Public Disclosure Authorized

POLICY

RESEARCH

WORKING

PAPER

'; 3;.

'3

.6

;-

<.~~~~.3

Public Disclosure Authorized

Planning, Development,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~''1

=,',-i,,.S, , ,, sff,,aS~' \:
Ur, Ide *;,*

Review of Integrated Approaches to River Basin Plannlng, Development,

and Management
Donnaj. Lee 15 Ariel Dinar.- -

recreaceonal demande

-onYIePalJl -antS
muricple ultJ

Public Disclosure Authorized

Public Disclosure Authorized

planninig3.eDvi

*3

3. ,

Agiulua Api 199

Policies Diiso
-.
'

U
,

'f,

-0

REVIEW OF INTEGRATFD APPROACHES TO RIVER BASIN PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT

DonnaJ. Lee
Department of Economics UniversityofBHawaii

Ariel Dinar
Agriculture and Natual Resources Department AgriculturalPolicies Division World Bank

TABLE OF CONTE:NTS INTRODUCTION RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT MODELING APPROACHES FOR RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT Use of models Static vs. dynamic Deterministic vs. stochastic Singlevs. multipleobjective Economic vs. engineering Model limitation, strengths and weaknesses Model design Model spcification SELECTED REVIEW OF EXISTING MODELS Development Operations Water quantity and quality Water quality Recreational demand for water Country-wide water use planning Multiple use planning BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE PLANNING AND MANAGEENiNT Informational barriers Physicalbarriers Interbasin transfer Institutional Barriers Application Barriers SUMMARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT TABLE 1: DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY OF MODELS REVIEWED REFERENCES APPENDIX: U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON COMPUTER MODELS FOR WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT I 2 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 7 7 7 8 9 10 II 11 II 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 14 15

18

INTRODUCTION

Over 7 0 %/a the world's land area can potentially influenced river basin development(Scudder of be by 1994). Many countrieshave accessto the resourcesof at leastone riverbasin,and some countriescan accessthe resourcesof severalriverbasins. How the riverbasin is developedand managedwill have, therefore, a major impact on present and future living standardsof its inhabitantand on the basin ecosystem. Water resources have several characteristicsthat make the role of the public sector in their developmentand managementmore essentialthan in other goods that can be handledefficiently a in market framework. For example,some water serviceshave a public good nature that may lead to under-investment; other servicesare characterizedby economiesof scale, leading to monopolistic power and socially inefficientallocation. Water projects are associated with large volumes of investmentsrelativeto the capacityof the capitalmarket. Becauseof the range of marketfailuresand taielargevolumeof capitalneededfor water projects,a significant shareof water related infrastructure inriestments conductedby the publicsector (WorldBank, 1993). are However, fragmented public investmentprograms for development and management of water resources, that have failed to take into account the interdependencies among using sectors, and the impact on other (non-water)economicand non-economic activities,are frequentproblemsassociated with mismanagement the scarce resources in many developedand developingcountries(World of Bank, 1993). What is true in the general case of water resource developmentand management,is true in the particularcase of river basins. Water developmentprojectsin river basins are beingimplementedin manycases without considering interactions the withinthe hydrological economicsystem. and Because a river basin system is comprisedof many componentswith interdependencies, piecemeal approaches to river basin developmentand managementhave often failed to lead to an optimal outcome,resultingin inefficient resourceuse, economiclossesand environmental degradation. To remedythese problems,comprehensive approachesto riverbasindevelopment havebeen proposed. The advantagesassociatedwitha comprehensive approachare listedby Le Moigne (1994): * Ability meet short- andlong-terrndemandsin an economically to efficient manner * Abilityto includeactivitiesand objectivesthat are not always economically and technically feasiblein separableapproaches * Ability benefitfrorncost reductionthrougheconomies scale to of * Ability identifyefficient to solutionsto waterqualityand pollutionproblems * Facilitatesaction of reachinga consensusamong the riparians,thereby reducing tensionand conflicts However, the complexityof the naturaland economicsystemwithina river basin makes it difficultto plan and designan optimalinvestment program. A modelmaybe helpfulin accountingfor all relevant

It

componentscomprisinga river basin,in addressing various planningand managciner.t objectives,and in utilizingthe advantagesprovided above. Several (modeling)approacheshavc been used in river basin planning, developmcnt management. and The purposeof this paperis to selectively reviewthe literatureon economicmodelsdevelopedfor river basin planningand management. The review includcsmodels addressingwater ouiantity quality and issues,environmental considerations, conflictsover the above issuesat the Jectoral, regionaland and international levels. The review may serve as a source of referencesfor those wl.o need to consider whetherthey can make use of a model. The reviewis organizedaccordingto variousclassifications of modelingapproachesand river basin planning, developmentand managementobjectivesand scope. The review allowsthe reader to evaluatethe suitability a particularmodelto a certain project, and of the associatedadvantagesand disacnvantages. reviewdoes not attemptto surveyall existingriver The basin models,but rather to select .he ones that would best demonstratethe potential applicationto projectsat river basin level. A brief list of specificcomputermodels used for various aspects of river basin planningand managementis summarized an Appendix. The interestedreader is referredto a in report by the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers (1994),that providestechnicaldetailsof computer models for waterresourcesplanningand management. RIVERBASINSDEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT Water withina basin serveshumanneedssuchas drinking,cooking,andwashingand sanitation;allows arid land to become productive through irrigation,provides a habitat for plants, fish, and wildlife; supplies urban and industrial uses; generates electricitythrough hydropower;and supports many recreational uses. Riverresourcesaroundthe world have been developedand managedfor centuriesto controlvolatilesuppliesof water in order to meet demandsfor water quantity,quality,and reliability in time and space(Loucks et al, 1981). A river basin is definedby its watershedarea. At the highest elevationare the upper reaches where snow meltor precipitation feed into narrowstreamsthat rapidlydescenda steepgradient. Theseupper reaches feed into a middlereach creatinga "mainstem"of the river. Floodplains, lakes and swamps characteristically found around the slow flowingriver mainstem.Belowthe mainstemis the lower are reach wherethe river meetsthe ocean. In the lower reach, salineand freshwater mix, silt settles,and a delta forms. Highlyproductiveestuaries,mangroveforests, wetlands,coral reefs, tidal marshes and mud flats predominate (Marchand and Tornstra, 1986). Subsurface water flows including undergroundaquifersare also part of the basin(WorldBank, 1993). Riverbasins are typicallylarge, crossingnot only privateproperty lines,but regionaland international boundariesas well. Localizeddevelopment water resourcesto meet communityand regionalneeds of for cleanwater and food has often come withoutregard to other users or uses. Thus, comprehensive plans to develop and manage basin resourceshave been the exceptionrather than the rule. Private agendas,contradictoryobjectives,and historiesof noncooperationincreasethe difficultyof achieving efficientresource management. High informationcosts due to the many users of river basin has

