafting, motorboating, water-skiing,
or jet skiing. Without a clear understanding of how recreation categories have been
compiled, it is not possible to compare recreation use across different survey instru-
ments, areas, or time. Even more problematic is the lack of continuity in survey
questions. The tendency to alter survey instruments by dropping or rephrasing
particular recreation use questions in subsequent versions of the questionnaire
effectively eliminates the possibility of comparing recreation use trends over time.
An example of the difficulty of comparing across studies is exemplified by the
use of two different measurements of recreation units: visits and visitor days. Visits
represent an occurrence; one person entering a park is one visit, if they leave and
return later in the day, they are now counted as two visits. Visitor days, on the other
hand, provide an approximate measure of length of stay, typically the equivalent
of 12 hours. One person in an area for 12 hours is 1 visitor day, two persons for
6 hours would also be 1 visitor day, and so on. Because visits and visitor days
measure two different aspects of recreation intensity, the continued use of both
units in recreation research adds to the difficulty of comparing data across studies.
Recreation use data are further confounded by the fact that participation is always
a function of supply; participation rates in selected activities are influenced by
availability and access to the activity, not solely demand for participating in the
activity (Manning 1999). Consequently, activities that are widely abundant are
reflected in high participation rates, whereas more preferred, but not easily acces-
sible, activities reflect low participation rates.
In summary, the accuracy of recreation data is generally suspect as are the
methodologies used to obtain recreation use figures. This is a fundamental, recur-
ring problem that has plagued recreation management for decades. Furthermore,
in many instances, recreation data simply are not available. As a component of this
report, a case study on one county in the Pacific Northwest was planned. It was
envisioned the case study would provide an opportunity to examine the impacts
that demographic changes (e.g., population growth, migration patterns) have had
on water-based recreation in a specific county. However, analysis of the case study
83
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
84
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
85
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
86
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
capita basis. Fishing is even more popular than boating in the region. A national
survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-based recreation compared data on fishing
among the states of the Pacific Northwest Region (National Survey 1996). In terms
of numbers of anglers, days of fishing, and fishing expenditures, Washington ranks
first in the Pacific Northwest, followed by Oregon, then Alaska (table 7). How-
ever, as a percentage of the state population, Alaska contains more anglers, fol-
lowed by Oregon and Washington. Nonresident anglers fishing in Alaska accounted
for approximately 40 percent of the total days of fishing, whereas nonresident
anglers accounted for only 6 and 7 percent of the total days of fishing in Oregon
and Washington, respectively. These figures suggest that natural resource decisions
in Alaska have the potential to affect a more geographically diverse constituency
and that debates regarding management decisions in Alaska will be driven more by
out-of-state individuals than similar debates in Oregon and Washington. In all three
states, freshwater fishing is preferred over saltwater fishing (table 8), implying that
management changes in freshwater resources would have greater implications for
recreation participation than would changes for saltwater resources.
As previously discussed, there is an absence of current peer-reviewed studies
examining recreation use trends. Trend research has been replaced with studies that
focus more specifically on components of the recreation experience, such as visitor
satisfaction or perceptions of crowding. Although such research is needed to better
understand recreation behavior, it is important that we continue to examine and to
project recreation use trends in the United States. Because different methodologies
are used to obtain recreation data, it is important for peer-reviewed studies to ex-
amine long-term trends in recreation while accounting for the limitations arising
from inconsistent methodologies. Without improved, continuous monitoring of
recreation trends, managers will be caught unaware of the changing needs of the
recreating public and unprepared to deal with the potential impacts of recreation
use shifts on the water resource. Most recent survey data indicate that in the Pacific
Northwest, water remains essential to a person’s ability to continue participating in
their preferred recreational activities. Because water is such a critical element in the
choice process for many recreationists, managers must design water management
strategies that acknowledge both the importance of recreation to the public and the
importance of water resources to recreation.
87
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Table 7—Numbers of anglers and days of fishing for the Pacific Northwest
region
Anglers Anglers (as a
(resident and percentage of
State nonresident) state population) Days of fishing
Percent Millions
Alaska 463,000 29 5.3
Oregon 658,000 16 8.0
Washington 1,000,000 15 12.9
Source: National Survey 1996.
Table 8—Total days of freshwater and saltwater fishing in the Pacific Northwest in 1996
Total days of freshwater fishing Total days of saltwater fishing
State (state residents and nonresidents) (state residents and nonresidents)
Alaska 3,602,000 1,949,000
Oregon 7,118,000 870,000
Washington 10,975,000 2,135,000
Source: National Survey 1996.
88
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
that are used for drinking water, transportation, hydropower, and recreation.
Although conflicts over water use and distribution would have occurred regardless,
social trends such as population growth and migration shifts in the Pacific North-
west likely will escalate water conflicts in the coming decades. In particular, popu- Rapid population
lation growth and redistribution—especially to arid regions of the Northwest—will growth serves to
bring water conflicts to the forefront more quickly. By 2025, the populations of increase both the
Oregon, Washington, and Alaska are expected to increase by approximately 3.4 probability of water
million people; as a result, limited water resources will need to be distributed shortages in the
among more people, to satisfy more demands, particularly in urban centers. future and the diffi-
Rapid population growth serves to increase both the probability of water culty of deciding
shortages in the future and the difficulty of deciding how to allocate water among how to allocate
differing, often incompatible, uses. As the United States becomes more diverse water among differ-
(culturally and demographically), more people will have differing expectations for ing, often incompat-
water use. Furthermore, the continued adoption of new technologies in recreational ible, uses.
equipment and the resulting diversification of recreational opportunities is likely to
escalate conflicts among recreationists, particularly if recreation participation
continues to grow (Manning 1999).
Understanding the conflicts surrounding the distribution of water is important
because they can negatively affect water-based recreation. For some recreationists,
conflicts can lead to reduced satisfaction in an activity, whereas for other recrea-
tionists, conflict can lead them to engage in coping behaviors in an attempt to evade
the conflict. Conflict for an individual is defined as “goal interference attributed to
another’s behavior” (Jacob and Schreyer 1980). The level of perceived conflict is
not constant among all recreationists, but differs in response to a variety of factors.
An individual’s sensitivity to conflict has been found to be influenced by activity
style (personal meanings associated with a recreational activity), resource specific-
ity (the importance placed on a particular resource such as a swimming hole), life-
style tolerance (willingness to share resources with members of other lifestyle
groups), and mode of experience (preferred ways of experiencing the environment)
(Jacob and Schreyer 1980).
Recreation conflict can be classified into three main categories: recreation
versus other uses of the water resource, interactivity recreation conflict, and intra-
activity recreation conflict (Schreyer 1990).
89
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
90
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Interactivity Conflicts
Most studies of recreation conflict have examined interactivity conflict—the con-
flict occurring among recreationists participating in different activities. Empirical
research on water-based recreation has reported problems between anglers and
water-skiers (Gramann and Burdge 1981), anglers and canoeists (Driver and Bassett
1975), and particularly between motorized and nonmotorized boaters (Shelby
1980). For example, jet skis often disturb people engaged in recreational activities
such as fishing or swimming (Burger 1998).
A common finding throughout these research studies has been the asymmetrical
character of interactivity conflict: although people participating in a certain recre-
ational activity might not mind the presence of recreationists of another activity,
these congenial feelings often are not reciprocated by participants in the second
activity. For example, studies have documented an asymmetric conflict between
91
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Intra-Activity Conflicts
Intra-activity conflicts are those conflicts that arise between recreationists who are
participating in the same activity (Schreyer 1990). The literature on crowding is a
well-researched example of this form of recreation conflict. For example, in a
study of boating on West Virginia’s Cheat River, Whisman and Hollenhorst (1998)
found that 64 percent of commercial boaters and 84 percent of private boaters
experienced higher than normal levels of crowding. Crowding is defined as a
“negative evaluation of a certain density or number of encounters” (Shelby et al.
1989) and can result from a combination of increased visitation, inadequate infra-
structure, and changes in visitor use patterns such as bus tours (Lime et al. 1995).
Numerous studies have attempted to document perceived levels of crowding.
Shelby et al. (1989) reviewed 35 studies in the United States and New Zealand that
used the same single measure of crowding (rated along a nine-point scale from not
at all crowded to extremely crowded). The studies had a wide range in levels of
perceived crowding by recreationists—from 17 percent of goose hunters experienc-
ing crowding on the Grand River Marsh in Wisconsin to 100 percent of boaters
experiencing crowding on Oregon’s Deschutes River. The review also noted that
perceptions of crowding varied by time and season of use (e.g., holidays, summer),
resource abundance or availability (e.g., opening day of fishing season), resource
accessibility or convenience (e.g., near population centers), and management
actions (e.g., management restricting density) (Shelby et al. 1989).
92
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Recreation Substitutability
Recreation substitutability is the degree to which a particular recreational experi-
ence can be an acceptable substitute for another (Manning 1999). The need for
recreation substitutes arises when circumstances (such as increased crowding or a
limitation on use) detract from the recreational experience in a fundamental way
and compel recreationists to somehow modify their leisure activity. The notion
of substitutability is important owing to the multiple demands placed upon water
resources for both recreation and other uses. Competing demands (both among
different uses or within recreation itself) increase the likelihood that some recrea-
tionists will be forced to find alternative forms or locations or both as a result of
management decisions affecting the character of the water regime.
The extent to which there are alternatives to a recreation experience differs.
Depending on the characteristics of an activity, “real” choices are limited for
those displaced by some management action. When management actions affecting
the water regime are envisioned, there is often an implicit, but flawed, presump-
Although place-
tion that recreation users can find adequate substitutes by relocating or by partici-
based sentiments
pating in another activity. Particularly for specialized or unique activities such as
often are over-
kayaking, the required presence of a particular combination of physical and envi-
looked in natural
ronmental attributes (e.g., gradient, flow, obstructions) might mean that few, if any,
resource manage-
readily accessible substitutes exist.
ment decisions, the
In addition, because of a long history of involvement with a particular place,
strength of the
such as a fishing hole, people often form strong bonds with specific landscapes
meanings and ties
over time (Brown and Perkins 1992). Sites that hold special place meanings for
that people have
recreationists are often irreplaceable, and therefore, the existence of strong place
with particular
attachments often is sufficient to mobilize people into challenging management
places within the
decisions perceived as harmful to a valued location. Although place-based senti-
natural environment
ments often are overlooked in natural resource management decisions, the strength
are an important
of the meanings and ties that people have with particular places within the natural
consideration for
environment are an important consideration for water management (Mitchell et al.
water management.
1993).
Under certain circumstances, if recreationists are unable to continue participat-
ing in a recreational experience, they might find an acceptable substitute by modi-
fying a particular aspect of the experience such as the timing or access to the
activity, the resource setting, or the resource activity (Brunson and Shelby 1993).
Shelby and Vaske (1991) have created a typology of alternatives for recreation sub-
stitutability (fig. 2). If recreationists can substitute a different time for conducting
93
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
the activity or a different means of gaining access to the resource (fig. 2), the same
activity and resource setting can be retained. However, if the resource setting is
held constant, but the activity is changed, the recreationist has undergone an
activity substitute (e.g., switching from fishing to swimming in the same lake). A
resource substitute occurs when a recreationist moves to a new resource setting yet
continues participating in the same activity (e.g., switching from fishing in a lake
to fishing in a river). Finally, if a recreationist changes to both a new setting and a
new activity, such as switching from bait fishing on a river to fly fishing in a lake,
they have made a resource and activity substitute.
Research on recreation substitutability has discovered that activities considered
as similar activity types (e.g., waterfowl hunting and deer hunting) are not neces-
sarily equivalent substitutes from the recreationist’s perspective (Baumgartner and
Heberlein 1981). Consequently, recent studies place greater emphasis on under-
standing the recreationist’s subjective judgment as to what makes an acceptable
substitute to a recreation experience. In particular, research suggests that instead
of altering activities, recreationists typically attempt to substitute a different setting,
time, or access method (Manfredo and Anderson 1987, McCool and Utter 1982).
For example, in the event that a free-flowing river was converted to a reservoir,
river recreationists are more likely to seek other rivers upon which to float as op-
posed to boating in the reservoir. As a result, changes in the management of any
one area can have profound consequences on other similar, nearby riparian areas
to which recreationists become displaced.
Our understanding of recreation substitutability suggests the importance of
appreciating how any management action relative to the water regime can affect
recreation. This includes the possibility of actions that create substitutes for recre-
ation opportunities that are lost elsewhere. For example, the loss of a reservoir
94
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Management Implications
There is a paucity of research examining how natural resource managers can reduce
conflicts between water-based recreation and other uses of water. Instead, most
research regarding water management strategies for reducing conflicts with recre-
ation is limited to inter- and intra-activity conflicts. In particular, it focuses on how
to reduce crowding at recreation sites to minimize damage to riparian habitats or
reducing the quality of the recreation experience. A reduction in the quality of a
visitor’s recreation experience can lead to displacement of recreationists to a dif-
ferent area of the site, a different time, a different location, or by altering their
recreational activities altogether (Robertson and Colletti 1994). From a manage-
ment perspective, it is important to understand the impacts of recreationists becom-
ing displaced from one setting to another or from one activity to another so that
unintended consequences such as site degradation are not simply transferred to a
new location.
Managers often have to decide whether to minimize crowding (or a recrea-
tionist’s perception of crowding) by redistributing use, promoting off-peak times,
or limiting overall use. Before restricting access by limiting overall use, managers
can first attempt indirect or direct methods to limit visitors or visitor damage
(Bates 1992). Indirect approaches attempt to modify behavior without regulations
that limit a person’s choice. In particular, if recreationists’ behavior is a problem,
providing education and information might reduce visitor damage. This might
include information that clarifies what appropriate behavior is and the rationale
underlying management rules and regulations. Educational programs that establish
a code of conduct and increase tolerance of different recreational groups and
activities could also reduce conflict (Manning 1999). In addition, informing
95
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
recreationists about the numbers of people using a resource provides them a basis
on which to choose alternative sites at which to recreate. However, when increased
visitation is the underlying problem affecting the resource or the perception of
crowding, these indirect methods of limiting visitors and damage might prove
inadequate.
Under these circumstances, direct options—which apply regulations to affect
behavior—are often necessary. A more direct method of reducing visitation is
accomplished through implementing a limited visitor permit system (e.g., allocat-
ing boating permits on limited entry rivers) (Bates 1992, Shelby 1991). The system
of distributing these limited permits can include advance reservation, lottery, first
come-first serve, price, merit, zoning, and priority for first-time users (Shelby
1991, Wikle 1991). For example, a price-based system requires a user fee to
recreate at the site, whereas a lottery system distributes permits randomly in an
applicant pool.
The type of system applied is important because it will determine the pool
of recreationists that are willing and able to continue participating in these recre-
ational activities. A user fee system may discriminate against lower income indi-
viduals, whereas a reservation system would not work well for people who do not
plan for their recreation far in advance. Differences also can exist between the
preferred rationing policies of recreationists and managers. In a study examining
recreationists’ and managers’ opinions regarding three policy scenarios, Wikle
(1991) found that although river users were more likely to accept advance reserva-
tion and merit as rationing policies, managers were more likely to prefer zoning.
For this reason, it is important to consider upon what information (and from what
sources) water management decisions are based.
In addition, other conflict management strategies, such as binding arbitration,
facilitation, mediation, and nonbinding arbitration, can also successfully resolve
natural resource conflicts. These dispute resolution techniques differ primarily in
the level of responsibility that the facilitator has over the process and in the level
of obligation to accept the outcome (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). As a result,
the choice of negotiation technique used will depend on the level of conflict and
complexity of the natural resource issues under dispute.
In summary, population growth and redistribution in the United States suggest
that water conflicts will continue to escalate in the future. In this proposition, three
types of recreational conflict were explored—conflict between recreation and other
uses of water, interactivity conflict, and intra-activity conflict. Among these three
96
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
forms of recreation conflict, much more is known about the variety of management
techniques for reducing or avoiding intra-activity conflicts over crowding. How-
ever, less is known about how conflicts between recreation and other uses of water
are resolved. Because future conflict and debate over water management will
involve diverse uses of water, we need a better understanding of the relationship
between water-based recreation and other uses of water and how management can
reconcile differing water needs.
97
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
98
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
99
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Figure 3—Relationship between recreation quality and streamflow (after Shelby and
Whittaker 1995).
100
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
affected differently by flow and therefore have different levels of acceptable flow
(Shelby et al. 1992a, 1998). Because the level of acceptable flow is dependent on
many different variables, including the unique attributes of streams or rivers, it is
not possible to generate a quantitative number for flow that can represent the
optimum level of streamflow across all recreational activities or river types.
101
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
102
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
103
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
104
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Equivalents
When you know: Multiply by: To get:
1 Meter 3.28 Feet
1 Cubic foot per second 101.9 Cubic meters per hour
References
Adelman, B.J.E.; Heberlein, T.A.; Bonnicksen, T.M. 1982. Social psychological
explanations for the persistence of a conflict between paddling canoeists and
motorcraft users in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Leisure Sciences. 5(1):
45–61.
Baumgartner, R.; Heberlein, T.A. 1981. Process, goal, and social interaction
differences in recreation: what makes an activity substitutable. Leisure
Sciences. 4: 443–458.
Bittman, M.; Wajcman, J. 2000. The rush hour: the character of leisure time and
gender equity. Social Forces. 79(1): 165–189.
Blahna, D.J. 1990. Social bases for resource conflicts in areas of reverse migra-
tion. In: Lee, R.G., ed. Community and forestry: continuities in the sociology
of natural resources. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 159–178.
Brown, B.B.; Perkins, D.D. 1992. Disruptions in place attachment. In: Altman, I.;
Low, S.M., eds. Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press: 279–304.
Brown, T.C.; Taylor, J.G.; Shelby, B. 1991. Assessing the direct effects of
streamflow on recreation: a literature review. Water Resources Bulletin. 27(6):
979–988.
105
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Brunson, M.W.; Shelby, B. 1992. Assessing recreational and scenic quality: How
does New Forestry rate? Journal of Forestry. 90(7): 37–41.
Bumgardner, W.H.; Waring, M.R.; Legg, M.H.; Goetz, L. 1988. Key indicators
of campsite selection at Corps of Engineer lakes. Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration. 6(1): 62–78.
Clark, R.N. 1986. Onsite interaction of recreation and other resource uses. A
literature review: the President’s commission on the American outdoors.
Washington, DC: General Printing Office: 27–45.
Clark, R.N.; Koch, R.W.; Hogans, M.L.; Christensen, H.H.; Hendee, J.C.
1984. The value of roaded, multiple-use areas as recreation sites in three
national forests of the Pacific Northwest. Res. Pap. PNW-319. Portland, OR:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 40 p.
Cole, D.N. 1989. The Grand Canyon of the Colorado: a challenge to float, a
challenge to manage. Western Wildlands. 15(3): 2–7.
106
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Cordell, H.K.; Teasley, J.; Super, G.; Bergstrom, J.C.; McDonald, B. 1997.
Outdoor recreation in the United States: results from the national survey on
recreation and the environment, Pacific Northwest Region. Report prepared by
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Southern Research Station; the
Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Group. Athens, GA: University
of Georgia. 209 p.
David, E.L. 1971. Public perceptions of water quality. Water Resources Research.
7(3): 453–457.
Dinius, S.H. 1981. Public perceptions in water quality evaluation. Water Resources
Bulletin. 17(1): 116–121.
Driver, B.; Bassett, J. 1975. Defining conflicts among river users: a case study of
Michigan’s Au Sable River. Naturalist. 26: 19–23.
Edwards, P.K. 1981. Race, residence, and leisure style: some policy implications.
Leisure Sciences. 4(2): 95–112.
Fortmann, L.; Kusel, J. 1990. New voices, old beliefs: forest environmentalism
among new and long-standing rural residents. Rural Sociology. 55(2):
214–232.
107
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Fuguitt, G.V.; Brown, D.L.; Beale, C.L. 1989. Rural and small town America.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 471 p.
Hartmann, L.A.; Cordell, H.K.; Freilich, H.R. 1988. The changing future of
outdoor recreation. Trends. 25(4): 19-23.
Herrick, T.A.; McDonald, C.D. 1992. Factors affecting overall satisfaction with
a river recreation experience. Environmental Management. 16(2): 243–247.
Hof, J.G.; Kaiser, H.F. 1983. Long-term outdoor recreation participation pro-
jections for public land management agencies. Journal of Leisure Research.
15: 1–14.
108
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Johnson, K.M.; Beale, C. 1998. The rural rebound. The Wilson Quarterly.
22(2): 16(12).
Johnson, K.M.; Fuguitt, G.V. 2000. Continuity and change in rural migration
patterns, 1950-1995. Rural Sociology. 65(1): 27–49.
Johnson, N.S.; Adams, R.N. 1988. Benefits of increased stream flow: the case of
the John Day steelhead fishery. Water Resources Research. 24(11): 1839–1846.
Jones, R.E.; Dunlap, R.E. 1992. The social bases of environmental concern:
Have they changed over time? Rural Sociology. 57: 28–47.
Langenau, E.E., Jr.; O’Quin, K.; Duvendeck, J.P. 1980. The response of forest
recreationists to clearcutting in northern Lower Michigan: a preliminary report.
Forest Science. 26(1): 81–91.
Lant, C.L.; Mullens, J.B. 1991. Lake and river quality for recreation management
and contingent valuation. Water Resources Bulletin. 27(3): 453–460.
Lime, D.W. 1971. Factors influencing campground use in the Superior National
Forest of Minnesota. Res. Pap. NC-60. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 18 p.
