Search results

The general purpose of this study is the examination of the institutional framework for ground water management, with specific consideration given to Virginia as a case study. The following objectives are encompassed within the general goal of institutional evaluation: (1) identification of the physical determinants of institutional structure, (2) description of current management institutions in Virginia, (3) comparative evaluation of the Virginia institutional framework, and (4) development of institutional guidelines of general applicability and specific recommendations for Virginia. The principal physical characteristic of ground water that determines institutional requirements for management is the dependence of the resource on a broad range of natural processes and the resulting propensity toward a variety of externalities. These external effects exist among individual water uses and also involve a variety of land use practices, indicating the need for a management framework with the capability for integration of a broad scope of considerations. The oldest institutional framework for ground water decision-making consists of private rights that define the limits of individual action affecting the resource. Private rights are significant with regard to withdrawal of ground water, use of land that affects the resource, and use of aquifer storage space through artificial recharge operations. Development of rights in these areas has proceeded at varying rates among the states and has reached differing results, but private rights in general have been relatively ineffective in restraining excessive pumping and other activities adversely affecting the resource. The institutional framework for ground water management also encompasses a variety of statutory laws and programs involving all levels of government, Primary responsibilities of the federal government consist of quality protection and data collection. Developing federal planning procedures have a potentially significant impact on ground water management. In Virginia, state law establishes an administrative ground water allocation system for application within specially designated districts. The state also regulates a number of activities that threaten ground water quality and carries out a data collection and management program. The primary authority of the local level of government concerning ground water is land use control. The development of guidelines for improved ground water management institutions involves a variety of issues. One of the most basic consists of the dgree of governmental involvement and the division of responsibilities among the levels of government. Due to the traditional inability of private control measures to constrain ground water externalities and the need for mechanisms to provide for planning and other non-regulatory management functions, direct governmental involvement and control appear inevitable ag burdens placed on the resource increase, With regard to vesting of governmental authority, considerations of managerial capabilities and perspectives indicate that the state level of government should exercise primary authority. Other issues addressed in the general guidelines and the Virginia recommendations include the feasibility of an allocation program applicable solely to ground water, guidelines for determination of "beneficial use," scope of exemptions from controls, criteria for permit issuance, permit duration, and the scope and administrative structure of ground water quality protection programs. ; Ph. D.

William E. Cox, Joseph H. Sherrard, Christopher D. Gaw ; Supported in part by U.S. Geological Survey, Dept. of Interior, as authorized by the Water Resources Research Act of 1984

Contemporary prejudice research focuses primarily on people who are motivated to respond without prejudice and the ways in which unintentional bias can cause these people to act inconsistent with this motivation. However, some real-world phenomena (e.g., hate speech, hate crimes) and experimental findings (e.g., Plant & Devine, 2001; 2009) suggest that some expressions of prejudice are intentional. These phenomena and findings are difficult to explain solely from the motivations to respond without prejudice. We argue that some people are motivated to express prejudice, and we develop the motivation to express prejudice (MP) scale to measure this motivation. In seven studies involving more than 6,000 participants, we demonstrate that, across scale versions targeted at Black people and gay men, the MP scale has good reliability and convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. In normative climates that prohibit prejudice, the internal and external motivations to express prejudice are functionally non-independent, but they become more independent when normative climates permit more prejudice toward a target group. People high in the motivation to express prejudice are relatively likely to resist pressure to support programs promoting intergroup contact and vote for political candidates who support oppressive policies. The motivation to express prejudice predicted these outcomes even when controlling for attitudes and the motivations to respond without prejudice. This work encourages contemporary prejudice researchers to broaden the range of samples, target groups, and phenomena that they study, and more generally to consider the intentional aspects of negative intergroup behavior.