impededthe process ol' negotiation and exchange lhat could lead to a socially optimal allocation. ('onsequently, conflicts over the dcvclopmnent allocation of water persist. and The dominant tuseconflicts oveI river basin resource allocation are ror water quantity and water quality in space and time. Uses may be classified as either consumptive or nonconsumptive. Consumptive usc is defined .o be thc amouni of water withdrawn from the system in such a way that it is no longer available for other uses. In this respect, river basin water has common pool characteristics in that one use precludcs other uses. Examples are agricultural irrigation and urban water use. Consumptive uses may compete by sector (e.g. municipal, agricultural, and industfiaVcommercial), within sectors (allocation to one farm versus another farm), or regionally (upstream regions versus downstream regions). Nonconsumptive uses do not result in a significant reduction in net stream flow, and depending on the type, may allow for multiple nonconflicting uses at the same time and location. Examnplesof nonconflicting nonconsumptive uses include reservoir storage, fish habitat, passive recreation (e.g. sightseeing, swimming). More problematic situations occur when nonconsumptive uses interfere with or lower the value of water precluding or impairing its use by others. For example, nonconsumptive uses such as leaching salts from agricultural fields, diverting river water to cool power plants, and using the river to dispose of partially treated or untreated waste, degrades water quality at the expense of other uses. Although the upstream users may be best suited to improve the quality of downstream water by altering water use practices, often the upstream user has no means of capturing the benefits or even of recouping the costs, thereby having no incentive to reduce pollution loads. Consequently the externalities persist. Nonconsumptive uses of water also conflict in time. For example, residential users may prefer that a quantity of water be stored for future use, environmentalists may prefer that water be released to support the fish habitat, and the industrial sector may prefer a release for electricity generation. For each user, although the water extracted and its quality remains the same, one use at a particulartime precludes another use. Because the use and the value of river basin resources depend on the quantity and quality of water available in space and in time, and because many of the uses are physically linked through the basin hydrology, managing water resources can be more efficient using a comprehensive, basin-wide approach. For example, the objectives of a basin-wide plan may be to: foster economic growth, maintain environmental quality, achieve agricultural self sufficiency, enhance foreign export trade, promote regional developmentlautonomy, increase employment, provide resources for a growing population, improve quality of life, retain national security, meet energy demands, and improve public health (Loucks, 1981). Some of these objectives are compatible, others are conflicting. Information about the tradeoffs made when choosing between objectives is needed to make rational, informed management decisions. River basin models can prove an indispensabletool for aiding in the decisionmaking process. Models offer a simplifiedrepresentation of problems that enable information to be processed quickly and efficiently. Models are often used to predict and evaluate the outcomes of alternative policies, and reveal social and economic trade-offT (Haith and Loucks, 1976). For example, models can be used to determine the optimal size, location, and type of water development projects (Technical Co-operation, 1990), to meet a community's needs. Models can also be used to evaluate projects both jointly and individuallybased on their cost effectiveness and marginal contribution to society, and can reveal the

cconomic and social trade-offs between alternativecompetingprojects. Models can bc applied to reveal stratepics for managingand allocatingscarce rcsources to their highest and best use. It is important to note that while modelscxccl at handlinglarge amounts of quantitativeand quantifiable information, actual decisions are oflcn made with regard to both quantitative and qualitative information. Thus, the primaryftunction models is as an informational in the overalldecisionof tool makingprocess. Althoughmodels can bc useful Vor river basin developmentand management,in the real world they mightbe moreeffective * in smallratherthat in largeriver basins in situationswherethe model willcontinueto be used by managingagenciesthat playedan activerole in the development the model. of * in situations whereQuantityand/or qualityproblemsare clearlydefined,and * where the institutional framework allows implementationof the model results and recommendations.
MODELING APPROACHES FOR RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT Use of models

River basin models are used to assess the economic,social, and enviromnental effectsof alternative development and management policies. Positive (descriptive) models are used to explain and understand the underlyingprocesses in the system and to predict the outcome under changing conditionsthat mayresult,for ecample,from construction a new projector implementation a new of of set of operationalpolicies. Alternatively, modelscan be used to choose from a range of altematives those best suitedfor achievingstated objectives.Normative(prescriptive) modelsare used in nearlyall facets of water development, policymaking,and management.For example,normnative models can be used to indicateoptimalproject locationand size, to formtulate suitableoperationaland maintenance policies, and to determine efficientallocationof water and levels of water quality. Results from normativemodelscan be interpretedto revealopportunities improvement for over the statusquo. The insight into problems that models provide answers to, make them an indispensable tool for informeddecisionmaking. Dependingon the nature of the problemsand the issues to be addressed, models may be staticor dynamic,deterministic stochastic,singleor multipleobjective,economicor or
engineering-oriented.