Lime, D.W.; McCool, S.F.; Galvin, D.P. 1995. Trends in congestion and
crowding at recreation sites. In: Thompson, J.L.; Lime, D.W.; Gartner, B.;
Sames, W.M., eds. Proceedings of the fourth international outdoor recreation
and tourism trends symposium and the 1995 national recreation resource
planning conference. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, College of
Natural Resources and the Minnesota Extension Service: 87–96.
109
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Loomis, J.; Sorg, C.; Donnelly, D. 1986. Economic losses to recreational fisheries
due to small-head hydro-power development: a case study of Henrys Fork in
Idaho. Journal of Environmental Management. 22: 85–94.
Loomis, J.B. 2000. Counting on recreation use data: a call for long-term
monitoring. Journal of Leisure Research. 32: 93(4).
Manning, R.E. 1999. Studies in outdoor recreation: search and research for
satisfaction. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 374 p.
McCool, S.F.; Kruger, L.E. [N.d.]. Human migration and natural resources:
implications for policy makers and challenges for researchers. Manuscript in
preparation. Report for U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station, People and Natural Resources Program. On file
with: Steve McCool, School of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, MT
59812.
McCool, S.; Utter, J. 1982. Recreation use lotteries: outcomes and preferences.
Journal of Forestry. 80: 10–11, 29.
McDonough, M.; Stynes, D.; Potter-Witter, K.; Stevens, J.; Fried, J.;
Steffens, K.; Peterson, G.; Kakoyannis, C. 1999. The role of natural
resources in community and regional economic stability in the eastern Upper
Peninsula. Agricultural Experiment Station Status and Potential of Michigan
Natural Resources (SAPMNR) Report, no. 568. East Lansing, MI: Michigan
State University. 88 p.
Meeker, J.W.; Woods, W.K.; Lucas, W. 1973. Red, white, and African American
in the National Parks. The North American Review. Fall: 3–7.
110
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Mitchell, M.Y.; Force, J.E.; Carroll, M.S.; McLaughlin, W.J. 1993. Forest
places of the heart: incorporating special spaces into public management.
Journal of Forestry. 91(2): 32–37.
Moore, S.D.; Wilkosz, M.E.; Brickler, S.K. 1990. The recreational impact of
reducing the “Laughing Waters” of Araipa Creek, Arizona. Rivers. 1(1): 43–50.
Murdock, S.H.; Backman, K.; Colberg, E.; Hoque, N.; Hamm, R.R. 1990.
Modeling demographic change and characteristics in the analysis of future
demand for leisure services. Leisure Sciences. 12: 79–102.
Murdock, S.H.; Backman, K.; Hoque, N.; Ellis, D. 1991. The implications of
change in population size and composition on future participation in outdoor
recreational activities. Journal of Leisure Research. 23: 238–259.
Naeser, R.B.; Smith, M.G. 1995. Playing with borrowed water: conflicts over
instream flows on the upper Arkansas River. Natural Resources Journal. 35:
93–110.
National Survey. 1996. 1996 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-
associated recreation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. [Irregular
pagination].
Nelson, D.E.; Hansen, W.R. 1984. Fecal coliform in the Salt River recreation
areas of Arizona. Journal of Forestry. 82(10): 554–555.
Putney, A.D. 2003. Introduction: perspectives on the values of protected areas. In:
Harmon, D.; Putney, A., eds. 2003. The full value of parks: from economics to
the intangible. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. 360 p.
111
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Rayner, S.; Malone, E.L. 1998. Human choice and climate change: What have
we learned? Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. 193 p.
Roper Starch. 2000. Outdoor recreation in America 1999: the family and the
environment. Prepared for The Recreation Roundtable. Washington, DC.
http://www.funoutdoors.com/node/view/1109. (November 2000).
Roberston, R.A. 1989. Recreational use of urban waterways: the Illinois and
Michigan canal corridor. Western Wildlands. 15(3): 14–17.
Robertson, R.A.; Burdge, R.J. 1993. The interface between commercial and
industrial development and recreational use in an urban river corridor. Journal
of Leisure Research. 25(1): 53–69.
Robertson, R.A.; Colletti, J.P. 1994. Off-site impacts of soil erosion on recrea-
tion: the case of Lake Red Rock Reservoir in central Iowa. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation. 49(6): 576–581.
Robinson, J.P.; Godbey, G. 1997. Time for life: the surprising ways Americans
use their time. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. 367 p.
Rollins, R.; Chambers, D. 1990. Camper satisfaction with Canadian Park Service
campgrounds. In: Vining, J., ed. Social science and natural resource recreation
management. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 91–103.
Rudzitis, G.; Johansen, H.E. 1989. Migration into western wilderness counties:
causes and consequences. Western Wildlands. Spring: 19–23.
Rudzitis, G.; Johansen, H.E. 1991. How important is wilderness? Results from a
United States survey. Environmental Management. 15: 227–233.
Schor, J.B. 1991. The overworked American: the unexpected decline of leisure.
New York: Basic Books. 247 p.
Schuett, M.A. 1995. Environmental preference and risk recreation: the case of
white water kayakers. Journal of Environmental Education. 25: 9(6).
112
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Shelby, B.; Brown, T.C.; Taylor, J.G. 1992b. Streamflow and recreation. Gen.
Tech. Rep. RM-209. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 28 p.
Shelby, B.; Lime, D.W. 1986. Whitewater river recreation. In: A literature review:
The President’s Commission on Americans outdoors. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office: 91–97.
Shelby, B.; Speaker, R.W. 1990. Public attitudes and perceptions about prescribed
burning. In: Walstad, J.D.; Radosevich, S.R.; Sandberg, D.V., eds. Natural and
prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests. Corvallis: Oregon State University
Press: 253–260.
Shelby, B.; Vaske, J.J. 1991. Resource and activity substitutes for recreational
salmon fishing in New Zealand. Leisure Sciences. 13: 21–32.
Shelby, B.; Vaske, J.J.; Heberlein, T.A. 1989. Comparative analysis of crowding
in multiple locations: results from fifteen years of research. Leisure Sciences.
11: 269–291.
Shelby, B.; Whittaker, D. 1995. Flows and recreation quality on the Dolores
River: integrating overall and specific evaluations. Rivers. 5(2): 121–131.
Shelby, B.; Whittaker, D.; Hansen, W.R. 1997. Streamflow effects on hiking in
Zion National Park, Utah. Rivers. 6(2): 80–93.
Shelby, B.; Whittaker, D.; Roppe, J. 1998. Controlled flow studies for
recreation: a case study on Oregon’s North Umpqua River. Rivers.
6(4): 259–268.
Shindler, B.A.; Brunson, M.; Stankey, G.H. 2002. Social acceptability of for-
est conditions and management practices: a problem analysis. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PNW-GTR-537. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 68 p.
113
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Smith, D.G.; Cragg, A.M.; Croker, G.F. 1991. Water clarity criteria for bathing
waters based on user perception. Journal of Environmental Management. 33:
285–299.
Spence, D.B. 1999. Agency discretion and the dynamics of procedural reform.
Public Administration Review. 59(5): 425(18).
Stankey, G.H. 2000. Future trends in society and technology: implications for
wilderness research and management. In: Cole, D.N.; McCool, S.F.; Freimund,
W.; O’Loughlin, J., comps. Wilderness science in a time of change
conference—Vol. 1: Changing perspectives and future directions. Proceedings.
RMRS-P-15-VOL-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 10–23.
Steel, B.S.; List, P. ; Shindler, B. 1994. Conflicting values about federal forests:
a comparison of national and Oregon publics. Society and Natural Resources.
7: 137–153.
Steel, B.S.; Pierce, J.; Lovrich, N. 1998. Public information campaigns and
“at-risk” voters. Political Communication. 15(January): 117–133.
Super, G.; Cordell, H.K. 1990. Managing for changing recreation needs on
national forests: a viewpoint. In: O’Leary, J.T.; Fesenmaier, D.R.; Brown,
T.; Stynes, D.; Driver, B., eds. Proceedings of the national outdoor recrea-
tion trends symposium III. Indianapolis, IN: [Publisher unknown]: 813–816.
114
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Taylor, H. 2000b. Harris Poll #35: reading remains the Nation’s favorite leisure
time activity, increasing its lead over watching TV. http://wwwlouisharris.com/
harris_poll/index.asp?PID=98 (November 2000).
Toth, J.F., Jr.; Brown, R.B. 1997. Racial and gender meanings of why people
participate in recreational fishing. Leisure Sciences. 19: 129–146.
Troy, L.R. 1998. Recent human migration to the interior Columbia Basin:
implications for natural resource management. University of Montana,
Missoula, MT. M.S. thesis.
Van Liere, K.D.; Dunlap, R.E. 1980. The social bases of environmental concern:
a review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public Opinion
Quarterly. 44: 181–197.
115
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Whittaker, D.; Shelby, B.; Jackson, W.; Beschta, R. 1993. Instream flows for
recreation: a handbook on concepts and research methods. Anchorage, AK:
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Rivers and Trails
Conservation Program, Water Resources Division; Cooperative Park Studies
Unit, Oregon State University. 103 p.
Wikle, T.A. 1991. Evaluating the acceptability of recreation rationing policies used
on rivers. Environmental Management. 15(3): 389–394.
Wood, T.J.; Bolek, J.; Doucette, K. 1990. Retirement centers: the trend toward
resort-style living. In: O’Leary, J.T.; Fesenmaier, D.R.; Brown, T.; Stynes, D.;
Driver, B., eds. Proceedings of the national outdoor recreation trends
symposium III. Indianapolis, IN: [Publisher unknown]: 83–95.
Zinser, C.I. 1995. Outdoor recreation: United States national parks, forests, and
public lands. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 898 p.
Zube, E.H.; Pitt, D.G.; Anderson, T.W. 1975. Perception and prediction of
scenic resource values of the Northeast. In: Zube, E.H.; Brush, R.O.; Fabos,
J.G., eds. Landscape assessment: values, perceptions and resources.
Stroudsburg, PA: Halsted Press: 151–167.
116
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Introduction
The general scarcity of water in terms of quality, quantity, or timing raises a
number of issues about how to deliver water, when, to whom, and for what pur-
poses. Although such questions can be resolved through appropriate institutional
mechanisms, their resolution depends to a large degree on understanding future
demands for water in all of its potential uses, the priorities society places on those
uses, and how various groups within society value water’s different uses (Houston
et al. 2002). Such information provides the basis for anticipating how trends in
particular water uses over time might affect other water users, and evaluating who
might gain and who might lose as a result of particular management and policy
decisions and actions.
Future growth in demands for recreational water uses will depend significantly
on a variety of changing socioeconomic factors. These factors will include popula-
tion growth, income levels, age, and education, as well as use-related factors such
as public access, the proximity of recreation resources to growing population cen-
ters, and technological innovation that may alter existing recreational activities and
introduce new ones, among others. Meanwhile, the availability of water to meet
potential increased demands for water recreation will be determined in part by
competing demands for water in nonrecreational uses that have the potential to
impact both water quantity and quality. Demands for water in particular uses can
be considerable, but also somewhat predictable within ranges of variability.
Nationally, the quantity of water demanded for nonrecreational uses will vary.
Irrigation accounts for the largest proportion of all freshwater withdrawals and is
projected to decrease by 3 percent from 1995 to 2040 owing, in part, to increased
technological efficiencies (Brown 1999). However, expected reductions in projected
irrigation water use will be offset by expected increased demands for water in other
uses. Nationally, demands for water in domestic and municipal uses are projected to
1
Jeffrey D. Kline is a research forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW Jefferson
Way, Corvallis, OR 97331. Laurie L. Houston is an environmental economics consultant,
th
642 NW 12 Street, Corvallis, OR 97330. Michio Watanabe is a recent Ph.D. recipient,
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oregon State University.
117
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
118
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
degree, these trends will affect the degree to which water resource planners and
policymakers will be able to accommodate multiple water users, and resolve
conflicts between recreational uses and nonrecreational uses. Anticipating the need
to make tradeoffs between recreational and nonrecreational uses of water in the
future, requires (1) information regarding the economic value of water in recre-
ational uses, (2) information regarding projected demands for water recreation, and
(3) information regarding projected demands for water for nonrecreational uses.
Together, this information can aid in developing and implementing water resource
policies that seek to balance the interests of both recreational and nonrecreational
water users.
In this chapter, we examine water recreation economic values and projected
future demands for water in both recreational and nonrecreational uses in the
Western United States. Our intent is to provide, at a large scale, some of the infor-
mation needed to make important water allocation decisions. We begin the chapter
with a brief overview of water valuation methods, highlighting example value esti-
mates reported in published literature for several water recreation categories. We
discuss trends in socioeconomic and other factors that will affect future demands
for water recreation, and discuss published water recreation demand projections
through 2050 for the Western United States. Following this, we compute demand
projections for several nonrecreational water use categories, including municipal,
industrial, and agricultural, through 2050 for the Western United States. We con-
clude with a summary of policy implications and research questions.
119
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
For some uses, water can be valued as an input to the production of marketed
outputs, such as agricultural products, industrial products, and power generation.
In some cases, water values might even be observable from market transactions
when clearly defined and tradable markets for water exist, such as might be the
case in particular agricultural areas where markets may exist to buy and sell water
Economists have diversion rights for irrigation. For many water uses, however, unpriced benefits
developed various exist that may be more difficult to quantify and for which markets may not exist.
nonmarket valua- This is particularly true with instream uses, such as transportation, aesthetics, wild-
tion methods to esti- life habitat and other ecological functions, and recreation, which are of significant
mate the values of value to society, but for which markets in the traditional sense have not developed.
unpriced benefits. For these situations, economists have developed various nonmarket valuation
methods to estimate the values of unpriced benefits. The most commonly used
methods to value recreation activities are travel cost and contingent valuation, and
these will be our focus (see Gibbons 1986 for a discussion of methods with which
to value nonrecreational water uses).
The travel cost method is an indirect method for valuing recreation, because it
determines value based on observed behavior of recreationists rather than on buyer-
seller transactions in a market place. Travel cost studies generally involve surveys
of recreationists who are asked to report details regarding their travel to a recre-
ation site, such as the distance traveled and the expenditures incurred enroute (see,
e.g., Caulkins et al. 1986, Donnelly et al. 1985, Layman et al. 1996, Sorg et al.
1985). Assumptions are made regarding recreationists’ opportunity cost of time
spent traveling to the site and added to travel expenses. These costs are assumed
to reflect the value of the recreational activity to the recreationist and thus are used
to estimate recreationists’ willingness to pay to recreate at the site and to estimate a
demand function for the recreational experience (Bockstael 1995, Young 1996).
The contingent valuation method also is a survey-based technique, but attempts
to estimate recreationists’ willingness to pay for a given recreational activity
directly by simulating a marketplace for a particular recreation activity through a
questionnaire or interview (e.g., Mitchell and Carson 1989). Where travel cost
surveys obtain willingness-to-pay information through recreationists’ observed
behavior, contingent valuation surveys generally describe to respondents a particu-
lar recreation circumstance or hypothetical situation, then ask respondents directly,
what they would be willing to pay to obtain the particular circumstance of situa-
tion. In this manner, the goal of contingent valuation surveys is to simulate a
market for recreational activities and enable survey respondents to state or respond
120
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
to different price levels associated with different levels or attributes of the hypo-
thetical recreational setting or experience offered. The contingent valuation method
has been used to value many aspects of water that may affect recreation demand,
such as water levels (Cordell and Bergstrom 1993, Eiswerth et al. 2000), instream
flows (Duffield et al. 1994, Hansen and Hallam 1990, Kulshreshtha and Gillies
1994), and the value of wetlands (Bergstrom et al. 1990, Kosz 1996), among
others.
Both the travel cost and contingent valuation methods can be appropriate for
estimating economic values for water recreation activities. The most appropriate
method often is determined by the context of a given study. For example, because
demand estimation using travel cost methods requires sufficient variability in the
actual travel costs incurred by survey respondents, it generally is not an appropriate
method if most respondents travel equal distances (Forster 1989). An advantage of
the contingent valuation method over the travel cost method is that it can be used
to determine the value of hypothetical situations that may not yet exist. For ex-
ample, values can be estimated for improved fishing conditions (Dalton et al. 1998,
Donnelly et al. 1985, Sorg et al. 1985) and improvement and restoration of ecosys-
tems (Loomis 1996), which could represent improvements to sites for certain rec-
reation activities. The travel cost method generally can only be used to measure
the value of what does (or did) exist, because values are based on costs actually
incurred while traveling to a site in its current rather than hypothetical condition.
Contingent valuation also is the only method that can be used to determine
nonuse values (Edwards 1988, Walsh 1990), such as bequest values (e.g., the
value of maintaining recreation sites for future generations), option values (e.g.,
the value of maintaining one’s option to recreate at particular sites), and existence
values (e.g., the value of knowing a recreation site merely exists, even though one
may never plan to visit). Poor survey design and administration sometimes can
result in contingent valuation estimates that are unacceptably biased, particularly
with respect to nonuse values. In 1993, a blue ribbon panel of economists estab-
lished survey design methods and guidelines to minimize the potential for bias
valuation estimates of such surveys (NOAA 1993).
Other less commonly used methods for water recreation valuation include con-
joint analysis and choice experiments, and hedonic pricing. Conjoint analysis and
choice experiments also are survey-based methodologies in which respondents are
asked to state their preferences for outcomes or goods described by particular at-
tributes (see, e.g., Hanley et al. 1998, Johnston et al. 1999). For water recreation
121
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
122
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Table 1—Examples of water recreation values per activity day from published
literature adjusted to 1998 dollars
Studies Reported estimated values
Activity reviewed Lowest Highest Average
Number – – –– – – – – Dollars – – – – – – – –
Motorboating 9 4.57 176.28 36.10
Nonmotorized boating 13 15.62 273.93 63.96
Beach (saltwater) recreation 1 3 0.87 238.51 30.82
Fishing (all types) 39 1.80 219.14 37.29
Hunting (all types) 59 2.24 217.21 40.76
Wildlife viewing 16 2.45 167.87 31.86
Sources: Except for beach recreation, all values from Rosenberger and Loomis (2001: table 1).
Mean hunting values are the average of big game, small game, and waterfowl values weighted
by the number of studies for each category. Beach recreation values from Kline and Swallow
(1998).
which published values are available (see Rosenberger and Loomis 2001). The
particular water recreation categories included in table 1 were selected to be
roughly consistent with those categories used in published demand projections
discussed later in this chapter.
Average reported estimated values (table 1) are highest for nonmotorized boat-
ing ($63.96 per participant day), followed by hunting ($40.76), fishing ($37.29),
motorboating ($36.10), wildlife viewing ($31.86), and beach recreation ($30.82).
Although it is tempting to use reported values to rank the values of different water
recreation activities, it is important to note that estimated values can differ signi-
ficantly from one activity to the next and one study to the next. For example,
published estimated values for motorboating range from $4.57 to $176.28 per
participant day, with an average reported value of $36.10. Beach recreation has
one of the lower average estimated values per participant day in average terms, but
one of the beach recreation studies reported an estimated value ($238.05), which is
one of the highest reported among all of the studies summarized in table 1. Simi-
larly, in average terms, fishing has one of the higher reported estimated values
($37.29 per participant day), but one of the fishing studies reported one of the
lower estimated values ($1.80) of those studies summarized.
Such variations can result from a variety of factors, including actual differences
in values from one study population to the next, characteristic differences in the
locations where studies were conducted and the precise activities valued, and dif-
ferences in the particular survey and analytical methods used, among other factors.
123
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
For example, published estimated values for beach recreation range significantly
from $0.87 to $238.51 per participant day, with an average of $30.82 (table 1). In
this case, the 13 beach recreation studies summarized were conducted in a variety
of locations, including Florida, New Jersey, California, and Hawaii, among other
locations (Kline and Swallow 1998). It is likely that the relatively dramatic differ-
ences in estimated values could owe in part to significant differences in the loca-
tions and characteristics of the beaches at these different locations. The beach
recreation studies reported also differ over a fairly broad timespan from 1972 to
1988. Even after adjusting for inflation, it is conceivable for estimated values for
various activities to differ depending on when a study was conducted owing to
changes in survey respondents’ tastes and preferences, incomes, and differences in
survey techniques as they evolved over time.
Many of the studies described in valuation literature are designed to meet
specific needs and objectives, resulting in recreational values measured in units
other than participant days. A common alternative in published literature to report-
ing values per participant day is reporting values for recreation activities as they
relate to streamflow volumes and water levels. For example, Ward (1987) used the
travel cost method to estimate the economic benefits to anglers and white-water
boaters of augmenting streamflows in New Mexico’s Rio Chama River. Reported
aggregate annual values for water allocated to instream flow are estimated between
$1,515 and $1,852 (converted to 1998 dollars) per acre-foot. Ward et al. (1996)
Prevailing opinion
used the travel cost method to estimate recreation values of different reservoir
among economists
lake levels at several reservoirs in California. Reported aggregate annual values
is that well-designed
to campers and day users ranged from $9.36 to $936 (converted to 1998 dollars)
studies following
per acre-foot. Loomis and Cooper (1990) used the travel cost method to estimate
accepted protocols
recreational fishing value relative to changes in streamflow on the north fork of
will result in useful
the Feather River in northern California. Reported aggregate marginal values for
information about
streamflow diminished with increasing flow, from $123 (converted to 1998 dollars)
values of water for
at 20 cubic feet per second to $77 at 200 cubic feet per second. In most cases,
recreation.
valuation methods can be adapted to meet the needs of different settings and
situations.
Although travel cost and contingent valuation methods both have been subjects
of varying levels of controversy at times in academic literature, such controversies
have led to significant refinements over the years. With a few exceptions, prevailing
124
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
125
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
126
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Figure 1—Western States included in demand projections. Note: Western States include Rocky
Mountain/Great Plains region states: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming. Pacific region states: Alaska,
California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.
