State Approaches to Watershed Management:

Transferring Lessons Between the Northeast and Southwest

Introduction
Managing at the watershed-scale has become an increasingly popular and innovative
approach to water resources management. As watershed based approaches to managing water
resources are being adopted throughout the United States, knowledge is accumulating rapidly in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GLASGOW UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 06/22/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

different regions about what works and what does not. While there is considerable enthusiasm for
spreading (and replicating) these lessons learned nationally (e.g., EPA, 1997a), there is also the
recognition that institutional arrangements for watershed management should reflect the unique
physical and social characteristics of each region. These observations raise the following questions:
To what extent (and under what circumstances) can the knowledge gained in one region be
constructively applied elsewhere, and what opportunities and risks are associated with the transfer of
lessons among regions?
These are deceptively difficult and salient questions only recently receiving serious attention
in the context of watershed management (e.g., Born and Genskow, 1999). In this paper, we choose
to examine a small component of this issue by considering watershed management approaches in the
disparate states of Massachusetts and Arizona. These are regions with very different biogeophysical
qualities, legal and administrative regimes, major water uses and issues, and community governance
traditions. In short, they appear to have little in common. In practice, however, state watershed
management plans in the two states are quite similar. Understanding the reasons behind this
outcome is useful in explaining the limits of the transferability of lessons.

II. Key Regional Differences

Biogeophysical and Anthropogenic Factors
A statistical snapshot of several key biogeophysical and anthropogenic factors is presented in
Table 1. Even the most cursory glance at the crude indicators is sufficient to reveal stark contrasts
along very basic parameters between the two states. Of course, the most familiar differences pertain
to climate: Arizona is a hot, arid region, while Massachusetts features dramatically cooler and wetter
environs. These differences go a long way in explaining water use differences, such as the extensive
use of water for irrigation in Arizona (83% of all withdrawals) (Solley et al., 1998:11). Less
familiar, but perhaps of equal significance, are the population statistics. During the 1990s, Arizona
experienced a population growth seven times that of Massachusetts. Still, Massachusetts's
population density is eighteen times that of Arizona (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996). With few
exceptions, expanding populations increase pressures on the resource base, contributing to further
losses of riparian areas and wetlands and increases in fresh water withdrawals. These alter the
hydrology of watersheds, creating a host of challenges for both physical and institutional processes.

Legal and Administrative Regimes

Massachusetts and Arizona also differ significantly in legal and administrative regimes for water
resources management. As a general rule, surface waters in the humid East are managed using the
riparian doctrine, while the arid and semi-arid West utilizes prior appropriation (Apogee Research,
1992). In a riparian system, rights to use water are associated with land ownership, with all
reasonable uses allowed by the riparian. In contrast, prior appropriation systems allocate rights of
use based on a time-based seniority system that fully acknowledges that use by the most senior users
may, in fact, preclude use by more junior rightsholders and by non-rightsholders. Many riparian
states have begun borrowing tools from prior appropriation systems (e.g., permitting requirements)
1

Copyright ASCE 2004 Watershed Management 2000

Watershed Management and Operations Management 2000
 to document or regulate consumptive use; similarly, some features of the riparian doctrine can
occasionally be found in the western states, particularly in groundwater codes.
Surface water management in Massachusetts is best described as a modified riparian system, in
which landowners normally have the right to use adjacent streamflows to the extent that these uses
do not significantly or unreasonably diminish flow quantities or qualities for other riparian water
users. Since passage of the 1985 Water Management Act, however, new large diversions (over
100,000 gallons per day) require a permit from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
Conversely, Arizona is a classic prior appropriation state, with surface water and tributary
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GLASGOW UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 06/22/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