Static vs dynamic. Static models can be used to examinethe effect of a changein conditionsin the system. The effectcan be, for example,the nature of constructionof a wastewatertreatmentplant on river water quality. Dynamicmodels, that describeintertemporalbehavior of some of the model components,can capture the transitionor evolutionof the system over time due to a change in the conditions. The transitionbetweenconstructionof a dam and the time untflthe systemreachesits new equilibrium be manyyears. A dynamicmodelcan be used to capturethe transitoryeffectssuch as may

the changinglandscape, alteration in water flows and watcr qualily, and shifl in fish and wildlife species. Deterministic vs. stocastic. Dcterministicmodels arc used when it can bc assumed that the infonnation affcting the outcome is known and predictable,and the influencc of unknown or unpredict&le factors are small. Stochasticmodels are used to incorporate informationabout the reliability unreliability) infoniationin the model (estimatedparameters,data), or uncertaintydue (or of to jnknown or unpredictableevents that influenceoutcomes. Results from stochastic models can indicatethe outcomesof alternative projectsin probabilistic terms. Single vs. multipleobjective. Singleobjectiveeconomicmodels,whichare the most common,rely on the assumptionthat all use valuesaffectedby decisionscan appropriately denominatedin common be units and compared in those units. Multipleobjectivemodels allow for the evaluationof tradeoffs betweenceiupetingobjectives, wherethe objectives may be expressedin completely differentunits.
Economic v.. engineering. Economic models are distinctly different from engineering models in their

focus on the quantifiable effectsof activities humanwelfare,wherehumanwelfareis denominated on in monetaryunits in terms of income,costs,and returnsto investment.In contrastto engineeringmodels, the hydrological systemwilloftenbe characterized onlyto the extentnecessaryto capture its influence on humanwelfare(Howe, 1973). Engineering economicmodeling,however,need not be mutually and exclusive. Many contemporaryintegratedriver basin modelscontainboth engineeringand e.conomic components.
Model limitations,strengths and weaknesses

Models can provide information solutions that maximize welfare, or minimize damage, and on tradeoffsbetweenaltemativeoutcomes,and risk and uncertainty.The resultsfrom any model,positive or nornative, will depend on the model assumptions embedded in the objective function, the constraints,and all the factor relationships. By nature, models are based on assumptionsthat are inherently uncertain and are thereforelimited by the accuracy of the specification, data used to the parameterizethe model, and the solution techniques used to solve the model (Haimes, 1977). Additionally, qualitativefactors and subjective inference,alsopart of the decisionmakingprocess, may necessarily omittedfrom the model(Loucks, 1981). be
Modeldesign

Modelsare by dfinition intendedto abstractfrom reality. Ideally,a model shouldonly be as complex as necessaryto obtainthe information desired. By contrast,"allpurpose"models,are typicaly not very useful(Biswas,1976). The most usefulmodelwill be designedto makebest use of the available data It will be designedwith the skillsand abilities the intendeduser in mind,and be compatible of with the computational technologyavailable the intendeduser. The usefullife of a model can be extended to with a designthat accomnodatesnew information easilyas it becomesavailable.

Model specificationi 1To htelpiocus and streamline theimodel developmicntprocess, whenevcr possible, it is recommcnded (Dept. of TechnicalCo-operation, 1990) thatniodelers consult witli those who will be using the model or the model results When specifyinga model the primaiy considcrations are as follows. What are tile objectivcs of thc study? Why is the study being done? Is a model necessary? What is the purpose of the model? What data is rcquired for thc analysis? What data is available? How will the model bc used? Will the modcl be used to address a single issue? Or, is it being designed as a tool to supporl ongoing operations and policy decisions'? Can the model simulate all or most likely future scena 4 .os? What computer tcchnology is available to the study? How much time and budget will be made available to develor) the model? The "best" model will bc the "leanest" and most transparent. It will utilize the available informnation a more sophisticated manner than altemative candidate models to in provide useful, nonintuitive information, and can be completed, on time and within budget. Trade-off exists in the model specification. A more complex model than needed will not necessarily yield bettcr information and may in fact confound interpretationof the results. While an overly simple specification may yield insufficientinfonnation to address the problem at hand.

SELECTED REVIEW OF EXISTING MODELS A search of the literature reveals a wide range and number of published reports on river basin models. For purposes of discussion, this paper has selected a few studies representing basin-wide integrated modeling. The models are presented under the following broad categories: development, operations, water quality, water quantity and quality, recreation demand, country-wide planning, and multiple objective planning. Development In the Russian River Basin in California, planners faced the problem of deterrnining the optima! sequence and timing of a finite number of water development projects to meet the rising demands of a growing population. Regev and Lee (1975), in designing the Russian River Basin Model, defined all existing darns as state variables' and proposed new dams or dam expansion projects as control variables. Returns to water use were stated as a function of available water and water to be made available in the subsequent vear. Total returns were defined to be direct retums, flood control benefits, and recreational benefits, less the cost of construction, operation, and maintenance. The model objective was to maximize the discounted stream of net ietums to development plus the terminal value of the water projects. The solution was obtained with mathematical prograrmning methods. Using stochastic programmning methods, the model was solved to allow for random population growth.

A statevariablcin a decisionmakingmodel .s a variablc that dcscribes Lhecondition of the analyzed system. A state variablc is affccted bv the levels of decision variablcs and by cxtcmal cffccts. For example. in a river basin model. the lcvelof watcr flow in the rivcr is a statc variable that is affectcd bv decision (control) variables such as water diversion at various locations. and by external variables such as rainfall in the catchmcnt area.

Ilhe ploblem1ut' seqluencingprojects over lime was also considered lbr the Guadiana River l3asin in