(including big game, small game, and migratory birds), and nonconsumptive wild-
life activities (table 2). These water recreation categories are roughly consistent
with those used in table 1 to summarize published estimated values of water recrea-
tion, although minor inconsistencies do exist. The projections indicate increased
participant demand for most types of recreation activity categories examined
through 2050 (table 2).
Motorboating is projected to have the greatest increase in demand, with part-
icipant days projected to increase by 152 percent, number of trips by 138 percent,
and number of participants by 71 percent (table 2). This is followed by non-
motorized boating, projected to increase by 76 percent in participant days, 68 per-
cent in number of trips, and 68 percent in number of participants, beach recreation
(75 percent in participant days, 70 percent in number of trips, and 61 percent in
number of participants), and nonconsumptive wildlife activities (88 percent in
participant days, 40 percent in number of trips, and 62 percent in number of par-
ticipants). Relatively significant though more moderate demand increases are pro-
jected for nonpool swimming and fishing. The only recreation activity projected to
127
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Table 2—Reported projections of participant days, trips, and participants in water recreation activities for
Western States, 2000–2050
Projected change
Activity 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000 to 2050
– – – – – – – – – – – – – Millions – – – – – – – – – – – – – Percent
Motorboating:
Participant days 24.2 150.4 180.6 216.0 259.4 313.1 152
Trips 93.3 108.8 129.2 154.1 181.0 222.1 138
Participants 10.1 11.4 12.4 14.1 15.6 17.3 71
Nonmotorized boating
(includes canoeing,
rafting, and floating):
Participant days 32.7 36.7 41.2 46.1 51.6 57.7 76
Trips 25.6 28.4 31.9 35.7 38.9 43.1 68
Participants 5.6 6.2 6.7 7.6 8.4 9.4 68
Nonpool swimming:
Participant days 266.7 288.9 309.1 329.9 359.7 394.8 48
Trips 195.4 211.2 224.9 240.5 259.4 279.0 43
Participants 17.3 19.3 20.9 23.1 25.3 27.6 60
Visiting a beach or waterside:
Participant days 898.4 1025.4 1146.7 1276.4 1418.8 1569.7 75
Trips 497.5 564.6 627.8 695.7 741.9 844.6 70
Participants 31.2 35.0 38.3 42.5 46.6 50.1 61
Fishing (includes warm
and cold freshwater,
and saltwater):
Participant days 204.9 226.3 246.2 264.8 280.7 292.3 43
Trips 173.7 178.3 188.8 267.2 210.4 209.8 21
Participants 12.7 13.7 14.8 15.6 16.6 17.6 39
Hunting (includes big game,
small game, and migratory bird):
Participant days 68.3 70.4 72.5 73.9 72.4 71.2 4
Trips 56.3 50.6 51.1 51.7 51.5 52.0 -8
Participants 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.5 -3
Nonconsumptive wildlife
activities (includes some
nonwater activities):
Participant days 1,553.4 1,856.2 2,187.4 2,498.6 2,750.6 2,917.5 88
Trips 414.2 462.2 505.3 544.1 570.2 579.5 40
Participants 28.3 32.1 35.4 544.1 45.7 45.9 62
Source: Bowker et al. 1999.
Note: Western States include Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, Utah,
Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas (see fig. 1).
128
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
129
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
in the future. Changing ethnicity could lead to changes in demands for certain types
of recreation over others. Changes in technologies could reduce the costs of recre-
ation equipment, making certain activities more affordable to greater numbers of
individuals, or introduce entirely new recreation activities not yet foreseen. All of
the factors contribute to uncertainty in anticipating what water recreation values
and demand will be in the future.
At the same time, it is possible that the number of sites suitable for some water
recreation activities could decline over time. Population and income growth are
projected to increase developed lands by 89 percent in the Southwest, Pacific
Northwest, and California over the next quarter century, with a corresponding
decline in rural lands (Alig et al. 2004: 227). Greater congestion at some water
recreation sites, declines in site quality, and loss of some sites owing to their con-
version to more intensive residential, commercial, or industrial uses, or changes in
landowner objective, could make other remaining sites more desirable. Increased
future demands coupled with possible reductions in the supply of suitable or desir-
able water recreation sites imply potential shortages in sites or reductions in the
quality of water recreation experiences. Increased demands for water recreation of
different types also raises the possibility for increased conflicts between recreation
activities of different types. For example, if both motorboating and nonmotorized
boating are projected to increase, it is reasonable to expect an increased potential
for conflicts to arise between these two recreation groups, as they compete for a
constant or decreasing number of suitable sites at which to boat. Although the
likelihood and potential magnitude of these potential changes remain somewhat
uncertain, they will occur in the context of changing demands for water in other
nonrecreational uses, which is the topic we turn to next.
130
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
depends in large part on future demands for water in nonrecreational uses. To pro-
vide a context for the water recreation demand projections, we developed estimates
of projected freshwater withdrawals for nonrecreational water uses for the same
Western States examined in the water recreation demand projections (fig. 1). The
projections are estimated on a regional basis to account for differences in freshwa-
ter withdrawal trends among Western States.
There have been several attempts in the past to project water use in the United
States (Brown 1999; Guldin 1989; Houston et al. 2003; National Water Commis-
sion 1973; Water Resources Council 1968, 1978; Wollman and Bonem 1971). The
projections reported by many of these studies differ significantly from one study
to the next, and there frequently are relatively large discrepancies between reported
projections and eventual actual water use observed (Brown 1999, Guldin 1989,
Osborn et al. 1986). The accuracy of water use (or demand) forecasts depends on
correctly identifying the determinants of water use as well as carefully constructing
a reasonable set of assumptions regarding future levels of those determinants. Even
with such care, the accuracy of water use projections can be greatly affected by
unexpected changes in technology and economic conditions, just as in the case of
water recreation projections.
Our projections of future demands for freshwater withdrawals for public and
domestic, industrial and commercial, and irrigation uses are based on the popula-
tion and income growth indices used by Bowker et al. (1999) to estimate future
outdoor recreation participation. Our projections also are based on reasonable
assumptions regarding future trends in water withdrawals per capita and per
income, the amount of irrigated land, and technological efficiencies. These assump-
tions were developed from historical water use averages and trends computed from
the U.S. Geological Society (USGS) water use reports (Solley et al. 1988, 1993,
1998). With a few exceptions, our projection methods closely follow those used by
Brown (1999) to estimate projected freshwater use for the United States as part of
the 2000 Resources Planning Act assessment (USDA FS 2001). However, where
Brown (1999) estimated freshwater withdrawals by watershed, we have estimated
them by state so that our aggregate projections for all Western States would be
consistent with water recreation projections reported by Bowker et al. (1999). The
actual computational methods used can be found in Houston et al. (2003).
For our purposes, nonrecreational water uses include public and domestic,
industrial and commercial, and irrigation. Public and domestic uses of water
include firefighting, street washing, water supplied to municipal office buildings,
parks and public swimming pools, and water supplied to households for drinking,
131
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
food preparation, bathing, washing, toilet flushing, and watering lawns and gar-
dens. Industrial and commercial uses of water include water supplied to motels,
hotels, restaurants, office buildings, commercial facilities, and civilian and military
institutions; water supplied to industries (including thermoelectric producers) for
processing, washing, and cooling; and water supplied to livestock. Irrigation uses
include water used to irrigate agricultural crops and public golf courses. The water
use categories roughly are the same as those delineated by Brown (1999). Each
category can be expressed in terms of withdrawal or consumptive use (Brown
1999), and for this reason, none include hydropower.
132
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Table 4—Projected freshwater withdrawals for public and domestic water uses for Western States,
by region
Projected change
Region 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000 to 2050
– – – – – – – – Million gallons per day – – – – – – – – Percent
Rocky Mountains
and Great Plains 3,721 4092 4,449 4,788 5,096 5,351 44
Pacific Coast 6,635 7,436 8,120 8,779 9,407 9,882 49
Total 10,356 11,528 12,569 13,567 14,503 15,233 47
Note: Projections based on population projections (table 3) and historical trends in freshwater withdrawals for public
and domestic uses reported in U.S. Geological Society national water use reports (Solley et al. 1988, 1993, 1998).
133
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
134
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Table 5—Projected real per capita personal income and freshwater withdrawals per
income for industrial and commercial water for Western States, by region
Region 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Real per capita personal
income ($1,000s):
Rocky Mountains and
Great Plains 23.7 26.9 30.2 33.7 37.6 42.0
Pacific Coast 27.2 30.8 34.5 38.6 43.1 48.1
Withdrawals per $1,000 income
(gallons per day)
Rocky Mountains and
Great Plains 19.1 17.2 15.6 14.1 12.8 11.5
Pacific Coast 5.5 4.9 4.5 4.0 3.7 3.3
Note: Real per capita personal income projections are based on income growth indices reported by
Bowker et al. (1999) applied to 1995 per capita personal income figures reported by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis (2002), and converted to 1998 dollars by using the Gross Domestic Product
deflator from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Projections of withdrawals per $1,000 income are
based on historical trends in industrial and commercial withdrawals reported in U.S. Geological
Society national water use reports (Solley et al. 1988, 1993, 1998) and historical income figures
reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (USDC BEA 2002).
Table 6—Projected freshwater withdrawals (millions of gallons per day) for industrial and
commercial water uses for Western States, by region
Projected change
Region 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000 to 2050
– – – – – – – Millions of gallons per day – – – – – – – Percent
Rocky Mountains
and Great Plains 10,468 11,796 13,018 14,146 15,198 16,115 54
Pacific Coast 6,727 7,726 8,563 9,348 10,112 10,725 59
Total 17,195 19,522 21,581 23,494 25,310 26,840 56
Note: Projections based on population projections (table 3), real per capita personal income and withdrawals per
$1,000 income (table 5), and historical trends in freshwater withdrawals for commercial and industrial uses reported
in U.S. Geological Society national water use reports (Solley et al. 1988, 1993, 1998).
Irrigation
Irrigation traditionally has been the dominant use of water in the West. The princi-
pal determinants of freshwater withdrawals for irrigation are the amount of irri-
gated land and the application rates of irrigation water. However, several factors
can affect irrigation water demand, including prices for agricultural commodities,
federal agricultural policies, changes in irrigation technologies, and energy prices,
just to name a few (Brown 1999). To simplify the process of estimating projected
freshwater withdrawals for irrigation, Brown (1999) based future irrigation use on
135
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
historical and current trends in the amount of irrigated land and withdrawals per
acre of irrigated land. This is the method we have used as well.
Our expectations of future irrigated acreage are based on historical trends
reported by the U.S. Census of Agriculture (U.S. Census Bureau 1995, USDA
National Agricultural Statistics Service 1999). From 1978 to 1997, total irrigated
acreage has increased at an average of 0.02 percent annually in the Rocky Moun-
tains and Great Plains regions and 0.1 percent in the Pacific Coast region. Growth
in the amount of irrigated land is expected to slow as continued population growth
and resulting land development make prime agricultural land and water supplies
increasingly scarce. We assume that irrigated acreage will increase at 0.01 percent
per year in the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains regions, but remain relatively
constant in the Pacific Coast region as a whole, with irrigated acres increasing
slightly in some states and decreasing in others (table 7). Our expectations of
future freshwater withdrawals per acre of irrigated land are based in part on
historical trends in irrigation withdrawals reported in USGS national water use
Future irrigation
reports (Solley et al. 1988, 1993, 1998), and assumptions found in Brown (1999).
water demand will
From 1985 to 1995, freshwater withdrawals per acre of irrigated land declined by
be an important
an annual average rate of 1.7 percent in the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains
factor affecting
regions and 0.4 percent in the Pacific Coast region, possibly owing in part to in-
the future avail-
creases in technological efficiencies. Relatively large declines, such as those in the
ability of water for
Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region, are probably unlikely to continue in the
recreational uses.
future. Following Brown (1999), we assume that freshwater withdrawal per acre
of irrigated land will decline from an initial average annual percentage decrease
of 0.08 percent to an average annual percentage decrease of 0.04 percent by 2050
(table 7). We estimated projected total region freshwater withdrawals for irrigation
by multiplying projected irrigated acreages by projected withdrawals per irrigated
acre (table 8).
Freshwater withdrawal projections suggest that demands for water in irrigation
will decrease through 2050 by 2 percent in the Rocky Mountains and Great Plain
region and 3 percent in the Pacific Coast region, for an average decrease of 2 per-
cent for all Western States from 2000 to 2050 (table 8). Decreased irrigation water
demand arises from expectations regarding reductions in application rates and little
to no growth in irrigated acreage in Western States. In particular, the slight pro-
jected increase in irrigated acreage in the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region
is entirely offset by expected reductions in application rates. It is conceivable that
increased technological efficiencies could lead to greater reductions in irrigation
water use in the future, although this remains somewhat uncertain.
136
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Table 7—Projected irrigated acres and withdrawals per irrigated acre for Western States,
by region
Region 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Irrigated acres (thousands):
Rocky Mountains and
Great Plains 23,913 23,937 23,961 23,985 24,008 24,032
Pacific Coast 11,856 11,856 11,856 11,856 11,856 11,856
Withdrawals per irrigated acre
(million gallons per day):
Rocky Mountains and
Great Plains 3.08 3.06 3.04 3.03 3.01 3.00
Pacific Coast 3.67 3.65 3.62 3.60 3.58 3.57
Note: Projections of irrigated acreages based on historical trends in irrigated land reported in the U.S.
Census of Agriculture. Projected withdrawals per acre are assumed to decrease by an average annual
percentage decrease of 0.08 percent, declining to an average annual percentage decrease of 0.04 percent by
2050. Historical withdrawals per irrigated acre are based on historical trends in irrigated land (U.S. Census
Bureau 1995, USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service 1999), and U.S. Geological Society national
water use reports (Solley et al. 1988, 1993, 1998).
Table 8—Projected freshwater withdrawals for irrigation water uses for Western States, by region
Projected change
Region 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000 to 2050
– – – – – – – Millions of gallons per day – – – – – – – Percent
Rocky Mountains
and Great Plains 73,754 73,298 72,903 72,568 72,293 72,076 -2
Pacific Coast 43,535 43,223 42,947 42,707 42,502 42,333 -3
Total 117,289 116,521 115,850 115,275 114,795 114,409 -2
Note: Projections based on projected irrigated acreages and withdrawals per irrigated acre (table 7) and historical
trends in freshwater withdrawals for irrigation reported in U.S. Geological Survey national water use reports (Solley
et al. 1988, 1993, 1998).
137
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Table 9—Summary of projected freshwater withdrawals for nonrecreational uses, by sector, for
Western States, by region
Projected change
Region 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000 to 2050
– – – – – – – – Millions of gallons per day – – – – – – – – Percent
Rocky Mountains and
Great Plains:
Public and domestic 3,721 4,092 4,449 4,788 5,096 5,351 44
Industrial and
commercial 10,468 11,796 13,018 14,146 15,198 16,115 54
Irrigation 73,754 73,298 72,903 72,568 72,293 72,076 -2
Total 87,943 89,186 90,370 91,502 92,587 93,542 6
Pacific Coast:
Public and domestic 6,635 7,436 8,120 8,779 9,407 9,882 49
Industrial and
commercial 6,727 7,726 8,563 9,348 10,112 10,725 59
Irrigation 43,535 43,223 42,947 42,707 42,502 42,333 -3
Total 56,897 58,385 59,630 60,834 62,021 62,940 11
West:
Public and domestic 10,356 11,528 12,569 13,567 14,503 15,233 47
Industrial and
commercial 17,195 19,522 21,581 23,495 25,310 26,840 56
Irrigation 117,289 116,521 115,850 115,275 114,795 114,409 -2
Total 144,840 147,571 150,000 152,337 154,608 156,482 8
Note: Projections from tables 4, 6, and 8.
Even with projected increases in water use by the public and domestic and the
industrial and commercial sectors, and decreases in irrigation, irrigation is likely to
remain as the largest water user in 2050. Our projections suggest that irrigation will
represent an estimated 73 percent of total western withdrawals by 2050, equivalent
to 114,409 million gallons per day or about 1,134 gallons a day per person. Given
that irrigation will continue to account for the greatest share of all freshwater with-
drawals, greater reductions in irrigation water use could free up water to meet ex-
pected increased demands for water in the other sectors. However, reductions in
water use by either sector would increase future availability of water for instream
uses, such as recreation and maintenance of habitat for riparian species.
Conclusions
Projected demands for water recreation are expected to increase in the future at
rates exceeding those of anticipated population growth. Projected increases in water
138
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
recreation demands owe largely to projected increases in the population and expec-
tations about rising personal incomes that will make certain activities more afford-
able to greater numbers of individuals. Demands for water in nonrecreational uses
also are expected to increase, although at relatively more moderate rates. Although
The potential exists
the composition of nonrecreational use will shift away somewhat from irrigation
for increased com-
toward public and domestic and industrial and commercial uses, irrigation will still
petition between
make up the largest share of total freshwater withdrawal. For this reason, future
recreational and
irrigation water demand will be an important factor affecting the future availability
nonrecreational
of water for recreational uses, as well as other nonrecreational uses.
water users in
The combination of projected increases in water recreation demands and mod-
future years.
erate increases in nonrecreational water uses suggests that the potential exists for
increased competition between recreational and nonrecreational water users in
future years. The potential also exists for increased water recreation demand to
lead to an increased potential for conflict between different types of water recre-
ation, if certain types of recreation are perceived by their participants as incompat-
ible with others. Along with increasing competition between recreational and
nonrecreational water users, it is conceivable that the supply of recreation sites
could decline in the future. Increased congestion owing to greater numbers of
recreationists could diminish the quality of existing recreation sites. Increasing
population densities and expanding urban areas could lead to the direct loss of sites
as they are converted to more developed uses. Projected increases in water demands
accompanied by a potentially diminishing number of water recreation sites, implies
an increased potential for shortages in the availability of water recreation sites in
future years. Changing socioeconomic factors will affect water recreation demand
through increases in population and incomes, among other factors, and potentially
affect water recreation supply by increasing demands for water in nonrecreational
uses and by potentially diminishing the number of recreation sites available.
The degree to which changing socioeconomic factors and increased competition
between various water users might adversely affect the availability of water recre-
ation opportunities remains uncertain. One reason for this uncertainty is that pro-
jected future demands for water in recreational and nonrecreational uses, such as
those reported in this chapter, are not directly comparable. Water recreation pro-
jected demands tend to be expressed in participant days or numbers of participants,
whereas nonrecreational water demands are expressed in terms of volume per time
(gallons per day, for example). Finding ways to examine and express water recre-
ation demands in terms of flows, and increased nonrecreational water demands in
139
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
140
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
help facilitate its appropriate use in the development of water management and
policy alternatives.
The future of water recreation in the Western United States will be character-
ized by changing demands and values for water in all of its potential uses. Informa-
tion about likely future demands for water in both recreational and nonrecreational
uses will be essential to anticipating where potential conflicts could exist between
various water users in the future. Demands for water in all of its uses form the con-
text in which water recreation planning and policy will take place. When conflicts
arise, knowledge of the value of water in recreational uses can be an important
factor in evaluating tradeoffs associated with water resource management and
policy alternatives that might affect a variety of water users. Acknowledging the
value of water to all users will help to ensure that the preferences and concerns of
different users are fairly represented in water management and policy development.
Metric Equivalents
When you know: Multiply by: To get:
1 Cubic foot 0.0283 Cubic meters
1 Gallon 3.78 Liters
References
Alig, R.J.; Kline, J.D.; Lichtenstein, M. 2004. Urbanization on the U.S.
landscape: looking ahead in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning.
69(2-3): 219–234.
Bergstrom, J.C.; Stoll, J.R.; Titre, J.P.; Wright, V.L. 1990. Economic value of
wetlands-based recreation. Ecological Economics. 2(2): 129–148.
Bockstael, N.E. 1995. Travel cost models. In: Bromley, D.W., ed. Handbook of
environmental economics. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers: 655–671.
Bockstael, N.E.; Freeman, A.M.; Kopp, R.J.; Portney, P.R.; Smith, V.K. 2000.
On measuring economic values for nature. Environmental Science and
Technology. 34(8): 1384–1389.
Bowker, J.M.; English, D.B.K.; Cordell, H.K. 1999. Chapter VI. Projections of
outdoor recreation participation. In: Cordell, H.K. Outdoor recreation in
American life: a national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign,
IL: Sagamore Publishing: 323–351.
141
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Brown, T.C. 1999. Past and future freshwater use in the United States: a technical
document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment. Gen.
Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-39. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 47 p.
Caulkins, P.P.; Bishop, R.C.; Bouwes, N.W. 1986. The travel cost model for
lake recreation: a comparison of two methods for incorporating site quality
and substitution effects. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 68(2):
291–297.
Colby, B.G. 1989. Estimating the value of water in alternative uses. Natural
Resources Journal. 29(2): 511–527.
Dalton, R.S.; Bastian, C.T.; Jacobs, J.J.; Wesche, T.A. 1998. Estimating the
economic value of improved trout fishing on Wyoming streams. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management. 18(4): 786–797.
Donnelly, D.M.; Loomis, J.B.; Sorg, C.F.; Nelson, L.J. 1985. Net economic
value of recreational steelhead fishing in Idaho. Resour. Bull. RM-9. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 23 p.
Duffield, J.W.; Brown, T.C.; Allen, S.D. 1994. Economic value of instream flow
in Montana’s Big Hole and Bitterroot Rivers. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 64 p.
Eiswerth, M.E.; Englin, J.; Fadali, E.; Shaw, W.D. 2000. The value of water
levels in water-based recreation: a pooled revealed preference/contingent
behavior model. Water Resources Research. 36(4): 1079–1086.