groundwater rights awarded based on the lawful withdrawal and use of waters not already
appropriated by other users. In modern times, such appropriations are to be preceded by an
application to the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). Many historic appropriations
have only been formally recognized in recent decades through stream adjudications or as part of
reviews of new applications.
Massachusetts and Arizona both utilize a reasonable use doctrine for groundwaters that are not
tributary to surface water flows (Apogee Research, 1992). In this system, land ownership confers
the right to reasonably utilize and even deplete the underlying groundwater. Due to concerns over
aquifer depletion and land subsidence, however, the reasonable use doctrine has been abandoned in
certain areas identified in the Arizona Groundwater Management Act of 1980. Most significant are
the five (originally four) Active Management Areas (AMAs) where groundwater consumption is
subject to regulations needed to meet program goalsnamely, safe yield by the year 2025. Most
major municipal centers in Arizona, including the Phoenix and Tucson areas, are located within
AMAs.
Water supply management in Arizona is also strongly influenced by the presence of the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, which has constructed and sometimes still operates several large projects in
the state. No similar federal presence exists in Massachusetts, with the exception of Corps of
Engineers and Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service) flood
control projects (USGS, 1986). Most water supply projects in Massachusetts are privately owned or
are public facilities controlled by special districts. In part, the dramatically higher federal presence
in Arizona water issues is a function of land ownership. About 12.7 million hectares acres of land
(43 percent of the state) is federally owned, with an additional 8.1 million hectares (about 27
percent) held in trust for Indian nations. Conversely in Massachusetts, just 21,044 hectares (or 1
percent of the state) is in federal ownership (U.S Bureau of the Census, 1998:237).
Unlike the management of water supplies, water quality management is primarily governed by
federal law. Consequently, Massachusetts and Arizona both are subject to the permitting framework
established by the Clean Water Act (1972 as amended) and overseen by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) are the primary implementation bodies.

Major Water Uses and Issues

Water quality concerns in Massachusetts go back to the early 1600s, the beginning of
industrial development in the state. In 1873 the Neponset River, immediately south of Boston, had
the dubious distinction of being the first river in the country to have a publicly funded water quality
survey (Neponset River Watershed Association and Executive Office of Environmental Affairs,
1997). Until the late 1960s point source discharges from industry were the primary impact on water
quality (Kennedy et al., 1995). Currently the leading source of non-attainment of water quality
standards in rivers is urban runoff (Massachusetts Clean Water Council, 1997).
While it is the impetus to meet federal water quality standards which has shaped the state's
watershed initiative, concern over water supply is growing. For example, in the Ipswich River north

Copyright ASCE 2004 Watershed Management 2000

Watershed Management and Operations Management 2000
 of Boston, low flow events in 1995, 1997 and 1999 were sufficiently severe to result in fish kills and
kills of macroinvertebrates, including mussels (DFWELE, 1999).
Given the great aridity of Arizona, water problems in the state are almost always defined in
terms of water supply deficiencies. Most surface waters of the state have been fully developed and
allocated for several decades, encouraging groundwater overdrafting to meet demands. Overdrafting
in the AMAs has, in part, been addressed by the recent completion of the Central Arizona Project
(CAP), which transports part of the states 2.8 million acre-feet apportionment of Colorado River
water into central Arizona, including the Phoenix and Tucson regions. CAP completion, however,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GLASGOW UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 06/22/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

has not solved the states water supply problems, in part due to the high costs of CAP water
(compared to groundwater), the relatively high salinity of the Colorado River water carried by the
CAP, and the explosive sustained growth characteristic of the Sunbelt region (Gelt et al., 1999).
Excessive demands on limited surface water supplies have decimated the states riparian
areas; many researchers (e.g., Arizona Riparian Council) estimate this loss to be over 90 percent.
Additionally, in many parts of the state, maintaining adequate flows to dilute discharges from
agricultural, mining, and municipal sites is extremely difficult (USGS, 1993). Thus, even questions
of wildlife habitat and water quality management are inexorably tied to seemingly chronic water
supply concerns.

Community Governance Traditions Regarding Water Resources

Massachusetts has a long tradition of participatory democracy, perhaps best exemplified by
the New England town meeting (Rimmerman, 1997). Close public scrutiny, cautiousness, and
consideration of what might be lost characterize New Englanders deliberations over new approaches
(Foster, 1984). Thus is not surprising that Massachusetts has an impressive tradition of organized,
nongovernmental conservation. For example, The Trustees of Public Reservations initiated in 1891
is the predecessor to more than 850 land trusts across the United States and to conservation
commissions and open space planning in Massachusetts (Cohen, 1993).
Today, each of the states 27 basins has at least one active citizen watershed group
(Environmental Protection Agency, 1997b). More than 500 citizen groups, such as lake and pond
groups, water monitoring projects and land trusts, are active in the state (EPA, 1997a). In part, this
reflects the regions considerable base of social capital (Putnam et al., 1993) that provides an
environment conducive to joint civic activity. Also important are the activities of organizations such
as the Massachusetts Watershed Coalition, which advocates for, and provides assistance and training
to, watershed partnerships (Born and Genskow, 1999; Cohen, 1993).
In Arizona, water resources have always been the key factor shaping human societies and
cultural institutions (Mann, 1963). Many observers, including John Wesley Powell (1890:112), have
noted the special salience of water in arid regions, commenting that where there is more land than
can be served by the water, values inhere in water, not in land; the land without water is without
value. Not surprisingly, Arizona has a long history of bitter water wars involving a diversity of
players and sectors: e.g., Native Americans, neighboring states (especially California), irrigators,
municipal interests, and environmentalists. However, in recent years, Arizonalike other states
has seen an emergence of various stakeholder groups seeking consensus-based solutions to water
problems (NRLC, 1996). This is not completely without precedent in the region, as many types of
quasi-private associations have long existed in the state, designed to solve water problems through
collective action and facilities development, and through lobbying activities promoting federal
irrigation projects (Waters, 1946). Nonetheless, compared to states such as Massachusetts, broadly
diverse stakeholder groups working independently to solve multifaceted resource management
problems are not a common feature in Arizonas history, nor a particularly widespread or salient
member of the existing institutional landscape.