Southern Portugalby lavaras (1981). 'I'his larLgely undeveloped waler resource was selected Ibr a large water project that inlcludcda hydroclectric power station and nultiple rcservoirs that would supply water for agricultural irrigation, rising urban demands, and industrial uses. l'avarcs (1981) developed a model to dctermine the optimal configuration of the system (location, storage size, distribution), optimal scheduling of the projects within the system, and the indirect economic effects of the project on local communities (e.g. employmcnt). Matlhemiatical programming was applied to determine the discounted present value of investmcnt rcquired to completc thle project, and to detemine the sequence of development that would maximize net benefits to the districts serviced by the sy3stem.Thleindirect economic effects were obtained with input-output analysis that describes the economic relationships of all consuming and producing economic units in the river basin. Economic productivity in the Maule River Basin in Chile, a low productivity agricultural region, could be enhanced by a dam project which would provide hydroelectric power, irrigation water, municipal and industrial water, navigation opportunities, pollution abatement, fishing, and recreational water uses. Bulkley and McLaughlin ( 1966) developed a political simulationmodel to predict the political response to various development proposals those, for example, that would be suggested from the results of an engineering-economic model. Results from engineering-economic model would provide the allocations of water and income to three competing uses, hydropower, irrigated agriculture, and flood control, to be used as the starting point for the political response model. The political response model simulated the distribution of power within the political system, projected conflicts, and anticipated coalitions formned. In lieu of engineering-econornicresults, the authors synthesized three scenarios in which both water and financial resources were allocated to exclusivelyone use, and a fourth scenario in which resources were allocated to all three uses. Results were reported in terms of the probability of acceptance of a proposed allocation. Cooperation amongst parties involved can help to insure efficient development of basin resources. The transactions necessary to insure success, however, become increasingly difficult when the power structure at the decision-making level is divided and when the desired objectives are conflicting, as is often the case when projects cross jurisdictional boundaries. Dufornaud and Harrington (1990) examined the problem of water development across jurisdictional boundaries. They developed a model of three parties with no history of cooperation but an interest in developing water resources and securing international funds for joint efforts. The authors specify a cooperative game2 in two time periods to examnine benefits and costs incurred by each party under various schemes. The model the shows the scenarios that minimize total international subsidies, side payments, and contingency funds required to achievejoint water development among the parfies. Operations In a multiple reservoir system in the Murray-Darling River Basin in Australia, poor water quality (salinity) is responsible for significanteconomic costs to municipal and industrial users serviced by the basin. Dandy and Crawley (1992) augmented an operational water quantity model of the basin with a A cooperative gamc is a publicchoice modelthat attemptsto maximize allocategains from joint actions and amongseveraldecisionmakingunitsthat agreeto participate the"game". in
2

water quality model to capture salt flows thlroughthe systemand estimaiteeconomic salt damagcs. Thc
primary objectives of the joint model werc to: minimirc total shortfalls below target storage levels, minimize combincd pumping cost and salt damages, and minimizc spills. Thc model included losscs from evaporation and secpagc, and constraints on storage, conveyanr.n and pumping capacity. A solution to thc problem was obtained with linear goal programming. Lincar goal programming requires that the relative priority of the objectives be specificd cxogenously, then optimizcs each objective in tum. Results showed that a change in operations could reduce salt damages, yielding a significanL irnprovemcnt in the objective valucs over current operational practices A series of dams was built in the Tana River Basin in Kenya, the fifth dam was completed in 1988. The dams supply water for public usc and irrigation, and provide electricity. Operational problems included controlling erosion and sedimentation into the reservoir and dllocating wates during dry periods. Verhaeghe, et. al. (1989) developed a model to evaluate water availabilityand operations during dry periods and to predict sedimentation rates. The model included a simulation component to replicate the hydrology of the basin under current management practices under fixed demand and varying demand scenarios, an optimization component to maximize electricity generation subject to water requirements during critical and average flow conditions, and a simulation component to track sedimentation rates. Canter (1991) discussed the importance of water quality considerations that arise as a result of water development projects in the tropics in reference to the Amazon River in Brazil. He recommended that models are needed to study all phases of water development: planning, construction, transition, and operations; and discussed the importance of monitoring water quality throughout development to allow for calibration and verification of the working model. He discussed the effect of the change in water quality within thermal stratums, chemical cycling, biological cycling, bacterial content, gasses, evaporation, sediments, diss"lved solids from both point and nonpoint sources. The paper provided a summary of models used by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, commented on how modeling should be done. No new model was presented. Water quantity and quality Water quantity and water quality issues in the Colorado River Basin in the United States have been examined in a series of studies. In an early study, Howe and Orr (1974) used linear progrmming methods and a regional input-output model to estimate the direct and indirect income lost from upper basin agricultural acreage reduction as an altemative to traditional safinitycontrol methods. Production activiLiesin the upper mainstern of the Colorado River Basin were divided into 33 economic sectors. A reduction in acreage was simulated and the input-output model was used to determine the direct and indirect economic effects to th. economic sectors, and a hydrosalinitymodel was used to estimate the effect on water quality (salinity). Gardner (1983) modeled the Colorado River Basin and applied linear programmningmethods to evaluate the opportunities for federal cost sharing with upper basin farmers as low cost means of reducing total salt load into the river basin. In a subsequent study, Lee (1989) examined a wide range of options for controlling salinity from multiple sources. Salinity control options included water conservation, shifts in cropping patterns, acreage reduction, and water transfers. The objective was to select the mix of control options to achieve the level of water quality that

maximizedreturns to watcr uses in thc rivor basin under various river flow scenarios. A detailed dcsciiption thephysicntl of model appears Lee ct al. (1993). The model was solvedwitli nonlinear in and stochasticprogrammingmcthodls.Oamek (1990) andBooker andYoung (1993) e;amincd thc economics intcrbasinwater transfcrs upper basin a,griculturc lower basin urban uses to meet of from to iisingurban dcmandsas a lower cost altcmativcto constructionof new waler projects. Bookerand Young presented an institutionalmodel of water usc, flows, quality, and phiysical institutional and
constraints. A rangc of 'cfficicnt" transfcr quantities was ascertaincd under altcrnativc specifications of'

thc bencritfunction. The Trent River in the U.K. provides irrigation water, navigation,municipaland industrial watcr supply, hydroelectricpower, flood protection,commercialfishery,and rccrcationaluses to uscrs in Englandand Wales. Due to risingpollutionlevels and increasingdemandfor clean water, a plan of action and a series of developmentprojects were proposed. Newsomcet. al. (1972) developed a model to determinethe minimumcapitalinvestmentrequired to meet risingdemands. Their model included: water transfers,pumpedreservoirstorage, estuary storage, and sewage treatment. Brewin et. al. (1972) developed a model to predict changesin Trent River water qualityfrom developmcnt, efluent loads, river retention, increased diversions, and power generation. Water quality characteristicsconsideredwere: biochemicaloxygen demand,temperature,and acration. Withinthe model, the river was characterizedas a series of discrete states, and the state of the river was characterizedas a functionof effluentemissionsat or below that requiredto achieveminimumwater qualitystar.dards. Dynamicprogramming appliedto determinethe leastcost methodof achieving was each state. The globaloptimumwas definedas the river state that couldbe achievedat the lowesttotal cost.
Water quality