142
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Freeman, A.M. 1995. Hedonic pricing methods. In: Bromley, D.W., ed. Hand-
book of environmental economics. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers:
672–686.
Gibbons, D.C. 1986. The economic value of water. Washington, DC: Resources
for the Future. 101 p.
Guldin, R.W. 1989. An analysis of the water situation in the United States: 1989–
2040. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-177. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. 178 p.
Houston, L.L.; Kline, J.D.; Alig, R.J. 2002. Economics research supporting
water resource stewardship. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-550. Portland, OR:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station. 72 p.
Houston, L.L.; Watanabe, M.; Kline, J.D. 2003. Past and future water use in
Pacific coast states. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-588. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
37 p.
Johnston, R.J.; Swallow, S.K.; Weaver, T.F. 1999. Estimating willingness to pay
and resource tradeoffs with different payment mechanisms: an evaluation of a
funding guarantee for watershed management. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management. 38: 97–120.
Kline, J.D.; Swallow, S.K. 1998. The demand for local access to coastal
recreation in southern New England. Coastal Management. 26: 177–190.
143
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Kosz, M. 1996. Valuing riverside wetlands: the case of the “Donau-Auen” National
Park. Ecological Economics. 16(2): 109–127.
Kulshreshtha, S.N.; Gillies, J.A. 1994. The economic value of the South
Saskatchewan River to the City of Saskatoon: (III) value of alternative
minimum river water flow. Canadian Water Resources Journal. 19: 39–55.
Layman, R.C.; Boyce, J.R.; Riddle, K.R. 1996. Economic valuation of the
Chinook Salmon sport fishery of the Gulkana River, under current and
alternative management plans. Land Economics. 72(1): 113–128.
Loomis, J.B. 1996. Measuring the economic benefits of removing dams and
restoring the Elwha River: results of a contingent valuation survey. Water
Resources Research. 32: 441–447.
Mitchell, R.C.; Carson, R.T. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the con-
tingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 463 p.
National Water Commission. 1973. Water policies for the future. Final report to
the Congress of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office. 579 p.
Osborn, C.T.; Schefter, J.E.; Shabman, L. 1986. The accuracy of water use
forecasts: evaluation and implications. Water Resources Bulletin. 22(1):
101–109.
144
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Solley, W.B.; Merk, C.F.; Pierce, R.R. 1988. Estimated use of water in the
United States in 1985. Circular 1004. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological
Survey. 82 p.
Solley, W.B.; Pierce, R.R.; Pearlman, H.A. 1993. Estimated use of water in the
United States in 1990. Circular 1081. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological
Survey. 76 p.
Solley, W.B.; Pierce, R.R.; Pearlman, H.A. 1998. Estimated use of water in
the United States in 1995. Circular 1200. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological
Survey. 71 p.
Sorg, C.; Loomis, J.; Donnelly, D.M.; Peterson, G.; Nelson, L.J. 1985. Net
economic value of cold and warm water fishing in Idaho. Resour. Bull. RM-11.
Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 p.
Steinnes, D.N. 1992. Measuring the economic value of water quality: the case of
lakeshore land. Annals of Regional Science. 26: 271–176.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2001. 2000 RPA
assessment of forest and range lands. FS-687. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Forest Service. 78 p.
145
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Walsh, R.G.; Jon, K.H.; McKean, J.R.; Hof, J. 1992. Effect of price on
forecasts of participation in fish and wildlife recreation: an aggregate demand
model. Journal of Leisure Research. 21: 140–156.
Ward, F.A.; Roach, B.A.; Henderson, J.E. 1996. The economic value of water
in recreation: evidence from the California drought. Water Resources Research.
32(4): 1075–1081.
Water Resources Council. 1968. The Nation’s water resources. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office. [Pages unknown].
Water Resources Council. 1978. The Nation’s water resources. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office. [Pages unknown].
Wollman, N.; Bonem, G.W. 1971. The outlook for water quality, quantity, and
national growth. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press. 286 p.
Young, R.A. 1996. Measuring economics benefits for water investments. World
Bank Tech. Pap. No. 338. Washington, DC: The World Bank. 118 p.
146
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
For some, a river trip means water fights and wet summer fun; for
others, it is mainly a testing of personal mettle. But for nearly all
there is something more, something ineffable yet deeply satisfying,
as we join the ancient currents and flow, for a brief time, between
the timeless banks (Bangs and Kallen 1985: xiv).
Noted river adventurers Richard Bangs and Christian Kallen (1985) suggested
rivers are “arteries of the planet” that have utilitarian value (i.e., expansion of
civilizations) and are important in sustaining biological diversity and human
civilization (see chapter 2 for further discussion on this issue.) They also noted the
symbolic attraction of river running—in that people are “irresistibly drawn to rivers
for recreation, refreshment, and reconnection…” (Bangs and Kallen 1985: i). In
chapter 1, McCool et al. recognize that there is a symbolic attraction to rivers and Through personal
suggest that such symbols and symbolic images associated with rivers lie at the attachment to
heart of public controversy. Thus, in this chapter we build upon the work of Bangs places, people
and Kallen as well as McCool et al. by describing the meanings whitewater acquire a sense
recreationists attach to a river—meanings that express symbolic, aesthetic, instru- of belonging and
mental, and expressive values of individuals’ lives (Williams and Patterson 1999). purpose that gives
We also demonstrate how meanings, symbolic or otherwise, can inform natural meaning to their
resource managers about potential impacts that could arise from day-to-day man- lives and, from a
agement of the river landscape. global perspective,
Why is it important to examine “places” that hold special meaning to white- may be important to
water boaters? From a broad perspective, through personal attachment to places, societal well-being.
people acquire a sense of belonging and purpose that gives meaning to their lives
(Tuan 1980) and, from a global perspective, may be important to societal well-
being (Canadian Council on Social Development 2001). This concept of “place
attachment” suggests that there is a relationship between people and the natural
environments they use. However, understanding what constitutes “place attachment”
1
Kelly S. Bricker is an Associate Professor, University of Utah, Department of Parks,
Recreation, and Tourism, 250 South 1850 East, Rm. 200, Salt Lake City, UT 84112;
Deborah L. Kerstetter is an associate professor, The Pennsylvania State University,
Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism, management, 801 Ford Building, University
Park, PA 16802.
147
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
and the degree to which it is developed within outdoor recreation activities remains
unclear. Second, the meanings whitewater boaters attach to places may change over
time owing to the number and characteristics of other users. From 1998 to 2003,
participation in core outdoor recreation activities increased by 16 million to nearly
Most regard the
142 million—“far outpacing the impact of natural population growth in the
benefits of partici-
United States” (OIF 2004: 11). The profile of participants also changed. Today
pating in human-
males are increasingly represented (i.e., 56 percent of participants); historically
powered outdoor
underrepresented groups are slowly entering the market; and, participants are more
recreation as gain-
likely to have children in their household and to be fairly affluent (OIF 2004).
ing a sense of ac-
Most regard the benefits of participating in human-powered outdoor recreation as
complishment,
gaining a sense of accomplishment, escaping from the pressures of daily life,
escaping from the
finding a connection with oneself, feeling young, and maintaining a healthy
pressures of daily
lifestyle (OIF 2004).
life, finding a con-
Although participation in outdoor recreation has increased overall, the primary
nection with one-
draws have been hiking/backpacking, swimming, and fishing (OIF 2004). White-
self, feeling young,
water rafting has not been as popular. In 2003, 10.3 million Americans 16 years of
and maintaining a
age and older participated in whitewater rafting—well below the participation level
healthy lifestyle.
for 2001. Why has there been a shift in participation? Are Americans rafting less
because of limited access to rivers or outfitters? Is participation related to misman-
agement of rivers, including misinterpretation of the symbolic attachment individu-
als’ hold for rivers?
Given the shift in demand for whitewater experiences as well as the pressures
being faced by managers, we believe there is much to be gained from thinking
about and examining the meanings boaters attach to the resource. Hence, our goals
for this chapter are to review the literature on place attachment, introduce the
results of a study on whitewater boaters, and discuss how such results can be used
in the development of a management plan.
We begin the chapter with a brief overview of the place attachment literature.
We then turn our attention to a journey down the South Fork of the American
River (SFA), using special place meanings of the SFA expressed during a study
conducted with whitewater boaters. In this section of the chapter, whitewater
boaters’ special places within the SFA are explored through an interpretation of
complex meanings and expressions they assigned to the river. Results of past
qualitative studies have demonstrated that a rich understanding of person-environ-
ment relationships is possible (Mitchell et al. 1993). We close by discussing how
the results can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the “social condi-
tion” for which natural resource managers attempt to manage. The discussion
148
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Place Attachment
Place can be described as a locale that serves as “…the setting or backdrop
for everyday activity,” or as a process that involves the transformation and
appropriation of nature and space “…simultaneous with and inseparable from
Regardless of how
the transformation and reproduction of society” (Kruger and Jakes 2003: 819).
place is defined, it
Raitz (1987: 49) suggested that “to understand how a leisure landscape is con-
elicits an apprecia-
structed and uses space and how its parts or elements relate to the broader com-
tion and attachment
munity, is to understand a good deal about the culture, values, and concerns of
“…beyond the ob-
the people who built it and use it.”
servable features
Regardless of how place is defined, it elicits an appreciation and attachment
of the landscape.”
(i.e., a bond; see Altman and Low 1992, Fishwick and Vining 1992, Henderson
and King 1999, Warzecha and Lime 2001) “…beyond the observable features of
the landscape” (Petrich 1984: 67). This bond, conceptualized as “place attachment”
consists of two primary dimensions—place identity and place dependence
2
(Hammitt et al. 2004, Jorgenson and Stedman 2001, Williams et al. 1995).
Place identity has been defined as “the symbolic importance of a place as a
repository for emotions and relationships that give meaning and purpose to life”
(Williams and Vaske 2003: 831). It has also been referred to as a component of
self-identity (Proshansky et al. 1983) or a cognitive structure involving global self-
identification (Jorgenson and Stedman 2001) that enhances self-esteem and feelings
of belongingness (Korpela 1989, Tuan 1980). In outdoor recreation settings, place
identity develops over a longer period and is associated with emotional and sym-
bolic meanings (Moore and Graefe 1994). In addition, it is strongly associated
with environmentally responsible behavior (Williams and Vaske 2003) and support
for user fee policies (Kyle et al. 2004). Although much of the research on place
identity has focused on individuals’ response to a tangible site, Proshansky et al.
(1983) have noted that place identity is not dependent on experience with a place
and may instead involve a psychological investment in a place or activity over time
(Giuliani and Feldman 1993).
2
For a more comprehensive review of the various perspectives on place attachment, refer to
Stedman (2002) and Williams and Vaske (2003).
149
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Place dependence, on the other hand, is the level to which individuals perceive
themselves as functionally associated with places or groups of places (Stokols and
Shumaker 1981). Place dependence is theorized to be a function of “how well a
setting facilitates user’s particular activities” (Moore and Graefe 1994: 27) and its
value is tied to the “…specificity, functionality, and satisfaction of a place…” as
well as its “goodness” for activities such as whitewater boating (Kyle et al. 2004:
251). According to Hammitt et al. (2004), place dependence is affected by an
individual’s awareness, experience use history, and familiarity with alternative
places, travel, mobility, and resource required. In terms of place attachment over-
all, the number of places visited, amount of time spent in a given place, length of
residency, proximity to the site, and frequency of participation appear to have an
effect (Bricker and Kerstetter 2000, McCool and Martin 1994, Mitchell et al. 1993,
Researchers [must] Moore and Graefe 1994).
begin to focus on There is evidence that additional dimensions of place attachment exist
the symbolic mean- (Hammitt and Stewart, n.d.; Hay 1998). For example, in 1998, Nanistova provided
ings of place as a evidence of four additional dimensions of place attachment—place rootedness,
first step in “… traditionalism, nostalgia, and loss of place. More recently, Hammitt et al. (2004)
understanding the argued for a five-dimensional model of place attachment: place familiarity, belong-
implications of ingness, identity, dependence, and rootedness. Regardless of how many dimensions
environmental theoretically exist within the place attachment construct, ultimately the focus of
change and why such discussion is on how much a setting means rather than what the setting means
conflicts over re- to individuals (Stedman et al. 2004). Krannich et al. (1994) suggested that re-
source management searchers begin to focus on the symbolic meanings of place as a first step in “…
become so conten- understanding the implications of environmental change and why conflicts over
tious.” resource management become so contentious” (in Kruger and Jakes 2003: 820).
Their argument is persuasive as “symbolic meanings underpin place attachment:
…[individuals’] attribute meaning to… settings, and in turn become attached to the
meanings” (Stedman et al. 2004: 581).
150
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
The South Fork of the American River (SFA) begins high in the Sierra Nevada
The South Fork of
Mountains at 7,500 feet elevation and winds through the Sierra foothills into
the American River
California’s great Central Valley, the second richest agricultural center in the world
(SFA) begins high in
(El Dorado County 1996). It is California’s most popular whitewater recreation
the Sierra Nevada
river and the second most popular commercial rafting river in the United States.
Mountains at 7,500
The 20-mile Class I to III reach from Chili Bar to Salmon Falls is located in El
feet elevation and
Dorado County, northern California—the heart of gold rush country (see fig. 1).
winds through the
The SFA runs through the Coloma Valley and is considered the “heart and spirit of
Sierra foothills into
the Coloma-Lotus” area (The American River Resources 2005: 1). It provides a
California’s great
variety of recreational opportunities such as non-motorized boating, fishing,
Central Valley, the
recreational gold mining, hiking, camping, and picnicking, and has been popular-
second richest
ized as a diverse whitewater boating community. During 1996, the SFA served
agricultural center
nearly 100,000 commercial rafters and over 40,000 private rafters, kayakers, and
in the world.
canoeists (El Dorado County 1996). The water is controlled by a dam, which
allows boating opportunities year around. However, the SFA receives its greatest
usage between Memorial Day and Labor Day, and most whitewater recreationists
run the 20 miles in 2 days. The upper stretch, from Chili Bar to Henningsen-Lotus
Park, is 8 miles and takes approximately 3-1/2 hours to run (at 1,700 cubic feet per
second [cfs]). The lower stretch of the river, from Henningsen-Lotus Park to
Salmon Falls Bridge, is 12 miles and takes approximately 5 hours to run at 1,700
cfs.
151
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
individuals recorded a place by name and gave no further description. Other indivi-
The types of de-
duals’ responses ranged from broad generalizations about a place or area to detailed
scriptions of places
descriptions. Hence, the types of descriptions of places ranged from natural fea-
ranged from natural
tures on the river corridor to the community surrounding the river. If an individual
features on the river
did not describe a place, the name of the place was still included in the types of
corridor to the com-
places cited. For example, one respondent did not describe Maya Rapid, yet the
munity surrounding
rapid was still included in the list of special places on the river. A description of
the river.
how we interpreted the geographically defined places of respondents is included in
Table 1.
To assist in the interpretation of the complex meanings people assigned to the
SFA, we organized meanings by location along the river, from Chili Bar put-in,
through each reach, to the Salmon Falls take-out. These meanings were derived
from the comments made by 520 respondents. Seventy percent were whitewater
rafters, and the remaining thirty percent were kayakers.
152
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Natural sites This collection of descriptions includes natural features of the South Fork of the American
River. The following natural features were described by participants:
Rapids, general (general descriptions without designated names)
Rapids, common name (descriptions that included established names)
Natural features, general (features that are simply places without names)
Natural features, common name (e.g., The Lollipop Tree, Gorilla Rock, Poppy Hill)
Human-made features These are areas that are not established sites, yet are remnants of human alteration
of the landscape.
153
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Symbolic Meanings
Descriptions of special places were diverse, yet seemed to follow themes that cap-
tured how whitewater recreationists valued the river corridor, and the special places
contained therein. For whitewater boaters, complex meanings were reflective of
three main ideas: natural environment and recreational aspects of a special place,
social and recreational aspects of a special place, and natural environment and
human aspects of a special place (see table 2).
154
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
155
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
not all special places evoked positive responses—special places within the river
There were many
corridor prompted concern for maintaining and protecting the natural features and
descriptions [of
experience the river provides. Many meanings within this dimension were reflective
places] that could
of intangible, symbolic, and expressive meanings (Williams and Patterson 1999).
not be tied to tan-
There were many descriptions that could not be tied to “tangible” measures, but
gible measures, but
instead evoked a sense of nostalgia, escape, and appreciation for signs of encroach-
instead evoked a
ing development, which may change the character of the resource, and especially
sense of nostalgia,
the character of particular reaches in the future.
escape, and appre-
ciation for signs of
encroaching devel-
Whitewater Boating on the South Fork of the
opment, which may American River: An Interpretive Journey of Place
change the charac- Meanings
ter of the resource, To understand the multidimensional character of meanings assigned to special
and especially the places along the corridor, we will take an interpretive trip down the SFA. We
character of particu- adopted this approach because boaters commented about special places along the
lar reaches in the SFA at various levels of geographic specificity—from the entire river corridor, to
future. recognized river reaches, to sections personalized or self-identified, to established
sites such as put-in and take-out sites, to specific natural landmarks and human-
made features. At each level of geographic specificity, we introduce a sample of
meanings by using the multidimensional framework introduced in the previous
section and in table 2.
156
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
157
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
The environmental features also enhance the sense of wonder and perhaps “bits of
magic” that set the stage for the experience to come. In the words of one boater:
….The River seemed pristine; the smells along the river banks
were of sweet pungent trees, vegetation, aquatic life, blue skies,
warm sun, laughter of all of us and respect we all have towards that
phenomenon of wild, free, cold rushing water, timeless and
enduring. (aesthetic-recreation)
From specific loca-
tions, to the entire River Miles 1–4: The Upper Reach
reach, there are
The upper reach begins with a series of exciting rapids and is mostly surrounded
“play spots,” places
by public lands from Meatgrinder Rapid to Triple Threats, and little to no develop-
to contemplate,
ment. As we push off and begin floating down the river, it is important to pay
and places to affirm
attention right away, as the river immediately flows into classic Class III white-
friendship. Some
water, starting with Meatgrinder, Racehorse Bend, and the Triple Threats! This
places change with
reach of the river holds for many a sense of wildness, excitement, and a place
the seasons and
valued because it is undeveloped. From specific locations, to the entire reach,
others with years.
there are “play spots,” places to contemplate, and places to affirm friendship. Some
places change with the seasons and others with years. The naturalness of the reach
provides places to appreciate nature, a sense of wildness, and peace. The challeng-
ing rapids engage boaters in experiences in which they are mentally and physically
tested. Several individuals identified rapids and/or kayaking play spots within this
158
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
area. Others remember the entire 4-mile corridor winding through public lands,
removed from development. Meanings had two qualities: goal-oriented, with the
functionality of the river aspects that highlight challenges and interesting boating
opportunities; and symbolic of wilderness, not as a designated area, but symbolic of
what early explorers may have experienced. One boater’s reflection…
As other recreationists floating the upper reach found, the reach succeeded in
meeting goals, such as family or fitness…
….this is the first place my boys ages 7 and 10 have rafted. They
are proud of the fact that they came down Trouble Maker and wait Special places also
anxiously for the next trip. We camp with 4 other families at symbolized relation-
American River Campgrounds right at Trouble Maker and get ships, places where,
together to view videos we’ve taken of each other conquering because of the
Trouble Maker in different crafts and styles. We feel it is a great types of activities
family activity which has taught all of us to respect Mother Nature that are enabled,
and the power of the river as well as the value of sports to your self long-lasting friend-
confidence, and personal fitness. (shared experience/family) ships form.
Special places also symbolized relationships, places where, because of the types
of activities that are enabled, long-lasting friendships form…
From the entire 4-mile reach, to specific rapids, to a quite place on the river,
boaters expressed meanings at different levels of resource specificity. As we move
down river, we float upon Maya rapid. This is an interesting place for kayakers
159
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
to play, although known for its surfing wave, the reflections of boaters represented
much more than the functionality of the wave, this special place helped one
kayaker memorialize a special member of her family…
160
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
The top of the mountain finally gives up at the end of the peninsula
that creates the S turn I admire so much. The velocity of the water
increases dramatically, the negative ions in the air from the rapids
161
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
…As the sun was sinking low on the horizon the deer made their
way to the river to drink, the turkey vultures bathed and hung their
wings to dry and a river otter hauled out on one of those cotton-
woods that dared to fall to the floods. My spirit was lifted to see
that the river corridor continues to provide habitat to El Dorado’s
wildlife even with 100,000 boaters each season and the free hand
of capitalism at work this spring after the floods. Please preserve
this educational resource! (protect/preserve)
162
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
We stopped here for our picnic lunch. While we ate and waited to
see if the water releases upstream would increase, my husband and
I couldn’t help but notice fish jumping in front of us. …We dis-
cussed how we could find access other than by raft so that we
might return some day. Then we thought about how easy, con-
venient access to this special place could ruin the environment and
experience we were so thoroughly enjoying. Roads and facilities
bring people and, unfortunately, not all respect the beauty that
surrounds us. They bring noise with their motorized vehicles and
boom boxes, they litter, and basically disrespect the rights of others
to enjoy a place free of such intrusions. …(natural appreciation)
In its current state, this special place provides solitude and a sense of wildness
that is highly valued by a particular whitewater recreationist:
163
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
164
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
bring kids here and ask them about life in the area before the gold
rush. I try to put myself back in time and hear the same sounds and
smell the same smells as they did. (native environments)
For others, the Gorge or rapids within the Gorge symbolize a sense of wilder-
ness, a sense of remoteness that also was reflected by meanings in the upper reach.