Copyright ASCE 2004 Watershed Management 2000

Watershed Management and Operations Management 2000
 State Programs for Watershed Based Management
Both states currently utilize systems of stakeholder-based watershed management. Of the two,
the Massachusetts program is more mature and ambitious. It is among the most elaborate and
celebrated in the nation. In launching the Massachusetts Clean Water Strategy in 1992, the state, for
the first time, formally adopted integrated watershed decision-making (Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, 1993). It did so to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
(Neponset River Watershed Association and Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, 1997). To
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GLASGOW UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 06/22/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

implement its responsibilities under the CWA, the state's Department of Environmental Protection
adopted a five year cyclical and interactive process (Neponset River Watershed Association and
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, 1997). Each of the 27 state watersheds is to go through
this process, with 20 percent of the watersheds being in each year of the cycle at any one time. The
process specifies 5 primary tasks:
1. Develop an environmental plan based on what information is available and what needs to be
gathered;
2. Review existing information and fill data gaps;
3. Assess water quality conditions;
4. Plan and implement water pollution control strategies, including compliance, enforcement,
and project funding; and,
5. Evaluate by analyzing program effectiveness and updating information. (EPA, 1997b;
Neponset River Watershed Association and Executive Office of Environmental Affairs,
1997).
Implementation is primarily pursued through the Massachusetts Watershed Initiative, launched
late in 1993 by representatives of federal and state agencies, local government, environmental groups
and business interests (WISC, 1995). The Watershed Initiative Steering Committee has identified
several goals for the states watersheds, including improvements in water quality and environmental
health, improved public access, enhanced local capacity for water resources protection, and shared
responsibility for watershed management (WISC, 1995; EPA, 1997b). Initial results of the Initiative
are promising, but it is premature to declare the Massachusetts experience a success in meeting the
above goals (Michaels, 1999). While strategically blending a progressive state bureaucracy and a
well-established network of nongovernmental organizations can occasionally be problematic, local
watershed initiatives have made considerable progress (Michaels, forthcoming).
Much like the Massachusetts strategy, the evolving program in Arizona primarily focuses on
water quality management (NRLC, 1998; ADEQ, 1997). Directed by ADEQ with the full and active
support of EPA, the Arizona program emphasizes the use of consensus-based planning processes
organized through Watershed Advisory Committees featuring representatives from federal, state,
tribal, and local governments, as well as landowners, residents and other stakeholders. These
Committees work with ADEQ watershed management zone teams in ten designated regions.
Current strategy is to complete planning exercises in two regions each year, resulting in a 5-year
timetable for completing the programs six identified steps:
1. Stakeholder outreach and involvement;
2. Collection and evaluation of data;
3. Listing and targeting of environmental concerns;
4. Development of management strategies and measures of success;
5. Compilation of the management plan; and
6. Implementation and evaluation of the plan.
This watershed-based approach to water quality management only began to emerge in the mid-
1990s, with the watershed approach framework developed in 1997. Consequently, it will likely be
several years before the merits of this system are fully evident.
4