For the Axios River Basin in Greece, water quality is important to consumptiveuses, recreation, fishing,and maintenance natural reserveareas. van Gils and Argiropoulos(1991) specifieda water of qualitymodel to replicatethe concentrationof pollutantsin the river. The model allowed for sources and sinks, dispersion, degradation, transport, and chemical and physical processes. Altemative management strategies included: a 5 0%o reduction in polution levels, a reduction in agricultural acreage, and a 100%/oincrease in municipaland industrialwaste loads and disposalof partly treated wastewater. With a cumulativefrequencydistributionderivedfrom monthlyflow records, the model was used to determine the probabilityof violating water quality standards under each alternative strategy. The Densu River in Ghana provideswater for approximately millionpeople, and also serves as the 2 pnimary recipientof all domesticand industrial waste in the basin including food cannery. The warm a tropicalwaters tend to be polluted all year around. Lamnie et. al. (1989) specifieda steady-state hydrological model to capture physical,chemicaLand biochemicalactivityfrom point and nonpoint pollutionloads and their effect on the water qualityin the river. Water qualityconstituentsincluded: chlonide,dissolved oxygen, and BOD. Using monthly flow and quality data the model was parameterized the wet and dry seasonsof the year. for

l0

Nutrient loads from fertilizedagriculture in thc Marnnawatersllcd in Estonia is acceleratingthe eutrophicationof Matsalu Bay. Krysanovact. al. (1989) developeda model to evaluate alternative managementpracticesin the river basin. A series of four differential relationships were specifiedto: capture nutrienttransferfrom the drainagearea, water movementthrough the soil, nutrientbalancein the soil, and nutrient concentrationand movementin the river. T'he model was used to simulatethe effects of fertilizerapplicationrate, applicationmethod, applicationtiming, and acreage of fertilized crop plantedon nutrientloads into thebay. Wastewater,sewage,stormrunoff,and irrigationreturnflowspollutethe Tong Hlu] the Liang Shui and Rivers in Beijing,China. As a result, water quality is below drinking standards, fish and wildlife habitats are threatened,and recreationaluses are severelylimited. To detenrmine effectiveness the of sewage treatment on water pol!utionlevels, a simulationmodel was developed. For modeling purposes, the river systemwas dividedinto discretesectionsand definedin terms of its boundariesand sewage loading, sewage treatment, biologicaloxygen demand and dissolvedoxygen within each section. Mass and energyconservationwereassumed. Sewagetreatmentmeasureswere grouped into "plans"representing various levelsof control. The treatmentplans were simulated, the benefitsin and terms of savingsfrom improvedwater qualitywere comparedto the costs. The plans were ranked based on their estimatednet presentvalueunder variousdiscountrates (Hufschmidt,1986a). After completionof the UboiratanaDam on the Nam-ChiRiverin Thailand,rapid settlementinto the upper watershedarea resultedin heavylogging,slashand burn cultivation,and consequently, erosion and transport of pesticidesand fertilizersinto the reservoir. Sedimentation lowers the value of the reservoir by reducing its capacityto produce electricity,store water, provide flood protection, and serve as a fish habitat. A model was developedby Hufschmidt(1986b) to evaluatethe net benefits from soil erosion managementof the watershedover a 50 year period. Sedimentationrates were captured with a mass conservationmodel,and the cost of sedimentation assessedas the value of was lost reservoir productivity lost. Two alternativeswere evaluated: employmentof watershed managementto reduceerosion,and the status quo, no additionalmanagement increasingerosion. and Given the costs of watershed management and the small returns to the basin from reduced sedimentation, resultsshowedthat erosioncontrolin the upper Ubolratana yieldedno net benefit. Recreationaldemandfor water In arid regions, efficient allocation of scarce water resources to competinguses can yield large econornicbenefits. In the Pecos RiverBasinin New Mexico,recreationaluses competewith irrigated agriculturefor availablewater, and competitionis highest during the dry summer months. Ward (1989)estimatedthe implicitvalue of water in recreational uses for four reservoirsin Pecos. Assumning that the user value of a "site' (a reservoirwith water) must sufficiently exceedthe cost of travel to the site, the value of water in recreationaluses was estimatedstatisticallyusing survey responses from householdsin the surroundingarea. Results showedthat the value of water was four times higher in recreationalthan in agricultural uses,indicating an "entry"feeto recreational that uses could potentially provide sufficientfunds for purchasingwater from agncultureuses to keep the basins fill during the summner months.

11

Country-widewater useplanning

Borlin (1971) developeda model to aid decisionmakingin country-widewater use planning,to be used as a termplate researchin other developing for countries. The country-widemodel was divided into five submodels: demographics, agriculture,employment,water, and income. The agricultural submodelincludedirrigationpotential,agricultural policies, resourceavailability, farmerbehavior. and An additionalsubregional model consistedof two endogenousvariables: populationand labor force; and five exogenous variables:employment, wages, consumer demand, river basin, and land. The populationdemographicswere assumedto changeover time with the rate of birth and death. Model results were restrictedby constraintson the choice variables. The model specification allowed for analysisof a wide range of development projects. A hypothetical project mentionedwas construction of a dam whichwould includemultipleprojectphases over time, construction,capital,and operation and maintenancecosts, and on-farm costs, and the effect of water development on regional employment. One concernwith country-widemodelsis that they are limitedonly to cases where the countrycomprisesonly one river basin. In the case of interbasin water transfer,modelsmust include impactson the basinof origin.
Multiple use planning

As a result of industrialpollutionand agriculturalrunoff,the quality of water in the MaumeeRiver Basinin Indiana,Michiganand Ohio ranges from acceptableto very poor. Due to populationand industrialgrowth in the area,water supplyshortagesare expectedby year 2000. Basinwater transfers are consideredthe best altemativeto increaseddevelopment. In additionto providinga reliablesupply of municipaland industrial water, goals in managingthe basin'sresourcesinclude: land use planning, erosion control, water quality improvement,maintenanceof fish and wildlife habitat, increased opportunityfor recreationaluses, and drainageand flood protection. To simplifythe analysisof this largebasin systemand to reducethe dimensionally the problemto be solved,Haimeset. al. (1977) of decomposedthe basin systeminto a seriesof smallersubsystems, each assumedto be independentof the others. Each subsystems optimizedseparately. The subsystemresultswere joined by linkng was variablesand equationsto representthe problemto be solvedand to obtainthe system-wide solution. Three basic alternative plans were synthesized. One emphasizedeconomic development (more recreationalopportunitiesand flood protection)another emphasizedenvironmental quality(reduced biological oxygendemandand erosion),and a third represented statusquo. Model resultsrevealed the the tradeoffsthe communityand decisionmakers would have to face in selectingbetween competing projectsand conflicting goals.