There are places that symbolize and perhaps reinforce the value of “wildness” so
close to an urbanized metro area:
165
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Coming out of the Last Chance rapid in the Gorge—if you look
river right you will see a figure in the rock. To me it looks like a
dancing woman. Her hands stretched out to the sky in celebration.
I enjoy sharing this rock with friends. Pointing out something not
named gives me the feeling akin to being a wilderness explorer in
unchartered territory. It is a wonderful thing to find and feel—
especially in “bumper to bumper boat traffic” on a Saturday
…Respondents afternoon. (natural appreciation)
used multiple
meanings to ex- River Mile 20.5: Take-Out
press a range of It is the end of our journey on the SFA. Before rolling up the boats and stowing the
values and experi- kayaks, it is useful to communicate how many whitewater recreationists interpreted
ences on the river. their special place as the entire river corridor—all 20.5 miles. Once again respon-
dents used multiple meanings to express a range of values and experiences on the
river. When considering the entire river, individuals reflected on the symbolic value
of “naturalness” and “wildness” of the river corridor …
…. The seasons change it, the floods change it, the crowds change
it. The mansion-fort we stared at floating by, which seemed to
portray sturdiness and constancy, is suddenly another rocked boat.
Had the property value gone up or down as a result of the rafting
boom? How can river users—commercial, non-commercial—
ensure that the changes we effect are positive, and that we don’t
just abandon the mine after we’ve plundered away the gold. No
more ghost towns—of litter, of algae, of concrete, of noise and
traffic, of resource exploitation. (protect/preserve)
166
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
And, because the journey along the SFA has primarily focused on rafters and
…Meanings symbol-
kayakers, it is not surprising that they expressed meanings tied to the instrumental
ized the importance
value or utility of the river. The SFA is unique in that the very nature of the rapids
of many develop-
and access to particular reaches allow for opportunities for the beginner to ad-
mental aspects of
vanced whitewater recreationist. In fact, meanings symbolized the importance of
spending time on
many developmental aspects of spending time on the river (e.g., friendships, skill,
the river (e.g.,
and camaraderie):
friendships, skill,
The South Fork of the American River represents hours of satisfac- and camaraderie).
tion, challenges, learning, humility, appreciation, and rejuvenation.
For me, as well as for many of my friends, the SFA has played a
major role in the development of our confidence in whitewater
boating and in networking with fellow boaters who share our
passion for kayaking. There are very few environments where you
can find a comparable overabundance of grins and positive attitudes
as on the South Fork of the American. (challenge/growth)
Our mile-by-mile journey of the SFA has ended. If you would like to expand
your journey on the SFA, the multitude of special place meanings expressed by
over 500 boaters is represented in table 3.
The river trip has come to a close, and we have learned through a review of special
place meanings about boaters values and/or concerns. As Jacob and Schreyer (1980)
found, some people were very focused and articulate about important elements of
their experience along the river, whereas others were somewhat general or unfo-
cused. In addition, experiences along the river did not appear to affect boaters
3
Carber, J. 1991. Personal communication. Former Raft Guide, Sobek Expeditions,
deceased 1992.
167
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Protect/preserve— The whole area around the river was wonderful. I would
Meanings associated with protecting the environ- love for the whole area to be left untouched. I don’t
ment and recreational experiences. think the nature should be disrupted. Everything should
be left alone. There was not just one special place, all the
land around the river was important.
Environmental signals— Gorilla rock area where the water slows and pulls up
Meanings associated with environmental attributes just before coming to the Gorge. Lower stretch. The
serving as signals or acknowledgments that some- quiet of this area just before entering Gorge—and where
thing was about to happen or a reminder that my anxiety picks up—always stands out in my mind. It
something happened within that place. is still, bird sounds stand out, the water waits for the next
part of its journey.
Degradation—
Meanings associated with observations of degradation Very beautiful and exciting, but I was VERY upset about
(experiential or environmental) that have implications the gasoline powered gold retrieved machines. They are
for enjoyment and the overall recreational experience loud, ugly, and they appear to be digging up a significant
itself. amount of the riverbed (this was determined by the murky
water that resulted).
168
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Table 3—Descriptions of place meaning: Complex dimensions and their subdimensions1 (continued)
Dimension categories Quotations
The social and recreational aspects of a special
place dimension (n = 179):
The gathering place: Place meanings that recognized Fun rapid with several runable lines. Some people
the social nature of a place or experience. Recreation gathered around enjoying the river, watching others run
is prominent, yet the chance to meet people or others the rapid. Had fun running the rapid and hanging out on
that have similar interests is also present. shore for a while afterward, socialize with the other river
runners and spectators.
Challenge-growth: Place meanings associated with This is the first big rapid on Chili Bar. I have some good
personal growth or witnessing the growth of others memories of being nervous before it. It was definitely
within the context of a recreational pursuit. one good confidence boost after running it. It’s my
favorite rapid on the upper stretch due to its length.
Shared experience/family: Place meanings associated Exciting, wet, exhilarating, swirling water, refreshing.
with recreational experiences with special emphasis Sharing the thrills with friends and relaxation.
on sharing the experience with family and friends.
Enjoyment: The enjoyment of watching others I like the excitement of the rapids and I also enjoy seeing
engaged in a recreational pursuit. all the other people just having a good time on the river,
fishing, swimming, panning for gold, people of all ages
were enjoying themselves.
Native environments: Meanings associated with places The sense of being part of a long history of different
that evoked a sense of kinship with humans that lived people associated with a river of beauty. The merger of
in the area prior to present day (cultural heritage). human endeavor and natural habitat.
169
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Table 3—Descriptions of place meaning: Complex dimensions and their subdimensions1 (continued)
Dimension categories Quotations
Protect and preserve: Meanings associated with As the sun was sinking low on the horizon the deer made
protecting the environment from the impact of their way to the river to drink, the turkey vultures bathed
humans. Environmental messages shared with and hung their wings to dry and a river otter hauled out
others or emphasized within the context of on one of those cottonwoods that dared to fall to the
special places. floods. My spirit was lifted to see that the river corridor
continues to provide habitat to El Dorado’s wildlife even
within 100,000 boaters each season and the free hand
of capitalism at work this spring after the floods. Please
preserve this educational resource!
Note: The total response represents the number of comments made within the category described. This number does not necessarily
depict the number of individuals who responded; some individuals may have cited one or more places that fit the category.
1
Adapted from Bricker and Kerstetter (2002: 412–414).
170
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
171
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
images associated with the river have direct impact on individuals’ lives and ex-
periences with the river corridor. It was also evident that in some cases, individuals
perceived that aspects of the river were already changing (i.e., encroachment, de-
gradation, crowding) and impacting meanings they associate with the SFA. These
results support Williams and Patterson’s (1999) framework. Meanings were not
only instrumental (i.e., the SFA was a good place to learn kayaking), but were tied
to places where events occurred and were remembered within the context of a
special place. Further, symbolic meanings were framed within various thematic
dimensions, from sections of river unaltered by the impacts of humans symboliz-
ing wilderness, to the flow of water symbolizing renewal and continuity, to native
grinding stones symbolic of a simpler time. Whitewater recreationists related to the
natural and social factors that formed meanings in the context of a recreation
experience.
Because the boating community on the SFA described a range of special places,
including the entire community, the river corridor, reaches within the corridor, and
specific locations, changes to specific places within a resource may have enormous
impact on individuals’ perceptions of the entire river corridor. For example, if a
Exploring what has place is conducive to peace and serenity, and managers decide to build an access
often been termed area (i.e., put-in, take-out), such change may drastically impact the perceived value
“hard to define and ultimately the entire quality of the recreation experience. Knowing what places
values” (e.g., sense are special to a wide range of users, as well as the meanings or values attached to
of place), resource those places, can assist managers in preserving the character of experiences so often
managers have the endangered by the encroachment of society on natural areas.
opportunity to ad- Exploring what has often been termed “hard to define values” (e.g., sense
dress the entire of place), resource managers have the opportunity to address the entire ecosystem
ecosystem that that includes not only the natural environment, but also human relationships with
includes not only the environment. By addressing issues that are emotionally, intellectually, recreat-
the natural environ- ionally, and spiritually important, managers increase the likelihood of finding
ment, but also hu- acceptance and support for future plans and perhaps become more sensitized to
man relationships endangered experiences within the resource they manage.
with the environ-
ment. Metric Equivalents
When you know: Multiply by: To get:
1 foot 0.304 Meters
1 mile 1.609 Kilometers
1 cubic foot per second 101.9 Cubic meters per hour
172
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
References
Altman, I.; Low, S. 1992. Place attachment, human behavior and environment:
advances in theory and research. New York: Plenum Press. 314 p.
Bangs, R.; Kallen, C. 1985. Rivergods. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. 210 p.
El Dorado County. 2004. El Dorado County 2004 Annual Report on the River
Management Plan. Placerville, CA: El Dorado County. 27 p.
Hammitt, W.; Backlund, E.; Bixler, R. 2004. Experience use history, place
bonding, and resource substitution of trout anglers during recreation
engagements. Journal of Leisure Research. 36(3): 356–378.
Hammitt, W.E.; Stewart, W. [N.d.] Sense of place: a call for construct clarity
and measurement. Unpublished manuscript. On file with: William Hammit,
Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, College of Health,
Education, and Human Development 263 Lehotsky Hall, Box 340735 Clemson,
SC 29634-0735.
173
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Henderson, K.A.; King, K.A. 1999. Youth spaces and places: case studies of two
teen clubs. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 17(2): 28–41.
Krannich, R.; Carroll, M.; Daniels, S.; Walker, G. 1994. Incorporating social
assessment and public involvement processes into ecosystem-based resource
management: applications to the east side ecosystem management project.
Walla Walla, WA: USDA FS and USDI BLM Eastside Ecosystem Management
Project. 140 p.
Kruger, L.; Jakes, P. 2003. The importance of place: advances in science and
application. Forest Science. 49(6): 819–821.
Kyle, G.; Graefe, A.; Manning, R.; Bacon, J. 2004. Effect of activity involve-
ment and place attachment on recreationists’ perceptions of setting density.
Journal of Leisure Research. 36(2): 209–231.
Kyle, G.T.; Absher, J.D.; Graefe, A.R. 2003. The moderating role of place
attachment on the relationship between attitudes toward fees and spending
preferences. Leisure Sciences. 25: 33–50.
Mitchell, M.; Force, J.; Carroll, M.; McLaughlin, W. 1993. Forest places of
the heart. Journal of Forestry. 91(4): 32–37.
Moore, R.; Graefe, A. 1994. Attachments to recreation settings: the case of rail-
trail users. Leisure Sciences. 16: 17–31.
174
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Moore, R.; Scott, D. 2003. Place attachment and context: comparing a park and
trail within. Forest Science. 49(6): 877–884.
Petrich, C. 1984. EIA scoping for aesthetics: hindsight from the Green County
nuclear power plant. In: Hart, S.; Enk, G.; Horrick, W., eds. Improving impact
assessment: increasing the relevance and utilization of scientific and technical
information. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 57–92.
Proshansky, H.; Fabian, A.; Kaminoff, R. 1983. Place identity: the physical
world and socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 3:
57–83.
Stedman, R.; Beckley, T.; Ambard, M. 2004. A picture and 1000 words: using
resident-employed photography to understand attachment to high amenity
places. Journal of Leisure Research. 36(4): 580–606.
The American River Resources. 2005. The American River Resources Home
Page. Available: http://www.theamericanriver.com/resources/. (June 15, 2005).
175
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Williams, D.; Patterson, M.; Roggenbuck, J.; Watson, A. 1992. Beyond the
commodity metaphor: examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place.
Leisure Sciences. 14: 29–46.
176
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
From the time you are born, you are eating salmon. You eat salmon
all year round. The salmon is in your bloodstream. Ceremonies are
all about the salmon. We talk to the salmon. Salmon are so
important to all of our people. Salmon is our life. When the river
smells of salmon, you know that is a healthy watershed.
1 th
Elizabeth Woody is a writer and artist, 2036 SE 11 Ave., Portland, OR 97214.
177
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
It was only a few years ago that national press covered the protests of Klamath
More than 80,000
farmers water restrictions imposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for pre-
coho and chinook
servation of threatened fish species as they opened floodgates to release water to
salmon perished in
irrigation fields amid cheers. After this, more than 80,000 coho and chinook
2002, dying prior to
salmon perished in 2002, dying prior to spawning in warm waters (U.S. Congress
spawning in warm
2006). In 2006, Oregon and California commercial fishers pleaded for emergency
waters.
relief as their fleets lay idle at docks when the fishery was closed. During all of the
events, tribal peoples of the Klamath Basin called for decommissioning of the dams
on the Klamath River, and the Karuk provided economic benefits for doing so in a
report called Preliminary Economic Assessment of Dam Removal: the Klamath
River (Kruse and Scholz 2006). All a logical chain of events when we look to the
policy of overallocation of water in an arid country not well suited for agriculture.
With an intimate awareness of the cyclic return of species as dependent on the
ocean atmosphere as it is on the headwaters and Cascade snowpacks, tribal people
consistently ask for a whole-systems approach to water management. It is evident
that aquifers and forests regulate watershed productivity, as do marshlands. It is
evident that climactic heating is demanding world-wide attention. All aspects of
Tribal peoples of the our water and natural resources are impacted by a century and half of sectional
Klamath Basin called thought processes. There are orange people and apple people, people who think in
for decommission- segmented categories and in degrees of separation, and those who think holistically,
ing of the dams on from an interdependency perspective.
the Klamath River, My tribal ceremonies begin and end with water. The food chiefs are recognized
and the Karuk pro- in order from the river to the mountains, and, conversely, in real life, it is the same
vided economic with water. Water goes from the mountains to the Pacific Ocean as streams, creeks,
benefits for doing and rivers, and returns from the Pacific to the mountains, as precipitation. It is our
so in a report called highest medicine and represents the purity of human interaction and respect as we
Preliminary Eco- keep it clean and revere its presence in our lives.
nomic Assessment of My hero, Billy Frank, Jr., demonstrated his lifelong commitment to community
Dam Removal: the and to salmon by his civil disobedience in youth and by his call to action through-
Klamath River. out his life. It is said that before the age of 16 he was arrested over 60 times. At
75 years of age, he speaks with the authority of hard-earned respect. He under-
stands that the climate change in our times is the defining factor in our future and
our ability to flourish. He understands the absence of salmon portends greater
losses. This is more evident in the issue of freshwater and the ocean. It is evident in
salmon, as they are one of the oldest keystone species of the Western Pacific States.
Their historical range is from Baja, California, to the northernmost reaches of the
Yukon Territories and Alaska (State of the Salmon 2007).
178
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Franks’ policy experience comes from more than 20 years of service as chair-
In the 1970s, the
man of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). His authority was
landmark decision
his father who lived over a hundred years and served as expert witness during the
called the Boldt
trials concerning Native people’s right to fish in the Pacific Northwest. In the
decision upheld
1970s, the landmark decision called the Boldt decision upheld treaty rights, and
treaty rights, and
from that day forward, the state could not punish Native peoples for fishing, as
from that day for-
they were entitled to 50 percent of the salmon’s numbers that returned to home
ward, the state
spawning grounds. Not only did Native people retain the right to fish in usual and
could not punish
accustomed places in treaty, but they presently insist on comanagement of the
Native peoples for
resources, and remain to this day vigilant over the fisheries.
fishing, as they were
The NWIFC is a nonprofit organization and represents several tribal groups
entitled to 50 per-
through policy and comanagement of salmon and watersheds in the Puget Sound
cent of the salmon’s
and western Washington. Its counterpart, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish
numbers that re-
Commission (CRITFC) mandated by four tribal governments of the middle Colum-
turned to home
bia River basin does the same. The drastic decline of salmon in the lower 48 States
spawning grounds.
represents the unhealthy effects of industrialization and commercial fisheries on the
resource. Conversely, in healthy watersheds, the salmon return in abundance. When
obstructed, polluted, diverted for agriculture, heated by lack of tree and vegetation
buffers, muddied water produces little of its salmon, trout, or other species of fish
that feed the system of eaters. The people, the animals (bears, eagles,) and others
suffer from starvation. The soils are bereft of nutrient return from the oceans, as
there are no fish returning. The NWIFC is a
In Frank’s time, he saw the abundance when everything smelled of salmon.
nonprofit organiza-
To have the ground from the smokehouse to the banks littered with spawned-out
tion and represents
salmon carcasses is to have our waters returned to health, and the people rejoice.
several tribal
Billy Frank, Jr., as elder, asks us to remember the magnificence of our natural groups through
bounty, the waters of the Pacific Northwest rearing their most defining species,
policy and
the salmon.
comanagement
I was a child of a rural community, far from the state and federal policy-
of salmon and
makers. When decisions were made that affected Native foods most, Native peoples watersheds in
did not even have the right to vote. Like most young people, I did not think of
the Puget Sound
what happened before me as a matter of importance to my present. I ate the
and western
salmon, venison, roots, and berries prepared for me at the longhouse I attended
Washington.
with my grandparents without concern for it.
I did not grow up along a river, but along an irrigation ditch at the edge of a
town called Madras, Oregon. Later, in my early teens, I lived along the Shi-tike
179
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Creek at the Indian agency on the reservation. Most of my adult life I lived within
a mile of the Willamette River, the easternmost part of the Watlala territory of my
2
grandfather’s mother’s people. The irony of an “East Indian” town bordering the
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Indians didn’t hit me until many years later.
I recollect the pronunciation of the ads on Portland TV hyping up the funky little
road show movies and the circuses that toured the state. They always pronounced
Madras as “Mah-Drahs,” not as the locals pronounced it as “Mad Dress.” A friend
jokingly said, once, “Didn’t they know you weren’t East Indians?”
The mighty Columbia was over a hundred miles away, and whatever spring
time water flowed through a burgeoning Willow Creek, or cold Shi-tike Creek
went there, eventually. It met the Pacific to be drawn up by the sun and wind,
driven inland to rain. In the high desert, in the rain shadow of the Cascades, we
received a bit less than 10 inches of precipitation a year.
The frogs made use of the irrigation ditch for pollywog nurseries shaded by
the slight willows and cattail that surrounded what the neighbor kids called ponds.
The creek itself was slim and brackish. It offset the delicate and varied chromatic
dragonflies. At night, the chorus of frogs reverberated in my dreams. My childhood
was spent outside on the land, and a great deal depended on the presence of water
in that nameless ditch. It was what invigorated the place with mysterious creatures.
More than that, it bred the insects, an important piece of the food chain.
At dusk, I’d sit in the bowl of aromatic willows we made into a maze. In the
willows, our human smell was overwhelmed. Our dogs would run the maze sniffing
the willow-masked air for us while we hid from them. It was a great old stand of
willow. At dusk, the high desert sunset and overpowering presence of stars was
magnificent. Dusk was a sliver of neon blue. You could see the silhouettes of bats
and swallows crisscross the horizon. You could smell the water in the cooling heat.
On summer days of thunderstorm, you inhaled the beating of high desert dust with
its rain coming for miles in the sultry decadent heat. The thunderheads held heat
close to the land as a down comforter does over one’s body.
With my eyes opened wide and night vision sharp, my ears registered the
night’s calm over the basalt-rimmed hill west of our house. Absent the usual bustle
of cars on the highway, tranquility accentuated the crescendo of night’s mysterious
2
East Indian meaning Madras, India, as most people spoke of it before knowing the small
county seat of the complex of communities in central Oregon.
180
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
sounds. Magical frogs in the frenzy of ecstatic love lured their mates. It was water
that made it all possible. As far as the irrigation ditch went, it meant it was a
healthy place.
This simple bliss transformed into my first passionate love, the Deschutes River
basin. The Crooked River and Metolius River merge into the Deschutes River. The
Warm Springs River meets the north-going Deschutes near a red canyon of incred-
ible volcanic soils and rock called the Hot Springs (Milee) or Kah-Nee-Ta Vacation
Resort. My great-great-grandmother raised my grandmother Elizabeth Thompson
Pitt (Mohalla) here, and this is where she first fished with a simple pin hook and
bait. She walked upon this land with her horse and dog, solo. She told me of her
childhood and it was like mine. Her grandmother instructed her to take only what
they could eat. The rule was let the rest grow.
A few miles upriver, a stretch from the Hot Springs, is a place we call “Dry
Creek.” This is where her first cousin and her mother’s sister lived. I eventually
caught my first trout in the area next to my great-uncle’s sweat lodge. I pieced
together my gear from a left-behind acrylic pole of my mother’s, an unclaimed
raspy automatic reel, and a loose fly hook that was not in my grandfather’s special
lot. The lively trout was brought in at dusk; I was alone. I forced my uncle to stop
at Rainbow Market to weigh it at their meat counter. The butcher was deeply
amused and said it was a “whopper.” It weighed 8 pounds and must have been a
wild steelhead.
These rivers have been an intimate part of my natural life for generations. It is
We understand
“storied” by my parents, my grandparents, and my great grandparents, and so on.
less with each
Today, the vanishing of our Native/traditional salmon runs parallel the absence of
language’s absence,
our Native languages being spoken along the shores of the rivers and streams. The
as a tribe loses its
languages of Kiksht and Ichiskiin sound fluid and lilting as the rivers. Our native
knowledge as well
languages reflected the flourish and abundance of the lands.
as the knowledge of
We understand less with each language’s absence, as a tribe loses its knowledge
the geography itself.
as well as the knowledge of the geography itself. This is where the language came
from, and the source of the people’s beginning as told in story. When I asked my
grandmother to translate the words of a Worship (Waashat) song I liked, she said,
“You would have no questions if you knew the language. This is our teachings.” I
wrote in a poem an excerpt of what she said, “The Light is Pure./ Our Hearts are
pure./ We see God in this light./ We are pure light in ourselves (Woody 1994). My
friend, Gloria Bird, said to me in response to these lines and my wonder at their
181
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
meaning, “Our ancestors lived along the rivers as center of our life. Maybe the light
is the river’s surface and we are the reflection of its light. That is how the song
began from light on water.”
