Nationalizing the Potomac

Released in October 1968, the Interior Department's report on the Potomac, entitled "The Nation's River," represented another "round" in discussion and controversy over the river's development. As with many other rivers, it has been difficult to decide upon a development program, to say nothing of its implementation. The recent report is of particular interest because it considers issues that are generic to multistate river basin management throughout the nation.

The first of the physical problems that arose in the Potomac River Basin was water pollution. Recognized in the early decades of the century, it was addressed during the 1930's through sediment-control programs undertaken by the Soil Conservation Service. To maintain a basin-wide perspective, the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin was established in 1940 under a compact agreed to by the four basin states and the District of Columbia. It functioned as an advisory group, concentrating primarily on state and community action against river pollution. Systematic multiple-purpose planning for the Potomac was initiated in 1956 by the Army Corps of Engineers at the direction of Congress. A nine-volume study published in 1963 recommended works needed to meet demands on the river for water supply, water quality, recreation, and flood control through the year 2010.

The sixteen major reservoirs proposed by the Corps as necessary to meet these demands, including acceptable water quality, generated considerable opposition which focused on the key Seneca Dam proposed for the main Potomac just above Washington. This structure would have permanently altered the regimen of the stream, among other things eliminating the recreational opportunities afforded by the relatively undeveloped shores of the free-flowing river.

A shift of emphasis to these recreational opportunities was reflected in President Johnson's 1965 Message on Natural Beauty, which directed the Secretary of the Interior to further study the Potomac River, indicating that it should be-come for the nation a model of the scenic and recreational opportunities rivers can provide.

The 1963 report of the Army Corps of Engineers focused primarily on the problem of water supply and of deteriorating water quality in the upper part of the Potomac estuary. The program suggested was basically one of reservoir storage to augment the low flow of the river during the summer months. The 1968 Interior Department report, in contrast, stresses recreation opportunities of the river, and de-emphasizes the role of low-flow augmentation in attacking water quality problems. Besides these substantive differences, the most recent report reflects a different concept of the planning process—a change in perspective that appears in water development planning elsewhere in the nation. This shift is evident when the 1963 and 1968 reports are contrasted on the following points:

1. The Nature of River Management. The Corps report assumes a single projection for future waste loads. The physical nature of the estuary system is assumed constant, and specific water quality objectives are asserted. Interior stresses the process of planning, implying that It is appropriately a continuous activity. Its report focuses on investments needed in the immediate future, rather than on a final solution to the problem of water quality in the Potomac Basin.
2. The Time Context for Potomac Planning. The Corps characteristically adopts a fifty-year time horizon for its planning report. Interior does not adopt a specific time horizon, but instead stresses the nature of uncertainties within the river basin, suggesting implicitly priorities for action to meet immediate needs and for research which can improve our understanding of the basin.
3. Assumptions Regarding Technology. The Corps report assumes a relatively fixed technology with no explicit allowance made for future changes. Interior expresses concern for changing technology and its implications for the "best" methods of enhancing water quality.
4. The Land-Water Relationships. The Corps gives little consideration to land-use control problems in their relation to water. Interior places considerable emphasis on the interrelationship between land all water, stressing the need for "green sheath" of publicly owned land on both banks of the Potomac.

The interior department's report, which suggests addressing Potomac River development through a planning process, immediately raises difficult questions regarding the kind of organization through which the process is to be carried out. It must be responsive to the major parties affected if particular lines of basin development are pursued. Characteristically, a river basin development plan involves such elements as weighing trade-offs between disparate benefits: e.g., water supply for upstream users versus water quality at some point lower in the river's regime; augmenting the low flow of the river versus more effective waste treatment facilities or more expensive methods of transporting sewage and wastes generated within the river basin; maintaining open access to the river banks the through federal land acquisition versus private or state development of such riparian lands. The choices require a political forum for resolution. In short, a governmental institution must be designed to cope with problems of Potomac River development. The size of this governmental body, its structure and the extent to which federal, state, and local governments are to be involved become crucial questions: In terms of population the Washington metropolitan area dominates the basin, but drainage area includes parts of four states. Upstream and downstream interests frequently are at sharp variance, and local governmental loyalty may be directed more strongly toward the state capitol than to an intergovernmental group with basin-wide responsibilities.

There have been two lines of response to these problems: a proposal for a Potomac River compact and a proposal for establishing the potomac as a National River. The compact proposal is based on the one adopted for the Delaware River by the basin states and the federal government. The proposal for a National River would authorize federal acquisition of private land on both sides of the river and the control of other lands suitable for recreation by such means as scenic easements, and leaseback and buy-back provisions. In this the federal government is clearly asserting the interest of the heavily populated metropolitan area which has historically constituted the principal "user" of the Potomac River. Although the National River concept would not eliminate state and local governmental ownership of lands bordering the river, it would inhibit private land-use decisions detrimental to public recreational opportunities in the basin.

The debate and controversy within the basin confirm the need for new designs for governmental organization capable of effectively managing natural resource systems and of reaching across traditional civil jurisdictions.