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

Althoughuse of modelsfor integratedriver basindevelopment managementis desirable, world and real rc-.istraints limit their application utilization. Main baniers to effectiveuse of river basin models and includeinformation, physical, institutional and bamfiers.

12

Infonnational barriers

Insufficienteconomic data, data limitations,and poor informationabout the cultural, social, and politicalnorms of the existingpopulationoftenhinder development an effectiveplanningstrategy. of Additionally, short sighteddevelopment goals, insufficient budget for planning,and poor appreciation of the importanceof good planningare further impediments effectivemanagementof river basin to resources.
Physical barriers

The physicalnature of a river basin can confoundefforts to managethe basin'sresources. Because basins are irregularand receivewater flows from multiplesources,difficultiesare often encountered when attemptingto dividea basininto discrete,manageablesubunits. Further,the stochasticnature of the water supplymakesprediction controlof the water problematic. and Inlerbasin transfer. Temporal and spatial variabilityare usual barriers to integrated river basin development. The possibilityof interbasintransfer has implications the planningof aL regional for developmentprojects while providing flexibilityand stability in water supply. Sometimes the geographyis such that it does not allow large scaleinterbasintransferof water, and sometimes the geopoGtics suchthat it does not acceptthe resultsfrom the integratedapproach. is Institutional barriers Although economic models can indicate opportunitiesfor improvementin river basin planning, development,and management, existinginstitutions conflicting and policiesmay pose insurmountable barriers to more effective management. Grigg and Flemming(1980) discussedthe United States! policyon water qualitymanagement. As stated in the FederalWater PollutionControl Act of 1972, the water quality managementobjectivesare to maintain United States waters, give the States an expandedrole in implementing water quality programs, and to assure that programs are equitable across all states, geographicregions,and industries. This third objective definitionrules out many by economicapproachesto water qualitymanagementsuch as marginalpollutiontaxes and transferable discharge permits;that give low cost pollutersa comparative advantageover otherpolluters. ApplicationBariers As was correctly indicated by Tanji (1981), many models are formulatedand applied to specific problems,and are not amendableto more generalized problemsituations. If a model is to be applied fromone problemsituation(or location) another,the modelgenerally to needs modification, calibration and validation. These modifications associatedwith additionalcost (e.g., in terms of time) to the are potentialuser. This cost may become a barrierto effectiveuse of the model even if it is the best that fits the problemneeds.

13

SUMMARY

has This reviewof work on river basin modeling shownthat there are a wide range of approachesfor specifyinga model for river basin planning, development,and management.Economnic, engineering, usefulinformationto the river biological,politicaland integratedapproachescan all reveal potentially if basin planneror manager. The key is to deternine the most pressingproblemsat hand,to determiine the intendeduse of the model is to better understandthe problem,to help identifypotentialsolutions, or to be used as an ongoingtool in river basin managementand operations;and finallyto assessthe amountof resourcesin terms of time, budget,expertise,and publicand governmentparticipation,that of and willgo intothe modeldevelopment interpretation the modelresults. For a descriptionsummalyof the key featuresof the models reviewedin this paper, the interested reader is referredto Table 1. of Someprerequisites an appropriateapplication an integratedriverbasinmodelmay include: for 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. A water resources informationsystem using hydrometricdata collectionstations fiom key locations; A rainfal-runoffmcdelwith soiland groundwater components; A channelrouting modelwith covc-vancelosses; A reservoiroperationmodel; water demandfimctions; and Agricultural, industrial,residert:aL, enrironmental feasibility altematives; An engineering modelto calculateinfiastructure modelthat incorporatesthe modelsin 1-6; A water resourcessimulation A linkage to a macroeconomictype model that transates the outcome from the water resourcessimulationmodel to monetaryvalues and optimizesa river basin objectivefunction subjectto physical,institutional political consadints. and One importantcomponentthat has not been discussedin the modelsthat were reviewedhere is a social assessmentmodel of relocation. Although river basin developmentis intended to improvehuman welfiare, some developmentrequiresrelocationof inhabitants. Development modelsshouldaccount for humaneffectssuchas relocationand othertransitorycosts.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors appreciatethe help providedby David Hanrahan,CharlesHowe, Robert Johnson, and revisionsto thisreport. KennethTanjiin reading,commening,and suggesting

14

Table 1: DescriptiveSumma
Model Use Source

of Models Reviewed
River basin ModelCharacteristics Enogineering.Intertemporal, |conomnic,
Political Biological, Stochastic,
Multiple objective Crowlh, Dennand,

Issuesaddressed
Mlunicipal and Industrial,

Supply

Elood Energy, Agriculture,

protectiotn,Recreation

quality, Water Envinmnental

quality, Hiealth

Fishery,
Savigation

E
planning
Lmnieet al(I g9) Barlin(1971) (I Canter 991
develop(1966)

P
_

M|A

E
_

R W|H

RB, Densu Ohana OECD* RB. Ajmazon Brazxl

RB. Maule Chile RB. Ruasian CA,

*
* *

**

*
* * * * *

Bulkleyid Maclaughlin and Regev Lee(1975)

*
= _

ment

*
_ _ * * *
*

Tavares(1981)