As a child, our codes of conduct in the community were embedded in the
language and these esoteric worship songs. I did not understand the language, but
it is rote in my lyrical memory of language and gifted from its rhythms a different
intelligence, the beat of hearts reverberating silence between each pulse. It was a
holistic worldview that spoke of unity with the Earth, the sky, waters, and our little
relatives upon the land. The law was unwritten, and our responsibility was to be the
“voice of the land.” That is our law.
We presently lose our little relatives, the fish, even without extinction as con-
taminated rivers yield altered progeny. In the Columbia River, the major contami-
nants impact the genetic material of people and fish alike with radiation and other
deadly contaminants from the Hanford nuclear site. This negligence affects what
Siletz elder Agnes Pilgrim calls the animals and plants, “the silent majority.” Each
species represents a language of its own, given to it from Creation from Nami
Anithla or Nami Piyap. “Nami Anithla or Nami Piyap is representative of our
maker or elder brother [who] placed us here” (Winishut 2006).
Billy Frank, Jr., clearly represents our natural resources as our relative: “We are
going to be here. The [U.S.] president is a shorttimer. The administrator is on his
way to something better than management of our natural resources, our relatives.
We will fight with all our courage and strength to save life!” It is our belief that
when one moves and speaks, it affects the world, and that is part of our law. Our
power is in song, and in dance. Our thoughts are imbued with love and admiration
for the river’s energy. We have no way of pulling segments of this understanding
apart for pedantic matters. We live by example thoroughly impassioned, as Billy
Frank, Jr., does.
There is no simple way to translate reverence for water and unique beings that
share the system with indigenous peoples, particularly the Pacific salmon. Speak-
ing to my tribal friends and relatives, I asked them what they thought nonutilitarian
usages of water meant. All balked at the question. Even in waste, water is used.
It flushes through the rivers and through the soils, rushing to the mother of all
waters, the ocean. There is positively no concept of water as nonutilitarian. My
Uncle Louie Pitt, Jr., Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and Planning at the
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, Oregon (CTWSO), told me, “Water is
transitory. It is pervasive. It is our sacrament. That [water] is all there is.”
182
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
A simple human being, mostly water, part minerals and electrical charge, is
embodiment of the land, and microcosm of the Earth. Water represents indigenous
peoples’ sovereignty and is the central element we must share with all. No animal
hoards water, but man. From the beginning of time, Natural Law, Tamanwit, a
spiritual prerogative instructed my people to conserve water, keep it pure, and
ask for its return. Water is a sacrament in our religious practices and overarching
medicine. It is the central symbol of our cycle of ceremonies. Along the “Big
River,” the Columbia, we wake with a drink of water, and close out the day with
a sip and prayer. Every meal is the same. The steam of our sweathouses purifies
the body of toxins. Water equals all life. These laws are not simplistic, but require
a life-long commitment as one is born with a voice, a spirit, and purpose. Our
individual voice or songs provide us a sense of unity and cohesion despite our
individualism. Everyone respects the other.
For us water is alive. What you receive bottled, while pure, requires action of
rolling over the land to molecularly remain “alive” and active. No one can argue it
is nonessential. Paul Pearsall, in The Heart’s Code (1998), says water is considered
the major source of energy and wealth in Hawaii. He maintains that “lump of
water” or life energy is called “pu uwai,” “the heart” in Hawaiian. Our “lumps of
water” retain their own memory and independence from the brain. Like water, we
are subtle for the most part, move toward what is greater, wear through obstacles
with tenacity, and evaporate from one form to another in spirit. Like water, our
essence is transitory.
In the River of Memory: The Everlasting Columbia, I wrote of the Salmon
Feast at Celilo Village near the former site of Celilo Falls, or Wyam (Layman
2006). It was an ancient fishing village for over 14,000 years and was destroyed
when the falls was inundated by the Dalles Dams in 1957. It illustrates the cycle
and instruction in the act of liturgy and metaphor:
183
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
All lift their hands palms open and upward to acknowledge and
Negotiations are recognize the speaker’s truth: the presence of the Creator’s strength
conducted with is among us and inside us. The words enter the greater and ex-
agencies of coun- pansive essence of living earth. We are land. We are water. Our
ties, states, and passion is the fire in our home’s hearth. We all exchange the same
federal administra- air in exclamation. We are all one.
tors, and it can be
The “People of the Salmon” and “People of the River” speak and care for those
difficult, as many do
who cannot. This includes foods that are on private and public lands. Negotiations
not understand the
binding agreement are conducted with agencies of counties, states, and federal administrators, and it
can be difficult, as many do not understand the binding agreement between the
between the United
United States and tribes. When one administrator moves on, a new person must
States and tribes.
learn. Effects of habitat loss and pollution in the rivers are spreading beyond the
tribes’ concern centered on native diet to impact all who eat within the water and
natural food shed.
However, it is tribal peoples who call the first alarm. The tribes possess senior
rights, have the right tools, and understand the management of the resources for the
protection of health, prosperity, and future for all.
184
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
185
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
religion from a time beyond memory without break, and did so despite great
oppression. The Native American Religious Freedom Act of 1979 finally ensured
religious freedom applied to Native peoples.
Jay Minthorn, Umatilla tribal member, and Chair of the CRITFC told me re-
Antone Minthorn, cently, “Our great river is the arterial blood system of a great basin. It used to mean
said it from the start: our fish would return to feed the people, and all the life outside of human needs.
“Clean the water We cared for it. We drank it right from the river in the fifties. That is how pure it
and return the river was before all the industrial waste. Our fish indicated its health and the wealth of
to health. Get the all that water.”
salmon back and
I smiled and said, “I drank wild water in Warm Springs without filter or water
healthy, the rest
plant.”
falls into place
Jay sagely smiled, “Then, you know its power.”
naturally. It all ad-
Jim Lavadour (Walla Walla) spoke to me a few weeks later, “Working in
justs. You take care
natural resources many years ago, the beginning of recovery was clean water. From
of the water, and
this simple rule the entire system restores itself. Antone Minthorn, said it from the
this helps the fish.
start, it all begins with that, simple enough. Clean the water and return the river to
The fish return, it
health. Get the salmon back and healthy, the rest falls into place naturally. It all
takes care of the
adjusts. You take care of the water, and this helps the fish. The fish return, it takes
rest. It’s as simple
care of the rest. It’s as simple and as powerful as that.”
and as powerful as
Chief Alexander (Dranjik Gwich’in) emphatically reiterates this in discussions
that.”
on cleanup of their Yukon River system, “We have the utmost respect for Water.
The ancestors tell us water is life itself… You know what I want? I want clean
water. It’s as simple as that.” For over 30 years, Chief Alexander has been highly
regarded as leader with firm indigenous values, strong coalition-building skills, and
extraordinary vision, and he belongs to the life stream of Gwich’in life, the Yukon
River. He resolutely advocates for its integrity. He and his coalition of Gwich’in
“We have the ut- leadership built a tremendous accord whose mission is to have “drinkable water”
most respect for from the river in 50 years.
Water. The ances- People called this system a “subsistence culture.” Subsistence makes our lives
tors tell us water is seem perilous and our economy “barely making it.” Subsistence is a word Chief
life itself… You know Clarence Alexander protests each time he hears it. Wealthy and wholly bonded with
what I want? I want the rivers, we left the water in stream as it produced greater economic benefit for
clean water. It’s as the tribes. Our food stores from it were incredible, as William Clark observed 200
simple as that.” years ago: 107 baskets containing about 10,000 pounds of dried salmon, prepared
by Indians at Celilo Falls (Egan 2003). Annual salmon harvest in the early 1800s
186
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
before decline was estimated at 42 million pounds with average yearly run sizes of
10 to 16 million fish. The efficiency of the village and business centered on gather-
ing food stores in the proper season.
Young Chief at the 1855 Treaty Council explained how the earth provided all
the food the Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Walla peoples needed:
187
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Outside these constrictive terms, these specific relationships exist from simulta-
neously developed streams and time-honed systems of cultural codes, rules of con-
duct, and plural management for indigenous peoples and the land base. It is not
“policy,” per se, only the living of tradition as sovereigns. Tribal peoples describe
People say to eat themselves as one and the same with beings like salmon in importance.
traditional foods is Natural laws of the Creator are unwritten laws and inescapable. Animals and
to return to the plants do not break these laws. Only people do. Nez Perce-Tohono O’odham
purity of the greater scholar, Cecil Jose quoted Bill Yallup, Sr. (Yakama, now deceased), on natural law,
system through “That is why Indigenous peoples, like the ones I know, and are part of say: We are
one’s own body. charged with the decision making powers to protect the Land, Air and Water!”
What is lived well endures. In tribal culture, with authority of tradition, “we ex-
press the voice of the land and law.” We reconcile the past with the present frame-
work of working knowledge to unify the responsibility for regeneration. People say
to eat traditional foods is to return to the purity of the greater system through one’s
own body.
We must do so because we will die without the knowledge culled from mutual
enrichment of coexisting with species on an equal basis. Anishinabe spiritual leader
Bawdwayadun told of a prophecy that “in thirty years the abuses of the water will
result in severe shortages and only those that can afford it will have water to drink,
and if we don’t do anything about it, our water will cost the same as a ounce of
gold.” As in all prophecies there is hope. In this prophecy the hope is in the word,
“if.” Bawdwayadun, in ending his teaching, hauntingly asked of the audience,
“What are you going to do about it?” (Kuckkahn 2006).
As a native person, I grew up noticing the general sadness pervading events,
even those that were celebratory. In the somber cloud of memory, omitted events
whispered behind our own words hushed by the fear of loss of emotional control in
the present. The loss of Celilo Falls, our village, and fishing site is the most painful
of memories. People are still hushed in their grief and anger. The people are all
those with the memory of the “echo of falling water.” The multigenerations of
mistrust come from the loss of something cherished, the incremental loss of land,
livelihood, and independence. This loss nearly crushed the People. The United
States seemed to exalt a few with ample rewards and sacrificed salmon as a whole.
In Fatal Years: Child Mortality in Late Nineteenth-Century America, Preston
and Haines (1991) stated this condition of becoming weak in terms of what hap-
pened on the Yakama Reservation:
188
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
As the CRITFC relates, I paraphrase here: Wealth went from the hands of the
original inhabitants to the settlers who migrated West escaping from poverty them-
selves. Watson Totus protested the building of The Dalles Dam before the Senate
Subcommittee on Civil Functions for the Army on May 12, 1952, with these
words:
The Salmon was then made a sacred food, second to water in the
Yakama tribal Waashat religion… I am one of the leaders of that
original religion. I teach my people that 1) water is blessed by
God, 2) salmon is blessed by God and it is the first food we par-
take of in the Waashat church ceremonies on Sunday, fresh fruits
festival, and “first salmon-catch” festivals (Dupris et al. 2006:
375).
All of this does not identify the stress and oppression felt by the population in
terms of loss of self-reliance. Tribes are attempting to heal themselves after trauma
through a process that is their own. In Minow’s book Between Vengeance and
Forgiveness: Facing History After Genocide and Mass Violence, she says, “The
language of healing casts the consequence of collective violence in terms of trauma;
the paradigm is health, rather than justice (Minow 1998).”
189
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
190
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
you need and let the rest grow,” but rather a means of respect and observance of my
“Take what you need
maternal family’s culture. Today there are diminished and extinct runs of salmon,
and let the rest
and only 6 remain of the former 60 edible roots (Foster 2006).
grow.”
The “Great River” passes through two countries and five states. The Columbia
River is not only a phenomenal powerhouse of energy generation and geographical
reach, it is a conduit of trade for nutrients from the Pacific to the interior brought
inland in the bodies of salmon. Returning anadromous fish ensure the survival of
other species’ profoundly honed hereditary strength and complex environments.
Diversity and cultured integrity of the living beings that accompany and feed upon
salmon require much of the same things to live. For example, the relationship of
Grizzly bear and salmon create soil enrichment in forests that were previously
unacknowledged and restricted. Each bear produces 400 pounds of nitrogen and
phosphorus a year (Hunt 2000). Their excrement fertilizes the soil. Without the
productivity of the land and water systems, we cannot live here. We cannot prosper.
Again, culture defines what productivity means.
Fish arrival was a communal event. My grandfather and great uncles fished at
Celilo Falls. They fished (dip-netting) from immense platforms built above the Without the produc-
white water on the “fishing rocks’’ above the falls. It was dangerous. Fishing chiefs tivity of the land and
conducted the catch and ceremony of first salmon of the season. The swallows led water systems, we
the way and notified the people of the first run of the indigenous calendar that cannot live here. We
begins with the spring equinox. cannot prosper.
Jesse Sampson, (Yakama) a fisher all his life, shared with me his memories of
his time at Celilo Falls before the backwaters of The Dalles Dam covered it. His
parents stayed in a tent, as they didn’t live there all year. Jesse is one of the few
fishers pulled into the whitewater of Celilo from a scaffold who lived to tell about
it. It happened twice! Living proof of “Safety First,” he used a safety rope as a
precaution. He was a child, after all. The 90-pound fish pulled him at 70 pounds
over into the whitewater. It went deep. It was a strong wild fish.
At Celilo he and a friend fished by invitation on the Big Island. Wilfred Yallup,
Sr., watched over them. Jesse’s mother worried and this care helped ease her mind.
The dangerous cable cars had some you could only pull by rope. You carefully
balanced yourself or tip over. He said, “The electric cable cars quit at a certain
time. If your camp was on the other side—tough! You stayed there until morning.”
His mother said each time he left for the island to be mindful. There was no way of
letting his parents know he was safe. Being stranded on the other side meant being
without electricity or communications.
191
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
192
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
The head chief told us that there was not a family in that whole
Nation that had not a home of its own. There was not a pauper in
that Nation and the Nation did not owe a dollar. It built its own
capitol… it built its schools and its hospitals. Yet the defect of the
system is apparent. They have not got as far as they can go,
because they own their land in common. It is Henry George’s
system and under that there is no enterprise to make your home
any better than that of your neighbors. There is no selfishness,
which is at the bottom of civilization. Till these people will consent
to give up their lands, and divide them among their citizens so that
each can own the land he cultivates they will not make much more
progress (USDI 1979: 15).
Indian tribes are basic units of Indian law. They are manifested in organic
powers of extreme diversity, with over 500 tribes in the lower 48 States and over
197 entities in Alaska recognized by the federal government. The Indian Reorgani-
zation Act of 1934 established federal recognition of 306 tribes and established a
myriad of governments with or without constitutions. The landscape is diverse and
For the tribes in the
the holdings ceded by treaty tremendous (Wilkinson 1987: 7).
Pacific Northwest,
Throughout the Indian policies of this country is one continuous thread of
a major decision
federal activity. Perhaps the policy of separatism, assimilation, and our modern era
occurred in 1974
of measuring out uniformity (insert conformity here as well) through law has been
in United States v.
the constant threads of contrast in the treatment of recognition of the sovereign
Washington (Boldt
status of tribes and treaty agreements through 200 years of time. “As long as the
decision). Judge
Indians believe that the salmon are important and that they have the legal right, the
Boldt mandated
treaties to uphold that, then the salmon will survive, but the non-Indians must
that a “fair share”
honor those treaties in order for that to happen, and when they honor the treaty, it
was 50 percent of
is not only the Indians that benefit, but all people will benefit,” Antone Minthorn,
the harvestable fish
Umatilla (CRITFC).
destined to pass the
For the tribes in the Pacific Northwest, a major decision occurred in 1974 in
tribes’ usual and
United States v. Washington (Boldt decision). Judge Boldt mandated that a “fair
accustomed fishing
share” was 50 percent of the harvestable fish destined to pass the tribes’ usual and
places and reaffirms
accustomed fishing places and reaffirms tribal management powers. Then in
tribal management
1984 the District Court and Ninth Circuit in plain language upheld the continuing
powers.
vitality of tribal water rights to support treaty harvest activities, and recognizing
that the rights enjoy a time immemorial priority date. See: United States v. Adair,
478 F. Supp. 336 (D. OR. 1979), aff’d 723 F.2d 1394 (9 Cir. 1984), cert. denied
193
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
476 U.S 1252 (1984). The Supreme Court has given the governments of our
th
country much to chew on. In many ways, late 19 -century ideas carry more import
on how we assign responsibility and how tribes operate within the political climates
of today.
From the Marshal Trilogy of 1823–1832, Chief Justice John Marshal conceived
of a model that tribes are independent sovereigns, unless Congress expresses limited
tribal powers. The tribes are essentially free of state control (Wilkinson 1987: 24):
These Tribes are the wards of the nation. They are communities
It is commonly
dependent on the United States. Dependent largely for their daily
recognized that
food. Dependent for their political rights. They owe no allegiance
tribal powers are
to the State and receive from them no pro-tection. Because of the
preconstitutional
local ill feeling, the people of the States where they are found are
and supremely
often their deadliest enemies. From their very weakness and
supported by the
helplessness, so largely due to the course of dealing of the Federal
constitution.
Government with them and the treaties in which it has been
promised, there arises the duty of protection, and with it the power.
This has always been recognized by the Executive and by
Congress, and by this court, whenever the question has arisen.
194
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Europe separated science from the spiritual many centuries ago. Western
thought separated the body from mind, and our bodies are representative of the
land. My grandmother said, “Someday the land will be our eyes and skin, again.”
The impact of thought upon outcome in our sciences is spiritual and also a tech-
nique for remembering our human health. The extinction of species is not loss
primarily to the biosphere, but loss to the definition and shape of the human being
as a species. Imagine the fade of old black-and-white propaganda, onward to the
dams with the salmon leaping resolutely against the dams and “best science.” Water
will become the next test of our tolerance and policy, as the salmon are today.
Policy and community interactions are paramount to the success of strategies
to recover salmon in the rivers, to recapture the prosperity of the salmon’s eco-
nomy for animal and people alike. It is also vital to the issues of dam removals and
repairing effects of wasteful practices in water usage. The effect of the Lower
Snake dams created desperate conditions for the tribes. Their construction has
“transformed the production function of the Snake River, taking Treaty-protected
wealth in salmon away from the tribes, while increasing the wealth of non-Indians
through enhanced production of electricity, agricultural products, transportation
services and other associated benefits. These impacts together with adverse effects
from pollution water diversion and other acts” (CRITFC and Meyer Resources
1999: 171). These potential toxins threaten water quality and the health of those
who depend on this water.
The EPA’s Environmental Justice Standards mean to ensure:
195
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Although the policy is clear, the means for environmental justice goes beyond
the removal of dams because they are inherently bad and short-lived machines.
Reporter Kjellstrand of the Spokane Review in 2000 delineated the matter in an
evocative manner, describing a set of circumstances, a rubbing of values that could
polish the gloss away to the beauty of human reconciliation:
The tribes bring their values to the table, said Arthur. It’s not just,
Oh, this is an environmentally good thing. It’s This is our culture,
this is our history, this is our religion.
196
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
pattern of removal of living beings and extinction that has occurred on the North
“As we are served,
American continent. Remember, “As we are served, we must also serve.” This is a
we must also
basic tenet of tribes who originally lived along the Columbia River. Teach your
serve.”
children the importance of respect for the self (their song, place and purpose) and
their many selves (species). Acknowledge that policy and legislative doctrines are
transitory and can be destructive. The tribes watch all activity with concerns for
everyone’s future, too. From time immemorial there was natural law, and it is
embodied in human spirit, body, and community. We must face who we are and
believe in what we are, that each heart is pure water, and we tend to its connection
to all beings and its elemental and potent force.
Metric Equivalents
When you know: Multiply by: To get:
1 pound 0.45 Kilograms
1 acre .40 Hectares
References
Casper, B. 2006. Tribal Elders urge young people to fight for Native rights.
Salem, OR: Statesman Journal. November 30. http://
www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/ 20061130/NEWS/
611300327/1001
Clausen, J. 2000. One fish, two fish: Northwest tribes fight against formidable
odds to save endangered salmon. New York: The Nation. January 24: 20.
197
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Dupris, J.C.; Hill, K.S.; Rodgers, W.H., Jr. 2006. The Si’lailo Way: Indians,
salmon, and law on the Columbia River. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic
Press. 450 p.
Egan, T. 2003. Looking backward and ahead at continent’s end. The New York
Times. August 4.
Hunt, E. 2000. Room for grizzlies in Paradise? Boston, MA: The Christian
Science Monitor. February 9.
Limerick, P.N. 2000. Something in the soil. New York: Norton. 384 p.
Minow, M.L. 1998. Between vengeance and forgiveness: facing history after
genocide and mass violence. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. 224 p.
Pearsall, P. 1998. The heart’s code. New York: Broadway Books. 304 p.
Preston, S.H.; Haines, M.R. 1991. Fatal years: child mortality in late nineteenth-
century America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 266 p.
198
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Wilkinson, C.F. 1987. American Indians, time, and the law. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press. 225 p.
Woody, E. 1994. A warrior and the glass prisoners. Seven hands, seven hearts.
Portland, OR. The Eighth Mountain Press. 192 p.
199
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
200
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Introduction
In the arid American West, outdoor recreation revolves around water—from small
streams to large rivers, modest waterholes to enormous lakes, and seeping springs
to lush meadows. Apart from the obvious attraction for boaters, anglers, and swim-
mers, water draws recreationists who enjoy scenic drives, birdwatching, picnics,
and hikes in the woods. Those managing public resources for recreational benefits
already understand the values of water but often lack sufficient understanding of
the institutions governing water use—that is, the laws, policies, and traditions that
define who owns water, who has a right to use it, and how one interest might be
protected from interference by another.