Copyright ASCE 2004 Watershed Management 2000

Watershed Management and Operations Management 2000
 Analysis
The biogeophysical and social context for watershed management in Massachusetts is very
different from that in Arizona. Why then, do the two state programs share many common features,
including a water quality emphasis, a similar planning orientation and strategy, and a commitment to
stakeholder involvement and collaborative processes? At least four likely explanations can be
identified:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GLASGOW UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 06/22/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(1) The incentive structure of water quality management is conducive to collaborative problem-
solving.
One of the most interesting facets of the Arizona watershed program is its primary focus on
water quality planning and problem-solving. This is what one would expect to see (and does see) in
Massachusetts; however, it seems counterintuitive for an arid region where water supply and
allocation will likely always dominate political discourse and public attention. Research on
watershed initiatives throughout the Southwest suggests that this phenomenon is not unique to
Arizona, but is common to several states in the region (NRLC, 1998). Why?
The reason likely lies in incentives for problem-solving (Lord and Kenney, 1993). In the
prior appropriation states, law and culture both dictate that ensuring adequate water supplies is a
competitive endeavor, with gains achieved by one party likely coming at the expense of another.
The positive-sum politics of subsidized water supply development associated with much of the
twentieth century are gone; that era has waned. The modern politics of reallocation can be
inherently zero-sum, providing a strong disincentive for cooperative problem-solving. Conversely, it
seems likely that riparian doctrine notions of sharing and minimizing impacts on neighbors are more
conducive to cooperative problem-solving. Also seemingly conducive to cooperation are many
water quality endeavors, particularly nonpoint-source pollution control efforts. In such situations,
cooperation among a broad network of landowners, industries, and other interests is often necessary
to produce the tangible and widely disbursed benefits of improved water quality.

(2) The water quality framework is similar in both states.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (as amended), generally
known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), is at the heart of the institutional frameworks for water
quality management in both states. The CWA provides a consistent organizing vision for water
quality managers, requiring restoration of the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the
countrys waters (Committee on Water Management, 1999:184). This vision is not only buttressed
by a formidable regulatory structure, but by extensive federal grants for wastewater facilities
construction and for research. The implementation of CWA requirements by state agencies is done
only with EPA approval and oversight, with each state program evaluated by regional EPA offices
using similar legal criteria (Rabe, 2000). Since the demise of the Water Resources Council in the
early 1980s, there has been no similar unifying presence or set of standards structuring state
programs for water supply management (Foster, 1984).

(3) Neither state has a proven, viable mechanism or history of meaningfully integrating water supply
and quality considerations.
Neither state has a proven, viable mechanism or history of meaningfully integrating water
supply and quality. In Arizona, this is largely attributable to the legal framework featuring a strong
private rights orientation in water supply matters, while water quality issues fall within the public
rights domain. While water supply has been a concern from the first days of settlement, water
quality problems (attributable to pollution) have only recently risen to prominence in many sectors of
5

Copyright ASCE 2004 Watershed Management 2000

Watershed Management and Operations Management 2000
 the state. In Massachusetts, water quantity regulations are far less developed than water quality
regulations. While potable water supply issues have been a longstanding concern in particular
locales, only with recent growth pressures have water supply issues become a wider concern.
From a cultural or sociological perspective, the lack of integration between water quantity
and water supply concerns has been made possible, in large part, because a significant portion of the
population in each state does not get its drinking water from within the watershed in which they
reside. For example, in Massachusetts, potable water for Greater Boston comes from a reservoir
system in the central and western part of the state. In the West, elaborate transbasin diversions are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GLASGOW UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 06/22/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the norm, perhaps best illustrated by the long trek of the CAP from the Arizona-California border
across the Sonoran desert to Tucson.
It remains to be seen if the collaborative watershed model of problem-solving can provide the
long-overdue linkages between water quantity and quality, and between land and water. Given the
particular legal, cultural and geographic context in each region, it is reasonable to expect this
challenge to be considerably more difficult in Arizona than in Massachusetts.

(4) Professional planning norms and sociological trends are similar in both states.
The means by which managers address water problems are largely shaped by norms in
planning, problem-solving and dispute resolution. The highly similar and sequential planning
processes utilized in the watershed management programs in both states reflect widely accepted
templates for planning. Similarly, the emphasis on multistakeholder groups and collaborative
decision-making are reflective of modern trends in governance and intergovernmental relations
(John, 1994). In few subject areas are these trends as evident as in watershed-based resource
management (Kenney, 1999).