RB, Guadiana
PaFrtupmi

*
_

project evaluation operations

(1986a) Hufuchmidt
(1986b) Hufschmidt etal, (1989) Verhaeghe

and Liw4ShuJ Tong

Rn-Ch, RB, Tina RB, Kenya

* * * *

(1992) and Dandy Crawley

Murray-Darluin BP, Maumee USA

RB Pecos ENew

* *
_

* *
=

= *

_ * 0

0
* * _ * * *

managment

et Haunes,al (1977) Wrrd(I 989) e Brewin al (1972)

2) et Newsome al (I197 (1991)

RB, Trent England *

WVales asnd

*
*
-

*
0 * S
-

0
_
-

0 *
_ __

_ *

RB, and vanGilm Argiropouloas Axios Oreece

__ _ _

_
-

(1989) Krysanova (I993) and Booker Young (1 O<rdner 985)

RB, Kasan Matsalu Bav Esotornta RB, Colorado USA RB, Colorado USA LUSA ColoradoRB, RB, Colorado USA

_
__

*
* * * *
_

andOrr(1914) Howe
(I Lee 99, 1993)

* *
_
O

(19S6) Oamt:

RB, ColoradoUSA

is

REFERENCES

Biswas, Asit K, "Mathematical Modelling and Water Resource Planning," in Systems Approach to Water Management, Biswas, Asit K. ed., McGraw-Hill, NY, NY. pp. 398-414. 1976. Booker J. F. and R. A. Young, "Modelling Intrastate and Interstate Markets for Colorado River Water,".J. Environ. Alon, andManagement, 26:66-87. 1994. Bulkley, Jonathan W. and Ronald T. McLaughlin, "Simulation of Political Interaction in MultiplePurpose River Basin Development," Hydrodynamics Laboratory Report No. 100, Dept. of Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Oct. 1966. Borlin, Max, E,conometricModelfor River Basin Plawnning, Problems of Development, OECD, Paris. 1971. Canter, L.W., "Water Quality Modelling in Tropical Reserviors," in ABRH Water Management of the Amazao Basin. Brazil WRA. 1991. Coolinge, V.K., "Mathematical Models of Water Resource Systems," in Symposium of Advanced Techniques in River Basin Management: The Trent Model Research Programme, Proceedings of Symposium held at the Universityof Birmingham,England. July I 1-14, 1972. Dandy, Graeme and Philip Crawley, "Optimum Operation of a Multiple Reservoir System Including Salinity Effects," Water Resources Research, 28(4):979-990. April 1992. Dufoumaud, C.M. and J J. Harnington. "Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Benefits and Costs in River Basin Schemes: A Cooperative Game Approach," EInvironand PlanningA, 22:615-628. 1990. Grigg, Neil S. and George H. Fleming, "Water Quality Managment in River Basins: US National Expenence," in Prog. Water 7echnology, IAWPR, Pergamon Press Ltd., Great Britain, 13:31-42. 1980. Haith Douglas, A. and Daniel P. Loucks, "Multiobjective Water Resources Planning," in Systems Approach to Water Management, Biswas, Asit K. ed., McGraw-Hill,NY, NY. pp. 365-397. 1976. Haimes, Yacov Y, Prasanta Das, and Kai Sung, "MultiobjectiveAnalysis in the Maumee River Basin: A Case Study on Level B Planning," submitted to NSF and OWRT/USDOI. Systems Engineering Dept., Case Westem Urniversity, Cleveland,OH. Jan. 1977. Howe, Charles W. Natural Resource Fxonomics, John Wiley and Sons, NY, NY. 1979. Howe, Charles W., "Economic Models," in Systems Approach to Water Management, Biswas, OAsit K. ed., McGraw-Hill, NY, NY. pp. 335-364. 1976.

16

Howe, Charles W and Douglas V. Orr, "Effects of AgriculturalAcreage Reduction on Water Availability Sainity in the Upper ColoradoRiver Basin," WalerResourcesResearch, 10(5):893and 897. Oct. 1974. Hufschmidt, M.ynard, "Systems Analysis Water PollutionControlOptionsin a SuburbanRegion of of Beijing,China,' adapted from a report by Fu Guowei, Zhang Lansheng,Cheng Shengtong,and Nie Guisheng,in Economic Evaluation Techniques the Environment,John A. Dixon and Maynard for Hufschmidt Eds. JohnsHopkinsPress. 1986a. adapted from a paperby Hufschnmidt, Maynard,"TheNamPongWaterResourcesProject in Thailand," RuangdejSrivardhana, EconomicEvaluation Techniques the Environment,John A. Dixon and in for MaynardHufschmidt Eds. JohnsHopldnsPress. 1986b. Koppel, Bruce, "Does IntegratedArea DevelopmentWork? Insightsfrom the Bicol River Basin Development Program,"WorldDevelopment,15(2):205-20. 1987. Krysanova,V, A Meiner,T. Roosare,and A. Vasilyev,"The Application SimulationModellingfor of River BasinManagement,"in River BasinManagemenr- H. Laari, Ed., PergamonPress, Oxford, V, England. 1989. Larmnie, S.A, J. Marivoet,and P. Vanouplines, "Application Qual2Eand Qual2E-UNCASModels of to the Densu River in Ghana," in River Basin Management-V,H. Laikai, Ed., Pergamon Press, Oxford,England. 1989. Le Moigne, Guy, Policy Issues and World Bank Experience in Multipurpose River Basin Development. In: Multipurpose River Basin Development in China, Sun, P. (Ed.), Economic Development Instituteof the WorldBank,Wasington, D.C., pg. 7-16, 1994. Lee, DonmaJ., "Salinityin the Colorado River Basin: A DynamicModellingApproach to Policy Analysis," Ph.D. Dissertation,Dept. of Agric.Econ.,U. of California, Davis. 1989. Model ofRiver Water Quality: Lee DonnaJ., RichardE. Howitt,and MiguelA Marino,'A Stochastic Applicationto Salinityin the Colorado River,"Water Resources Research, 10(12):3917-23,Dec.
1993.