Western water policy is anything but an obscure or academic topic. As this is
written, farmers in Oregon’s Klamath River basin are wrangling with the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation over water deliveries from a federal project that serves both
irrigation and fish and wildlife habitat needs. The farmers have resorted to civil
disobedience to draw attention to the federal environmental laws that have reduced
(in some cases, eliminated) releases into their irrigation ditches in order to preserve
streamflows for endangered fish and wetlands habitat for other protected wildlife
species. For its part, the federal government is torn between conflicting obliga-
tions—promised deliveries to farmers who settled the lands decades ago with an
expectation of irrigation versus overriding congressional mandates to preserve
habitat for threatened and endangered species. It is a typical western water conflict,
with many interests asserting claims to a resource that simply cannot be engineered
to meet every possible demand. Here, as elsewhere, western water institutions lack
the necessary flexibility and room for contemplation necessary to resolve such
disputes.
This paper provides an overview of western water institutions with an emphasis
on the rules that directly influence public recreation management. State water
allocation laws in the Eastern United States reflect the relative abundance of
water in that region and operate on fundamentally different principles than the
1
Sarah Bates Van de Wetering writes about western natural resources law and policy; she
lives in Missoula, Montana.
201
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
prior appropriation doctrine. This paper addresses only the Western States, where
Water law often is
nearly all of the Nation’s public lands are located. Water law often is viewed as a
viewed as a complex
complex topic, but it is based on a small number of simple concepts readily under-
topic, but it is based
standable to the layperson. A basic comprehension of these fundamental principles
on a small number of
allows one to explore recent legal and policy developments that relate to recre-
simple concepts
ational uses of water. Therefore, this paper begins with an historical discussion of
readily understand-
western water institutions, focusing on the traditional means of allocating water,
able to the layper-
the doctrine known as “prior appropriation.”
son.
Prior Appropriation
Early water-use customs in the western territories of the United States developed
without the benefit of formal institutional structure. Opportunistic California
miners relied on rules of discovery and appropriation as the basis for their mineral
titles and applied the same concepts to the capture of water. This custom—often
referred to as “first in time, first in right”—became known as the prior appropria-
tion doctrine, and carried forward as the dominant rule of allocation in the arid
West.
Under the prior appropriation doctrine, one’s right to use water is based solely
on capture and possession (appropriation); if there is not enough water, the earlier
(prior) users have better rights than later users. This rule contrasts with the guiding
principle for water use in the Eastern States—the riparian doctrine—which ties
one’s water rights to accompanying ownership of the land along the watercourse
and requires that one’s use be “reasonable” in relation to the needs of others on the
202
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
stream. Western miners did not own the lands on which they sought gold (they
established mining claims on the public domain, owned by the U.S. government)
The prior appropria-
and typically needed to move water out of streams and over considerable distances
tion doctrine repre-
to meet their needs. Farmers requiring irrigation to grow their crops had similar
sents a utilitarian
needs, and the rule proved equally useful to aid their settlement, sometimes at a
approach to divid-
distance from available streams. They were able to claim rights of way to build
ing up a limited
ditches across public and privately held lands to bring water to where it was
resource.
needed.
Thus, the prior appropriation doctrine represents a utilitarian approach to
dividing up a limited resource. It protects those who have diverted water to produc-
tive uses (senior appropriators) against others who claim water later (junior appro-
priators), regardless of their position upstream or downstream. A water right holder
wishing to change his or her water use must prove that the new application will not
consume more water or otherwise change the stream conditions upon which other
appropriators rely.
Over time, Western States codified the prior appropriation rule in statutes and
regulations and added procedural requirements (such as filing for a permit), but the
rule’s basic foundation remains the same. The basic elements of a valid appropria-
tive water right are (1) intent to apply water to a beneficial use, (2) an actual
diversion of water from a natural source, and (3) application of the water to a
beneficial use within a reasonable time (Getches 1990). Traditionally, only utilitar-
ian uses such as agricultural, domestic, and industrial applications of water were
recognized as “beneficial” under the doctrine (Wilkinson 1989). Other than selected
industrial applications, such as navigation and hydroelectric power generation, the
rule did not recognize or protect instream uses such as recreational boating, swim-
ming, scenic preservation, or fish and wildlife habitat protection. At the time,
neither elected officials nor the powerful economic interests who influenced state
policies viewed such instream uses as being worthy of the same level of protection
as consumptive—usually extractive—applications of water (Wilkinson 1992).
203
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
State laws and regulations seek to protect public values through requirements
that water uses be consistent with the public interest, recognizing that the state has a
duty to supervise private water uses and ensure that they serve public values (Grant
1987). Most state laws set out specific factors to be considered in evaluating the
impact of a proposed new water use or change in water use, although the state of
Colorado requires no consideration of public interest in such reviews (Van de
Wetering and Adler 2000).
State courts have recognized water’s public values in a number of ways. Early
court decisions emphasized the utilitarian values of water, striking down wasteful
uses as not “beneficial” and refusing to recognize speculative claims to water. Early
cases focused on such agricultural practices as natural flood irrigation that tied up
an entire stream’s flow to supply an irrigator’s right to a lesser amount of water,
pumping water directly from a river for frost protection of vineyards, and irrigat-
ing fields during nongrowing seasons for such purposes as eradicating gophers
(Meyers et al. 1988).
More recent decisions, however, suggest stronger “public trust” duties on state
officials to oversee private water uses and make adjustments if the uses contradict
such broad public values as environmental protection. The leading case applying
this rule to western water rights is National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of
Alpine County (33 Cal.3d 419, 1983). That case arose in California’s Sierra Nevada
Mountains, where the City of Los Angeles had long diverted water from streams
feeding Mono Lake, a saline water body whose brine shrimp population and islands
provided important food and habitat for migratory birds using the Pacific flyway.
Thirty years of diversions depleted the lake level to the point that the brine shrimp
population died off and the islands became peninsulas, subjecting birds to preda-
tion. Applying the public trust doctrine–a rule derived from Roman and English
law, which says that the public has overriding rights on major rivers and lakes—
the California Supreme Court ordered that the city’s prior appropriation rights be
balanced against the public interest (Wilkinson 1992). The case settled with the city
agreeing to reduced diversions and restoring a lower, but more stable, water level in
the lake.
Following the 1983 Mono Lake decision, many advocates of traditional water
institutions feared that public trust review would eviscerate historical water rights,
but in fact few Western States followed California’s lead. Yet, a recent Hawaii
Supreme Court decision (Waihole Ditch, Case No. CCH-OA95-1, Aug. 22, 2000)
applied the public trust doctrine to require restoration of historical instream flows
204
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
when a water right holder proposed converting an irrigation ditch to a new use.
Evolving interpretations of the states’ powers under public interest review are
described in the “State Institutions” section below.
205
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
exerted its regulatory powers to protect environmental values through laws such
as the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and
various mandates for environmental restoration. The implications of the federal
government’s role in each of these examples are explored in more detail in the
“Federal Institutional Changes” section below.
In summary, the federal government maintained a background role as his-
torical water institutions developed in the Western United States. States established
the primary rules for allocation and management, although the federal authority
remained present and potentially strong. Only recently has the federal presence
become obvious and, some argue, dominant in the region (Getches 2001), shifting
the historical focus on utilitarian values of water to a broader emphasis on func-
tioning ecosystems.
Recreation interests
and others seeking Consequences of Historical Institutions
a place in the legal This review of institutional development is more than a historical curiosity. Because
priority system face these laws and policies place such emphasis on protecting existing uses, claims
numerous barriers. th
established in the 19 century continue to dominate western waterways. In many
areas of the West, streams are fully or overappropriated, and senior water users act
fully within their rights when they withdraw a stream’s entire flow. Fisheries,
riparian plants and animals, and recreational water users all suffer from stream
dewatering.
Recreation interests and others seeking a place in the legal priority system face
numerous barriers. First, until recently, states did not recognize instream flows and
recreational uses of water as “beneficial” and thus worthy of protection. Second,
even after state policies changed to recognize such uses, opportunities for acquiring
water rights are extremely limited; only the most junior (and thus least protected)
water rights are available. Modern approaches to overcome these barriers are the
focus of the latter part of this paper.
The large and impressive western water infrastructure—multipurpose dams,
reservoirs, pipelines, and canals—represents another legacy of historical water
institutions. Over two-thirds of the Nation’s 480 million acre-feet of water storage
facilities are located in the arid West, and most are managed by the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation (WWPRAC 1998). Other federal agencies with water management
authority over dams and water facilities include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.
206
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Most of these large water storage facilities were constructed before federal
requirements for review of economic costs or environmental consequences. Agen-
cies justified projects based on their engineering feasibility and their benefits to
agriculture, municipal, and industrial purposes; recreation and fish and wildlife
impacts were considered incidental and thus not fully evaluated (Getches 2001).
In many cases, the developments have favored recreation interests: lakes formed
behind dams have created popular boating and camping destinations, and cold-
water releases below reservoirs provide habitat for blue-ribbon trout fisheries.
Nonetheless, the overall impacts on riverine systems—and thus river-dependent
recreation—have been negative.
Dams have flooded valleys and displaced farmers and communities, blocked
or disrupted fish migrations, reduced naturally occurring flood frequencies and
magnitudes, disrupted natural temperature fluctuations, altered low flows (some-
times increased, sometimes decreased to zero), reduced sediment and nutrient
loads, changed channel-sediment characteristics (especially particle size and mobil-
ity), narrowed and shrunk river channels, changed channel patterns, and eliminated
flood plains (WWPRAC 1998).
In summary, western water institutions have left a powerful legacy, both on
the land and in the attitudes of those who put water to use in this arid region. State
and federal policies have evolved over time to accommodate changing public values
and new scientific information, but they must face the full implications of a well-
entrenched system rooted in past eras of national expansion and settlement.
Forces of Change
In the past three decades, public awareness of and concern for the environment
have grown dramatically. Although the American conservation movement’s roots
th
date back to the mid-19 century, modern environmentalism traces more recently to
such important events as the publication of Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring in
1962, the first Earth Day in 1970, and even the first photograph of Earth from
space in 1968 (Caldwell 1998). In short, public concerns reflected new comprehen-
sion of the relationship between the human condition and the planet’s well-being,
as well as new scientific understanding of the consequences of past actions. (More
recent indications of long-term climate change have demonstrated even more far-
reaching human impacts on the global environment.) Congress responded with a
host of environmental laws in the 1960s and 1970s, many of which included the
opportunity for citizen input and citizen lawsuits challenging agency decisions.
207
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
208
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
209
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Like the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (discussed in the federal
section below), state statutes such as these provide important safeguards for rivers
whose values would be diminished by impoundments. Beyond prohibiting dams
and similar structures, however, most have not proven to be strong sources of direc-
tion for such agencies. In California, for example, state officials interpreted the law
to allow a significant diversion project upstream of a designated river segment,
concluding that the legislature “did not intend to assure any particular quantity of
water in a designated stream” (Gray 1989). Montana’s Recreational Waterway
Program, created through an administrative rule, provides even less protection—
little more than an identification of high-priority rivers that warrant further protec-
tion through federal designation or instream flow protection through other state
programs (Gillilan and Brown 1997).
211
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Although the public interest review process is limited by the discretion it places
on administrators, the public trust doctrine elevates the state’s role of continuing
oversight to an enforceable duty. The public trust doctrine declares that states hold
title to the beds and banks of navigable waters (defined very broadly to include
Some Western streams navigable by pleasure boats), which they are to manage in trust for the
States have inter- public and which they may not convey for private uses unless there is an overrid-
preted the public ing public purpose (Getches 1990). As described above, the leading judicial deci-
trust doctrine to sion on this issue (National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County)
guarantee public suggested that state agencies have an ongoing duty to review and adjust existing
recreational access water uses to ensure the protection of public values including environmental pro-
to navigable water- tection. Although that case did not deal with recreational issues, some Western
ways crossing pri- States have interpreted the public trust doctrine to guarantee public recreational
vate lands. access to navigable waterways crossing private lands (Covell 1998).
In any event, the National Audubon decision did not require that the state
restrict water diversions (although that was the eventual outcome of the case), but
rather that public trust values be balanced with private uses. The court noted that,
“the prosperity and habitability of much of this state requires the diversion of great
quantities of water from its streams for purposes unconnected to any navigation,
commerce, fishing, recreation, or ecological use related to the source stream.”
Thus, the court proposed “a merging of the public trust and prior appropriation
doctrines into a single, cohesive system of allocating water that would recognize
both public and private values” (Gillilan and Brown 1997).
212
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
pollutants allows all appropriators to make reasonable uses of the water” (Getches
et al. 1991). Recreationists and other instream users benefit when instream flows
are maintained for water quality protection. Conversely, water quality is a benefit
not often recognized when justifying instream flow protection programs for fish,
wildlife, recreation, and scenic purposes. Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington
are among the few Western States that provide for instream flow protection specifi-
cally aimed at water quality protection (Covell 1998).
213
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
214
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
215
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
enhancement (Covell 1998). Colorado allows only the Colorado Water Conserva-
tion Board to acquire existing water rights for instream flow purposes; as men-
tioned above, in-channel diversions for recreation are recognized as a separate
creature and may only be held by governmental entities (Benson 2006). Arizona,
which is a leader in allowing private parties to hold instream flow rights, has not
allowed senior offstream rights to be converted to instream flows (Sterne 1997).
Montana enacted a new instream flow leasing statute in 1995, which allows any
party to lease others’ water rights for up to 10 years “for the benefit of the fishery
resource.” According to one observer, the leasing program wisely empowers priv-
ate parties to help protect instream flows: “Many interests in Montana are reticent
to deal with the state . . . In addition, private parties frequently have better contacts
in the community and are more successful at finding potential leases because they
are comfortable operating in the free market” (Sterne 1997). Sometimes leases may
be in the form of a “dry year option,” in which the purchaser pays the water right
holder a sort of insurance fee to maintain the option of leasing water during
drought years (Gillilan and Brown 1997). Another temporary option is a state-run
“water bank,” which helps broker temporary deals among water users, including
those willing to finance instream flows (MacDonnell et al. 1994). The state of
Idaho allowed temporary lease arrangements to aid salmon migration in the 1990s
(Crammond 1996). Although they offer less than permanent protection for recre-
ation and other instream interests, such temporary arrangements may prove least
objectionable to senior water rights holders concerned about the impact of instream
flow water rights (Gillilan and Brown 1997).
216
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
acknowledged that federal water resources programs have evolved from regional
project development to resource management, although it concluded that “the
federal government’s transition from regional developer to resource manager is
still incomplete.” Despite dramatic shifts in guiding policies, “In actual practice, The federal govern-
federal policies and programs related to western water present a far from coherent ment has played
and integrated approach to sustainable water use.” The study observed that the most an important role
important impacts of a changing federal role have not been the decline of water throughout western
projects or the implementation of new initiatives such as pollution control and water development
endangered species protection, but rather “the emergence of efforts across the West and continues to do
to integrate a far broader and more complex set of interests into the governance of so, increasingly as
western water” (WWPRAC 1998). an enforcer of envi-
The federal government has played an important role throughout western water ronmental regula-
development and continues to do so, increasingly as an enforcer of environmental tions and as a
regulations and as a source of resources for environmental restoration. The follow- source of resources
ing sections provide an overview of federal laws and programs that help define the for environmental
government’s influence in the region. restoration.
217
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
218
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” with an interim goal of restoring
swimmable, fishable waters by 1983. The law includes two kinds of pollution
control standards: effluent standards, limiting concentrations of pollutants at their
source; and ambient water quality standards, limiting pollutant concentrations in
streams (Getches 1990).
Although many aspects of the CWA have influenced recreational opportunities
on rivers, one of the most important is section 404, which requires a person to
obtain a permit from Army Corps of Engineers before discharging any dredge
or fill materials into waters of the United States. “Discharges” include construction
of dams, stabilization projects, and similar structures, which may impact river-
dependent recreation. This broad jurisdiction extends beyond navigable waters to
include tributaries, and to any waterways used in interstate commerce, including
rivers used by interstate travelers for recreation (Getches 1990). Once the Corps has
issued a permit, the Environmental Protection Agency has an opportunity to review
and veto the permit.
Another important component of the CWA is section 303, which requires states
to identify “water quality-limited” segments of streams and to establish “total
maximum daily loads” (TMDLs) for each, allocating the total allowable waste load
among all river users. The TMDL process now underway in many Western States
offers opportunities for a variety of river users to participate in river planning and
protection (Pitzer 2001). States are required to prioritize stream segments based on
a number of factors, including “recreational, economic, and aesthetic importance,”
and then develop allowable TMDLs appropriate to these priorities (WWPRAC
1998).
219
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
The ESA thus placed a new overlay of restrictions on the land use and resource
management activities of agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management, and vested the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the respon-
sibility to protect and recover species heading toward extinction. Its prohibitions on
“takings” (which includes modifying a species’ critical habitat) extended further to
include private landowners.
The ESA’s protection of endangered species’ habitat may benefit recreation
interests by maintaining streamflows and natural river conditions. In some in-
stances, however, federal efforts to protect and restore endangered species habitat
can negatively impact recreationists. For example, a native fish restoration initiative
may involve eliminating or reducing populations of nonnative fish that provide a
valuable sport fishery. Similarly, a program to increase streamflows for endangered
fish may require extra releases from upstream reservoirs, thus lowering water levels
and decreasing opportunities for flat-water recreation.
Restoration Laws
In the past decade, Congress enacted several laws calling for large-scale restoration
of river environments. The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4600),
for example, ordered the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to change the way it operates
the Glen Canyon Dam in order to improve the downstream riparian and aquatic
habitats. As a result of the act, the bureau conducted an experimental “flood flow”
in 1996—a large release intended to mimic historical spring runoff conditions in
which high water levels with heavy sediment loads restored beaches and revitalized
backwater native fish-rearing habitats. The act explicitly directed the bureau to
manage the Glen Canyon Dam to protect, mitigate, and improve the natural and
cultural resources of the river downstream—a dramatic expansion of the project’s
purposes when compared with the original authorizing legislation (NRLC 1997).
In another example of legislatively mandated habitat restoration, the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4706-4731) directed the
Secretary of the Interior to dedicate and manage annually 800,000 acre-feet of
water from the Central Valley Project for the primary purpose of fish, wildlife,
and habitat restoration in California’s vast and fertile Sacramento-San Joaquin
River Valley. Although this water was classified as “surplus,” irrigators participating
in the large federal project had enjoyed its use during dry years, and thus faced cut-
backs as a result of the new emphasis on habitat restoration (MacDonnell 1999).
The act also required these water users to pay surcharges on irrigation water to
220
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
221
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
222
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Wind River Tribes’ reserved rights for instream purposes as the court reasoned, the
“Indian” water was reserved solely for agricultural purposes (In Re the General
Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System and All
Other Sources, 835 P.2d 273, 1992).
223
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
224
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
rapid growth of such initiatives to (1) the principle of regionalism as a basis for
resources management and environmental-human integration, and (2) the growing
societal preference for strategies of governance and problemsolving stressing
collaborative approaches (Kenney et al. 2000). Other observers noted that the
increase in collaborative, place-based initiatives followed federal agencies’ shift to
ecosystem management, which requires managers to work across jurisdictional
boundaries and cooperate with private landowners (Babcock 1996, Cestero 1999).
Certainly the budget cuts of the 1980s and 1990s left federal resource agencies
short-staffed, leaving little choice but to form outside partnerships to accomplish
habitat restoration and public education (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Finally, a
strong undercurrent of local watershed initiatives appears to be a desire for local
control—protection of existing economic activities and “a desire to reduce the
influence of ‘outsiders,’ such as government agencies, nonresident environmental-
ists, and federal courts” (Benson 1996).
The watershed phenomenon includes a diverse array of approaches. Larger
scale efforts typically involve more government participants, official recognition,
and formal procedures for stakeholder participation and decisionmaking. Groups
focused on smaller areas often operate outside of official government channels and
may demonstrate considerable flexibility in the issues they address. Examples of
each type are described briefly below.
225
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
water supply (NRLC 1997). The process grew from the state’s failure to adopt a
satisfactory water quality plan to stem declining fish populations in the Bay-Delta
and its tributaries (WWPRAC 1998). As one key public official later observed,
“Water users frequently need external incentives to put water on the table for en-
vironmental protection—whether those incentives are federal mandates, federal
dollars, or something else” (Rieke 1996). The CALFED process effectively identi-
fied both the appropriate incentives and the most practical solutions by bringing
together a diverse array of regulators, resource users, and other interests.
Another far-reaching initiative deals with conflicts between water users
and threatened and endangered species on the North and South Platte Rivers in
Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming. After 20 years of conflict and litigation, in
1997, these states signed a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to embark on a joint program of habitat restoration and improved water
management (Getches 2001). As with the CALFED process, a federal agency
participant observed that the likelihood of onerous regulation under the ESA
provided water users and state agencies with the incentive to come to the table to
resolve difficult environmental issues (WWPRAC 1998). Although not signatories
to the cooperative agreement, environmental groups participated in the discussions
leading up to the Platte River accord and are actively involved in its implementa-
tion (Getches 2001).
The Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 created the
Northwest Power Planning Council, a multistate water planning agency that seeks
to coordinate the management of water, energy production, and fish and wildlife
resources in the Columbia River basin. Council members representing each of the
Large-scale water basin states (Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington) develop plans, which are
management deci- implemented by federal agencies and financed by hydropower revenues (Wilkinson
sions have opened 1989). The council adopted an adaptive management approach to protect and
up to a wider array enhance salmon and steelhead runs in the Columbia River and its tributaries.
of interests, often In an example more directly related to river recreation, the Glen Canyon Dam’s
as a result of adaptive management program, mentioned earlier, relies on a review team includ-
federal mandates ing representatives of states, Indian tribes, electric power purchasers, recreational
for resource pro- users, federal agencies, and environmentalists (Getches 2001). The group works to
tection and public ensure that the Bureau of Reclamation operates the dam not only to provide hydro-
participation. electric power, but also to fulfill the recreational, environmental, and cultural
purposes mandated in the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992.