Conclusions
At least four factors, identified above, make watershed management in Massachusetts in
Arizona look more similar than one would anticipate by reviewing the full spectrum of contextual
factors. Divergence of the two programs is likely (and necessary) only when they seriously attempt
to integrate water quality and quantity, and/or when they make a serious commitment to the
ecosystem management principle of letting biophysical conditions dictate institutional structures.
Thus, to the extent that the state programs for watershed management are mostly tools for water
quality management in these states, West can learn from East (and vice versa). However, in the
future when moving past this narrow focus, the two regions will likely need to chart unique courses
reflecting a broader set of contextual factors. The policy implication of this is that now is the wrong
time to adopt and formalize a standard watershed management template nationally, as this would
limit the promise of real watershed management to truly reflect local conditions, unduly retarding (or
fossilizing) the adaptive evolution of watershed management. Perhaps this is the most important
lesson to be gleaned from a comparison of East and West.

LITERATURE CITED

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division (ADEQ). (1997). The
Arizona Statewide Watershed Framework. Draft. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality,
Water Quality Division, Phoenix, AZ.

Apogee Research, Inc. (1992). Volume III, Summary of Water Rights State Laws and
Administrative Procedures. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort
Belvoir, VA.
6

Copyright ASCE 2004 Watershed Management 2000

Watershed Management and Operations Management 2000
 Burton, L. (1991). American Indian Water Rights and the Limits of Law. University of Kansas
Press, Lawrence, KS.

Born, S.M. and Genskow, K.D. (1999). Exploring the watershed approach. The Four Corners
Watershed Innovators Initiative Final Report, River Network, Portland, OR.

Cohen, N.H. (1993). The public and its rivers: The influence of watershed associations in river
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GLASGOW UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 06/22/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

planning and management in Massachusetts. Thesis, Department of Landscape Architecture and

Regional Planning, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

Committee on Watershed Management, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources,

National Research Council. (1999). New Strategies for America's Watersheds. National Academy
of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement (DFWELE),

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (1999). Summer drought parches local streams. Riverways
Newsletter (Fall), 7-8.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds. (1997a). Top 10 Watershed Lessons Learned. EPA840-F-97-001. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds. (1997b). Watershed progress: Massachusetts approach. EPA840-F-96-004.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA). (1993). Summary proceedings and consensus
points of the December 7, 1993 Watershed Forum. Executive Office of Environmental Affairs,
Boston, MA.

Foster, C.H.W. (1984). Experiments in Bioregionalism. University Press of New England,

Hanover, NH.

Goodno, R. (1998). Executive Director, Merrimack River Watershed Council, Personal

Communication January 7 1998, Lawrence, MA.

Gelt, J., Henderson J., Seasholes, K., Tellman, B., and Woodard, G. (1999). Water in the Tucson
Area: Seeking sustainability. University of Arizona, Water Resources Research Center, Tucson, AZ

John, D. (1994). Civic Environmentalism. CQ Press, Washington, DC.

Kennedy, L.E., OShea, L.K., Dunn, Jr., W.H. and LeVangie, D. (1995). The Neponset River
Watershed 1994 resource assessment report. Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, Office of Watershed Management, North Grafton and Boston, MA.

Kenney, D.S. (1999). Historical and sociopolitical context of the western watersheds movement.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 35(3), 493-503, June.

Copyright ASCE 2004 Watershed Management 2000

Watershed Management and Operations Management 2000
 Lord, W.B. and D.S. Kenney. (1993). Resolving interstate water conflicts: The compact
approach. Intergovernmental Perspective, 19(1), 19-23, Winter.

Mann, D.E. (1963). The Politics of Water in Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.

Massachusetts Clean Water Council. (1997). The state of the waters in Massachusetts: Assessing
progress and setting priorities. Massachusetts Clean Water Council, Boston, MA.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GLASGOW UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 06/22/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Michaels, S. (1999). Configuring who does what in watershed management: The Massachusetts
Watershed Initiative. Policy Studies Journal 27(3), 565-577.

Michaels, S. (Forthcoming). Making collaborative watershed management work: The confluence

of state and regional initiatives. Environmental Management.

Natural Resources Law Center (NRLC). (1996). The Watershed Source Book. University of
Colorado School of Law, Boulder, CO.

Natural Resources Law Center (NRLC). (1998). The State role in western watershed initiatives.
University of Colorado School of Law, Boulder, CO.

Neponset River Watershed Association (NepRWA) and Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
(EOEA). (1997). Neponset River Watershed basin wide action plan. Neponset River Watershed
Association & Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Boston, MA.

Powell, J.W. (1890). Institutions for Arid Lands. The Century, Vol. XL (May to October):111-
116.