Loucks, DanielP., Jery R. Stedinger,and Douglas A. Haith, WaterResourceSystems Planning and Analysis;Prentice-Hall, Inc., EnglewoodCliffs, NJ. 1981. Marchand,M. and F.H. Tomstra,EcologicalGuidelinesfor River Basin Development,Centrumvoor Oilieukunde Rigksuniversiteit der Leiden,March 1986.

17

Impacts of Interstate Water Transfersin the Colorado Oamek, G.E., "Economicand Environmental River Basin,"Centerfor Agricultureand RuralDevelopment, Iowa State Univ., Monograph9O-M3.
1990.

Newsome, D.H., K. Bowden, and J.A. Green, "Trent MathematicalModel: (a) Construction,"in
Symposium of Advanced Techmiques in River Basin Management:
1972.

7he Trent Model Research

held at the Universityof Binningham,England. July 11-14, Programme,Proceedingsof Symposium Regev, Uri and Ivan Lee, "Optimal Staging of Russian River Basin Development, Giannini "
Foundation Monograph, No. 34. March 1975.

Saha, Suranjit K. and Christopher J. Barrow, River Basin Planning: 7heory and Practice, John Wiley and Sons, GreatBritain. 1981. Tanji,K. K., 'RiverBasihHydrosalinity Models,"Agricultural Wafer Management, 4:207-225, 1981.
Tavares, L. Valares, "On the Appraisal of a Large Multipurpose Water Resources Project," in River

Basin Theoryand Practice, SuranjitK. Saha and ChristopherJ. Barrow, Eds., John Wileyand Sons, Great Britain,1981. TechnicalCooperationfor Development,Dept. of, United Nations Secretaniat with assistancefrom DanielP. Loucks, "D. MathematicalModels for PlanningRiver Basin Development,"in UN 1990,
River and Lake Development, NRWS No. 20. 1990.

Schdder,Thayer,'Recent Experienceswith RiverBasinDevelopmentin the Tropicsand Subtropics,"

NaturalResourcesForum, 18(2):101-113. 1994.

van Gils, J.AG. and D. Argiropoulos, "Axios River Basin Water Quality Management," Delft Hydraulics, Deift,Netherlands, pub. no. 459. Oct. 1991. Verhaeghe,R.I., W. v.d. Krogt, and H. v.d. Most, "Simulation Optimization and Analysisofihe Water Resourceof Tana RiverBasinin Kenya,"DelftHydraufics, Delft,Netherlands, pub.no. 413. 1989. U.S. Anry Corps of Engineers,'ComputerModelsfor Water ResourcesPlanring and Management," U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers,WaterResourcesSupport Center,Institutefor water Resources. IWR Report 94-NDS-7. July 1994. Ward, Frank A, "EfficientlyManagingSpatally Competing Water Uses: New Evidence from a RegionalRecraional DemandModel,"J RegionalScience,29(2):229-246. 1989. World Bank, 'Water Resources Management,' WorldBank Policy Paper, World Bank, Washington DC. 1993.

18

APPENDIX: U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON COMPUTER MODELS FOR WATER RESOURCESPLANNINGAND MANAGEMENT A report by the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers--USACE (1994) providestechnicalinformationon computer models used for water resources planningand management. The report is not focused on river basin modelsonly. The purposeof this appendixis to providethe interestedreader with selected informationaboutthe contentof that report. Chapter 2 of the USACE report provides informationon organizationsin the United States that develop,distribute,and supportcomputerized water management models. These organizations include Federalagencies,nationalresearchinstitutes,and intemational agencies researchinstitutes. and Chapter 4 of the USACEreport includesmodels for demandand supplyforecastingin the municipal, industrialand agricultural sectors. Chapter 5 of the USACE report indudes computer models of water distributionsystems. These modelsprovidemainlyhydraulic analysis pipe networks. of Chapter 6 of the USACEreport reviewsgroundwater modelsmainlyfor simulationof movementof water and other fluids,and pollutanttransportin porous media. Chapters 7-10 of the USACE report review modelsthat address river issues. The review includes models for watershedrunoff models of river hydraulics,models of river and reservoirwater quality, and modelsto operatereservoirand river systems. The USACE report includesan appendixwhich providestechnicalinformationof selectedmodels. This informationincludesa contact address and phone number, informationon model availability, documentation, computer configuration, capabilities of the sofiware package, and application experience. The report is available fromthe NationalTechnical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, 22161 VA (703) 487 4650

Policy Research Working

Paper Series Contact for paper C. Jones 37699

11U. WPS1437 Travel Mode SubstitutionIn Sao Paulo: Estimales and Implications for Air PollutionControl

Author Joffre Swait Gunnar S. Eskeland

Date March1995

WPS1438 Trade Reform, Efliciency,and Growth Ejaz Ghani Cad Jayaralah WPS1439 NontariffBarriersAfrica Faces:What Azita Amjadi Did the UruguayRoundAccomplish, Alexander Yeats and What Remainsto Be Done? WPS1440 Povertyand Social Transfersin Poland WPS1441 The Significanceof Credits and SubsidiesIn RussianAgricultural Reform Christiaan Grootaerl

March1995

A. Nokhostin 34150 S. Lipscomb 33718

March1995

March1995

N. Sachdeva 82717 N. Castillo 33490

DouglasGalbi

March1995

WPS1442 Energy Price Increases in Einar Hope DevelopingCountries: Case Studies Balbir Singh of Colombia,Ghana, Indonesia, Malaysia,Turkey, and Zimbabwe WPS1443 Policy-BasedFinance, Financial Regulation,and FinancialSector Developmentin Japan WPS1 444 Roads, Lands, Markets, and Deforestation: Spatial Model A of Land Use in Belize WPS1445 HumanCapitaland IndustryWage Structure in Guatemala WPS1446 Reviewof IntegratedApproaches to River BasinPlanning, Development, and Management Dimitri Vittas Akihiko Kawaura

March1995

C. Jones 37699

April 1995

P. Infante 37642

KennethM. Chomitz David A. Gray

April 1995

E. Schaper 33457

Chris N. Sakellariou

April 1995

I. Conachy 33669 C. Spooner 32116

DonnaJ. Lee AdelDinar

April 1995