Each of these examples demonstrates that large-scale water management
decisions have opened up to a wider array of interests, often as a result of federal
226
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
227
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
The Deschutes River Basin Conservancy grew from an effort by the Confeder-
ated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation and the Environmental Defense Fund
to improve streamflows and water quality in the Deschutes River, a popular recre-
ation site and important habitat for salmon and steelhead trout. In 1992, these
organizers brought together representatives of the major economic sectors in the
basin, who then worked to develop incentive-based approaches to deal with basin
problems. Among the solutions were pilot projects to improve agricultural water
distribution efficiency, with half of the saved water dedicated to instream flows
and half to farming operations. The group also leases water for instream flows. The
conservancy is now chartered as a private corporation, receiving federal matching
funds to support its work. Conservancy board members represent the basin’s cattle,
agricultural, environmental, recreational, tribal, hydropower, and land development
communities (WWPRAC 1998).
A watershed council in the Upper Clark Fork River basin of Montana formed
in response to anglers’ concerns about low streamflows during irrigation season.
Although their senior water rights allow diversion throughout the summer months,
farmers participating in facilitated discussions agreed to reduce their withdrawals
during critical dry periods to maintain the fishery (Bates et al. 1993) and to a
moratorium on new surface water rights from the river (Benson 1996). In return,
the state agreed to delay seeking additional instream flow protection through its
reservation process. The legislature subsequently adopted the plan developed
through a citizen-led collaborative process, and authorized the group to continue its
work: “review the progress of management actions, make recommendations to the
Montana Legislature, and serve as coordinator and facilitator on water issues in the
Upper Clark Fork Basin” (Benson 1996).
Local watershed groups may be, but typically are not, organized by state or
federal government officials. Only the states of Oregon and Washington explicitly
encourage their formation, although other states authorize their agencies to work
cooperatively with such groups (Getches 2001). Financial and in-kind support
from federal agencies is often crucial to watershed groups’ day-to-day operations,
including direct staff assistance, copying and mailing services, and access to other
resources. According to the researcher who documented the strong reliance on
federal funds, this government support “creates an arguably healthy ‘codepend-
ency’ situation that is crucial to the success of these efforts: The watershed initia-
tives need Federal resources to survive, while Federal agencies find the initiatives
essential to the efficient implementation of their mandates” (Kenney 1997).
228
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
229
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has negotiated many transfers of water rights
in the Western United States. As mentioned above in the section on state innova-
tions, the first privately held instream flow right in Arizona was acquired by TNC,
arguably the only private party with the financial resources and access to scientific
expertise to satisfy the many bureaucratic hurdles in establishing such a right. In
states not permitting private parties to hold instream flow rights, such as Colorado,
TNC negotiates three-way deals in which the conservation organization pays a
senior water rights holder to transfer his or her right to the state board authorized
to hold instream flow rights.
Since 1993, the Oregon Water Trust has acquired consumptive water rights
from existing users and transferred them to instream uses in the state of Oregon.
In some cases, the organization purchases or obtains donations of permanent water
rights (donors receive tax benefits for charitable contributions); in other instances it
obtains water through leases ranging from 1- to 10-year terms. In one transaction,
for example, the trust created a lease agreement by which an irrigator ceased with-
drawing water from Buck Hollow Creek, a tributary of the Deschutes River, during
the critical late summer when steelhead salmon depend on the flow. In return, the
trust purchased hay to replace the pasture hay previously irrigated with the stream
water, so the rancher is able to continue his cattle raising operation (NRLC 1997).
The trust seeks to hold—not just broker—instream flow rights, and thus is seeking
legal changes to allow private parties to hold such rights in Oregon (Sterne 1997).
Often private party intermediaries are not involved in instream-flow acquisi-
tions. State and federal agencies are engaged in a variety of efforts to obtain and
convert valuable senior water rights from consumptive uses to instream uses. For
example, the Northwest Power Planning Council, described above, seeks to re-
store declining salmon runs by leasing water through its Columbia River Fish and
Wildlife Program. The Bonneville Power Authority, the quasi-federal agency that
markets power from the Columbia River basin, leases the greatest amount of water
for instream flow in the basin (Crammond 1996).
Several states have established water leasing funds, intended to provide a source
of reliable instream flows for state agencies (and sometimes others) while protect-
ing the property rights of senior water rights holders. For example, Washington’s
Trust Water Rights Program obtains water rights through lease, gift, bequest, pur-
chase, and “net water savings” (water saved through conservation measures). The
state Department of Ecology holds and administers trust water rights, applying the
water for instream flows, irrigation, municipal, or other beneficial uses (Benson
230
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
1996). Private parties may participate by providing the water right or paying for
the state’s acquisition through the trust program (Crammond 1996).
Montana’s water leasing statute, enacted in 1995, authorizes “the temporary use
of existing water rights for instream flow to benefit the fishery resource.” The law
allows individuals, associations, partnerships, and corporations to lease water rights
through this program, so long as they can show that the instream flow transfer will
benefit fish and will not injure other water rights holders (Crammond 1996).
For their part, government officials have little choice but to pay attention to the
diverse interests now demanding to be heard on water issues. Recreationists and
231
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
others are increasingly willing to pay for adequate instream flows, whether by
supporting private litigation challenging historical water distribution or by their
contributions to private organizations that acquire water rights for instream flows.
Innovative partnerships such as those described near the end of this paper offer
encouraging direction for those wishing to work toward common goals for healthy,
diverse, and productive rivers. Yet the fundamentally rigid western water institu-
tional structures remain a significant barrier to a full representation of recreational
and other “nontraditional” water interests.
Metric Equivalents
When you know: Multiply by: To get:
1 acre 0.40 Hectares
1 foot .3048 Meters
References
Babcock, H.M. 1996. Dual regulation, collaborative management, or layered
federalism: Can cooperative federalism models from other laws save our public
lands? Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy.
3(2): 193–208.
Barringer, F. “On the Snake River, dam’s natural allies seem to have a change of
heart,” New York Times (May 13, 2007)
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/us/
13dam.html?ex=1336795200&en=9406844d3edf4b6a&ei=5124&partner
=newsvine&exprod=newsvine).
Bates, S.F.; Getches, D.H.; MacDonnell, L.J.; Wilkinson, C.F. 1993. Searching
out the headwaters: change and rediscovery in western water policy.
Washington, DC: Island Press. 253 p.
Caldwell, L.K. 1998. The National Environmental Policy Act: an agenda for the
future. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 209 p.
232
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Carson, R. 1962. (2000 ed.). Silent spring. New York: Houghton Mifflin 400 p.
Covell, C.F. 1998. A survey of state instream flow programs in the Western United
States. University of Denver Water Law Review. 1(1): 177–205.
Crammond, J.D. 1996. Leasing water rights for instream flow uses: a survey of
water transfer policy, practices, and problems in the Pacific Northwest.
Environmental Law. 26(1): 225–263.
Getches, D.H. 1990. Water law in a nutshell. 2d ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing
Co. 439 p.
Getches, D.H. 2001. The metamorphosis of western water policy: Have federal
laws and local decisions eclipsed the states’ role? Stanford Environmental Law
Journal. 20(1): 3–72.
Getches, D.H.; MacDonnell, L.J.; Rice, T.A. 1991. Controlling water use: the
unfinished business of water quality protection. Boulder, CO: Natural Re-
sources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law. 151 p.
Gillilan, D.M. 1998. Will there be water for the national forests? University
Colorado Law Review. 69(2): 533–596.
Gillilan, D.M.; Brown, T.C. 1997. Instream flow protection: seeking a balance in
western water use. Washington, DC: Island Press. 417 p.
Grant, D. 1987. Public interest review of water right allocation and transfer in the
West: recognition of public values. Arizona State Law Journal. 19(4): 681–718.
Kenney, D.S. 2000. Arguing about consensus: examining the case against western
watershed initiatives and other collaborative groups active in natural resources
management. Boulder, CO: Natural Resources Law Center, University of
Colorado School of Law. 72 p.
233
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Kenney, D.S.; McAllister, S.T.; Caile, W.H.; Peckham, J.S. 2000. The new
watershed source book: a directory and review of watershed initiatives in the
Western United States. Boulder, CO: Natural Resources Law Center, University
of Colorado School of Law. 427 p.
MacDonnell, L.J.; Howe, C.W.; Miller, K.A.; Rice, T.A.; Bates, S.F. 1994.
Water banks in the West. Boulder, CO: Natural Resources Law Center,
University of Colorado School of Law. 200 p.
Meyers, C.J.; Tarlock, A.D.; Corbridge, J.N.; Getches, D.H. 1988. Water re-
source management: a casebook in law and public policy. Mineola, NY: The
Foundation Press, Inc. 1063 p.
National Research Council [NRC]. 1996. A new era for irrigation. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press. 203 p.
Natural Resources Law Center [NRLC]. 1997. Restoring the waters. Boulder,
CO: University of Colorado School of Law. 64 p.
Pitzer, G. 2001. TMDLs: A tool for better water quality? Western Water.
Sacramento, CA: Water Education Foundation: 4–13.
Reisner, M. 1995. The fight for reclamation. High Country News. March 20:
27(5):1.
Reisner, M.; Bates, S. 1990. Overtapped oasis: reform or revolution for western
water. Washington, DC: Island Press. 196 p.
Rieke, E.A. 1996. The Bay-Delta accord: a stride toward sustainability. University
of Colorado Law Review. 67(2): 341–369.
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance [SUWA]. 1994. Why one advocacy group
steers clear of consensus efforts. High Country News. May 30; 20(10).
Sterne, J. 1997. Instream rights and invisible hands: prospects for private instream
water rights in the Northwest. Environmental Law. 27(1): 203–243.
234
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Tarlock, A.D.; Tippy, R. 1970. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. Cornell
Law Review. 55(2): 707–739.
Tarlock, A.D.; Van de Wetering, S.B. 1999. Growth management and western
water: from urban oases to archipelagos. Hastings West-Northwest Journal of
Environmental Law and Policy. 5(2): 163–188.
Tarlock, A.D.; Van de Wetering, S.B. 2006. “Western growth and sustainable
water use: If there are no “natural limits, should we worry about water
supplies? Public Land and Resources Law Review. 27(1): 33–74.
Van de Wetering, S.; Adler, R.W. 2000. New directions in western water law:
Conflict or collaboration? Journal of Land, Resources and Environmental Law.
20(1): 15–40.
Weiss, W. 1998. The Federal Government’s pursuit of instream flow water rights.
University of Denver Water Law Review. 1(1): 151–176.
Wilkinson, C.F. 1989. Aldo Leopold and western water law: thinking perpend-
icular to the prior appropriation doctrine. Land & Water Law Review. 24(1):
1–38.
Wilkinson, C.F. 1992. Crossing the next meridian: land, water, and the future of
the West. Washington, DC: Island Press. 389 p.
235
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
236
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Introduction
At the very point in time that symbolic values of water are being increasingly mar-
ginalized in a society that has become more consumer oriented and instrumental in
its view of the biophysical world and how humans relate to it, there is an accelerat-
ing interest in water as symbol, as aesthetic, and as a recreational attribute.
The exploration of symbolic values in this book has occurred within the con-
text of this collision in perspectives. Our descriptions of nonutilitarian values, using
recreation as the shadow measure are, we recognize, inadequate, if only because
our language is missing the vocabulary to discuss symbolic values. Water has sym-
Many conflicts over
bolic value, most fundamentally as representation of life. Although these symbolic
water surfaces are
values are tightly held by many groups and individuals, they are difficult to iden-
underlain by differ-
tify, measure, and discuss within the classical paradigm of rational comprehensive
ing valuations of
planning: How does one explain the spiritual values of a waterfall? The meanings
those symbolic
of a lake where one was married? Or, the family remembrances triggered by the
values.
gurgle of a shadowed stream?
However, their difficulty of measurement and lack of direct instrumental utility
to society does not mean they are unimportant to society, to groups within society,
or to specific individuals. Indeed, many conflicts over water surfaces are underlain
by differing valuations of those symbolic values.
In this chapter, we synthesize our exploration of symbolic values, discuss the
barriers to understanding them, and suggest a way forward. As part of this discus-
sion, we provide a critique of the current institutional environment for considering
symbolic values, as it is largely responsible for the inadequate attention given to
them in planning and management.
1
Stephen McCool was a professor (now retired), Wildland Recreation Management,
College of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812. Roger Clark and
George Stankey were social scientists (now retired), U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; Clark was at the Pacific Wildland Fire
th
Science Laboratory, 400 N 34 St., Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103, and Stankey was at the
Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331.
237
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
238
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
239
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
integration and the conception of symbolic uses and values. Both terms are subject
to varying interpretations, and the resulting lack of clarity and consensus make it
difficult to assess and evaluate performance or develop strategies and policies.
Current organizational processes and structures often are at odds with integra-
tive approaches. Structures tied to specific resource systems (e.g., wildlife, timber,
recreation) and processes such as budgeting systems combine to maintain reduction-
ist, segregated management approaches. This is challenging enough for achieving
Current organiza- integration among conventional uses and values of resources and even more so
tional processes when symbolic uses and values, whose presence and legitimacy is problematic for
and structures many, are involved.
often are at odds Because managing for an integrated approach and addressing symbolic values
with integrative and uses involve risk and uncertainty, organizational leadership that provides sup-
approaches. port, direction and vision, and a sense of legitimacy and importance to such activi-
ties are critical. All too often, risk-aversion dominates these situations and aggres-
sive, proactive steps will be required to overcome this tendency. Unfortunately,
such leadership typically is lacking, either within the organizational hierarchy or
throughout the organizational structure. In the absence of leadership, the natural
tendency is to revert to maintaining the status quo and rejecting options that involve
risk and uncertainty. Of course, maintaining the status quo is itself an approach
containing risks and uncertainty, although perhaps distributed differently.
Implementing integrative approaches to accommodate symbolic uses is also
challenged by population changes that lead to new uses and espouse different
values (from those held by previous users and by managers) and expectations.
These changes are fed by structural shifts in the Nation’s population (e.g., aging,
ethnicity) and by internal migration. Collectively, they place resource management
decisionmaking in a turbulent social milieu where little is constant. The capacity
of contemporary organizations to operate effectively in such an environment is
limited; again, the propensity to avoid any likelihood of making a mistake accounts
for part of the problem. Although such changes require that organizations operate
deftly and creatively, bureaucracies are not particularly noted as centers of innova-
tion nor are they adaptable.
However, a number of other issues that require attention are mentioned below:
• There is a lack of venues and opportunities to discuss emerging concerns,
interests, values, and uses that require particular management attention in
a nonthreatening manner. Venues that focus on learning in the long term
are often lacking; most public engagement processes are oriented toward
240
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
241
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
of two things can happen. First, they simply are ignored or discounted. Second,
they are taken into account, but their representation is in the form of some approxi-
mation, often expressed in quantitative or monetary terms that do little justice to
the richness of their meaning.
For example, in early efforts to develop cost/benefit ratios for various
water development projects, it was common to assign standardized average perday
economic values to water-based recreation participation. However, such measures
derived from an implicit assumption that different forms of recreation (e.g.,
reservoir-based fishing vs. whitewater rafting) were of equivalent value to partici-
pants (e.g., one recreation visitor-day was worth $3.00, irrespective of whether it
was spent fishing from the shore or whitewater rafting). This contributed to a bias
that would, by definition, assign the highest economic value to those activities with
the highest levels of participation. Employing such an approach created a decision
environment that would disenfranchise certain types of uses and values by establish-
ing systematically biased evaluation processes and criteria. It also manifested the
dilemma of evaluating and managing all resource uses and values by using the same
In many cases, the
models and metrics as used for traditional commodity activities and values. Citizen
institutions that
comments on the limitations of these values and the approaches to identify them
served us well in
were often discounted as emotional, anecdotal, and experiential.
the past have out-
lived their intended
Institutional Design: A Critical Element in Water
missions, objec-
tives, and in some
Management
cases, usefulness. A serious challenge to sustaining symbolic values lies in the confounding, often
conflicting array of administrative rules and regulations, laws, planning frame-
works, and other policies and procedures that govern how society administers the
various uses of, and demands for, water resources. In many cases, the institutions
that served us well in the past have outlived their intended missions, objectives,
and in some cases, usefulness (Wilkinson 1992). Today, they are ill-suited to deal-
ing effectively with many of the contentious, value-based conflicts facing water
resource management.
But if existing institutions are inadequate, what would be the characteristics
of new, more effective ones? Both scholars and practitioners acknowledge that the
concept of institutions is confusing, but they also agree that institutional reform is
key to more effective management. In the simplest terms, institutions include the
array of means people use to solve social problems. This includes everything from
242
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
243
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Identify Values
Clearly, a program to identify what information is needed in water allocation
decisions—that include symbolic values—is needed. Such a program would have
Before values can
several thrusts; for example, research is needed to identify symbolic values of
be measured or
water. This will be difficult because our suspicion is that such values are highly
managed, they first
culture- and place-based, nonquantitative, and will be difficult to situate within a
need to be mapped,
synoptic planning system. But before values can be measured or managed, they
and mapping will
first need to be mapped, and mapping will take time and investment. Such mapping
take time and
processes would be driven primarily by the question, “What values exist here and
investment.
for whom are they values?” Such research would also emphasize mechanisms that
everyday managers could use to identify values in specific situations.
In this arena, we would envision research pointed toward such questions as:
What values of water exist in a particular place? Why do they exist there? What is
the range of public preferences for values? How do they rank? How are such values
linked to other uses and values of landscapes, such as quality of life?
Consider Values
Although research to identify values is needed, some mechanism is required to
understand the relative significance of these values to the groups affected. This is
difficult, and we suggest it goes far beyond reducing such values to the nonmarket
economics paradigm that dominates valuation discussion today. Although such eco-
nomic approaches may be needed, they are not necessarily adequate for the task.
And there is much debate about their meaning, applicability, and appropriateness
for many water-related decisions.
Here, we would suggest a number of questions that are important for managers:
How do various values and uses interact? What are the costs and tradeoffs involved
in managing for one use over another? What about the secondary and tertiary con-
sequences of preferring one value over another? How does our current institutional
environment elevate some values over others? What is the level of public accept-
ability for some uses versus other values? How does the public view the legitimacy
244
Water and People: Challenges at the Interface of Symbolic and Utilitarian Values
Manage Values
Managing water-based values requires understanding of how such values interact
with each other, the preferences of the population served, and processes that make
clear the values involved and reflect public preferences and notions of acceptability.
Various values and uses of water differ in how much they compete with each other: Because frame-
some are simply zero-sum conflicts, whereas management for some values, such as works do not
fisheries habitat, may enhance other values, such as aesthetics. exist, symbolic
We noted above the need to develop conceptual frameworks for identifying, values are likely
measuring, and valuing all uses and values of water. A similar task is needed for to be marginalized,
management: processes and frameworks that will ensure that all values are consid- even if they can be
ered. These frameworks not only illuminate decisionmaking processes, they help identified.
managers “work through” complex and controversial issues. There are few such
frameworks for recreation (see McCool et al. 2007), and none that we know of for
symbolic values. Because frameworks do not exist, symbolic values are likely to be
marginalized, even if they can be identified. Generally speaking, successful frame-
works have been those that have been collaboratively developed by managers and
scientists. Here, we would advocate an even more inclusive approach, given the
character of the values involved, by including informed citizens in the development
of these frameworks.
Several questions arise here: How can more inclusive processes of water man-
agement be developed? Who should be involved in such development? How can a
process be designed to give equal treatment to utilitarian and symbolic values?
Should decisionmaking frameworks give equal treatment? How can processes
explicate tradeoffs?
Conclusion
Clearly, people are confronted with growing collisions in the use of water for dif-
fering purposes. Not only are these collisions occurring among competing utilitar-
ian uses, but as we have argued here, we anticipate growing conflict with symbolic
values. Although utilitarian uses are easily measured and valued, the symbolic ones
are not. And although institutions designed to allocate and manage water among
utilitarian uses are well developed, most such institutions are not well equipped to
address symbolic values.
245
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-729
Because such values are not easily measured and quantified, they tend, at best,
to be ignored or forgotten in water allocation and management, and at worst, delib-
erately marginalized as only values that some people, acting in their self-interest,
would like to protect. We have no specific answers to these issues, but as a first
step, we have attempted here to provide the reader with some awareness of the
dimensionality of this issue. Answers are for other people with an interest in this
issue.
Although we have no answers, raising awareness is a critical first step in work-
ing through the various challenges posed by the growing social interest in symbolic
values. We have attempted to articulate these values by using recreation as a shadow
or representation of the symbolic values. We recognize this is problematic in itself
as recreation’s reliance on water may be largely, but not solely, utilitarian itself.
Nevertheless, our discussion of recreation may provide some important clues for
further deliberation about symbolic uses of water.
Literature Citations
Clark, R.N.; Stankey, G.H. 2006. Integrated research in natural resources: the
key role of problem framing. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-678. Portland, OR:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station. 63 p.
Clarke, J.N.; McCool, D. 1996. Staking out the terrain: power differentials
among natural resource agencies. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press. 279 p.
Orr, D.W. 1993. Ecological literacy: education and the transition to a postmodern
world. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 210 p.
Wilkinson, C. 1992. Crossing the next meridian: land, water, and the future of the
West. Washington DC: Island Press. 389 p.
246
Pacific Northwest Research Station
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300