Putnam, R.D., Leonardi, R. and Nanetti, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in
modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Rabe, B.G. (2000). Power to the states: The promise and pitfalls of decentralization,
Environmental Policy (Fourth Edition),. N. J. Vig and M. E. Kraft, eds., CQ Press, Washington, D.C,
32-54.

Rimmerman, C.A. (1997). The new citizenship: Unconventional politics, activism, and service.
Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Solley, W.B., Pierce, R.R. and Perlman, H.A. (1998) Estimated use of water in the United States in
1995. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200. United States Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.

United States Bureau of the Census. (1996). Land area, population and density for states and
counties released March 12, 1996 http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/90den_stco.txt

United States Bureau of the Census. (1998). Statistical Abstract of the United States (118th
edition). United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Copyright ASCE 2004 Watershed Management 2000

Watershed Management and Operations Management 2000
 United States Bureau of the Census. (1999a). State population estimates: Annual time series, July
1, 1990 to July 1, 1999, ST-99-3,
http:/www.census.gov:80/population/www/estimates/statepop.html.

United States Bureau of the Census. (1999b). State ranking of population change and demographic
period April 1, 1990 to July 1, 1999, ST-99-5,
http:/www.census.gov:80/population/www/estimates/state/st-99-5.txt.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GLASGOW UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 06/22/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). (1986). National water summary 1985Hydrologic
events and surface-water resources. Water Supply Paper 2300. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). (1993). National water summary 199091: Hydrologic
events and stream water quality. Water Supply Paper 2400. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.

United States. National Climatic Data Center. (2000a). ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs

9912.tmpst

United States National Climatic Data Center. (2000b). ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs

9912.pcpst

Waters, F. (1946). The Colorado. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Watershed Initiative Steering Committee (WISC). (1995). The Massachusetts watershed approach
and its implementation: Status report, October. Watershed Initiative Steering Committee, Boston,
MA.

AUTHORS

Sarah Michaels, Ph.D., University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0482. Phone: (303) 492-
5787, Fax: (303) 492-2151. Email Sarah.Michaels@Colorado.Edu.

Douglas S. Kenney, Ph.D., University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0401. Phone: (303)
492-1296, Fax: (303) 492-1297. Email: Douglas.Kenney@Colorado.Edu

Both authors are equally responsible for the paper.

Copyright ASCE 2004 Watershed Management 2000

Watershed Management and Operations Management 2000
 Table 1. Comparison of selected indicators for Massachusetts and Arizona

Massachusetts Arizona
Population Estimate 19991 6,175,169 4,778,322
Absolute Population Change 1990 - 19991 156,505 1,099,266
Pop. Change 1990 - 1999 as % of 1990 Pop. 2.6 29.9
% State Rank Pop. Change 4/1/90 - 7/1/992 43 2
Total Land (sq. km.)3 20,300.3 294,333.4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GLASGOW UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 06/22/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Population (per sq. km.)3 296.4 12.5

Total New Privately-Owned Housing Units 19.6 53.9
Started 1998 estimated (in thousands of units)4
Total New Privately-Owned Housing Units .003 .01
Started in 1998 per capita5
Average January Temperature 1895-1999 (oC)6 -3.77 5.11
Average July Temperature 1895-1999 (oC)6 21.29 26.53
Average Annual Precipitation 1895-1999 (mm)7 1,082 323
Per capita use freshwater (liters per day)7 715 6,132
Freshwater Groundwater Withdrawals (million 1.33 10.71
cubic meters per day)8
Freshwater Surface Water Withdrawals (million 3.01 15.06
cubic meters per day)8
Ratio of Freshwater Groundwater Withdrawals .4:1 .7:1
to Surface Water Withdrawals
Total Fresh Water Withdrawals (million cubic 4.35 25.81
meters per day)9

1. U.S. Census Bureau 1999a, http:/www.census.gov:80/population/www/estimates/statepop.html.

2. U.S. Bureau of the Census 1999b, http:/www.census.gov:80/population/www/estimates/state/st-
99-5.txt.
3. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1996, http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/90den_stco.txt.
4. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1998, p. 718.
5. Total New Privately-Owned Housing Units Started Estimate 1998 divided by Population Estimate
1998.
6. U.S. National Climatic Data Center. 2000a. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs 9912.tmpst.
7. National Climatic Data Center. 2000b. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs 9912.pcpst
8. Solley et al. 1998, p. 9.
9. Solley et al. 1998, p 11.

10

Copyright ASCE 2004 Watershed Management 2000

Watershed Management and Operations Management 2000