THE BAY DELTA CONSERVATION PLAN: A MID-COURSE EVALUATION
MEASURING BEST PRACTICES IN COLLABORATION
Aracely Campa
B.S., California State University, Sacramento, 2007
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2011
© 2011
Aracely Campa
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
THE BAY DELTA CONSERVATION PLAN: A MID-COURSE EVALUATION
MEASURING BEST PRACTICES IN COLLABORATION
A Thesis
by
Aracely Campa
Approved by:
, Committee Chair
William D. Leach, Ph.D.
, Second Reader
David E. Booher
Date
iii
Student: Aracely Campa
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
, Department Chair
Robert Wassmer, Ph.D.
Date
Department of Public Policy and Administration
iv
Abstract
of
THE BAY DELTA CONSERVATION PLAN: A MID-COURSE EVALUATION
MEASURING BEST PRACTICES IN COLLABORATION
by
Aracely Campa
The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) is the state’s current effort to attempt
to accomplish the co-equal goals of a water supply reliability and ecosystem restoration.
The BDCP is a proposed Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community
Conservation Plan to provide State Water project facilities in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin River Delta, operated by the California Department of Water resources, with
Federal Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act coverage for a
50-year permit term. The steering committee membership consists of 26 stakeholders
who represent a broad coalition of interests ranging from agricultural users,
environmentalists, and business interests who have been meeting since 2006. However,
despite the investment of millions of dollars and hundreds of meetings that have been
dedicated to this effort, many concerns about the future of the BDCP exist. The purpose
of this study is to evaluate, at its mid-course point, the BDCP based on best practices in
collaboration. To accomplish this a representative sample of the stakeholders were
interviewed – 18 in total. This data was then used to measure both process and outcomes
through the use of several criteria in addition to the data gathered during the interview
v
process. The main findings of the study demonstrated that key stakeholders are missing
in the decision-making process. The data also indicated that the absence of key
stakeholders increased the division between those actively at the table and those
participating as “interested observers.” This has resulted in a decrease in social capital
and a power imbalance among participants. These and other findings are summarized
and subsequent recommendations are offered to policymakers as the process moves
forward.
, Committee Chair
William D. Leach, Ph.D.
Date
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank God for guiding me through this process
and bestowing upon me a wonderful family and strong support system – Thank you mom
and dad for sacrificing so much in order for me to have this opportunity. Ama y apa los
quiero mucho y quiero que sepan que estaré eternamente agradecida por cada sacrificio
que han hecho por mí y por mis hermanos
I would also want to thank my brothers and sisters for inspiring me to always do
better. Echenle ganas porque si se puede!
I also want to thank my amazing partner in life. Thank you Eric for bearing with
me during this process and for your encouragement and support to get me through it.
RAWR
I would also like to thank my advisors Dr. William Leach and David Booher for
their invaluable support, feedback and assistance throughout this process. As a former
student to you both, I have benefitted greatly from your knowledge and expertise.
I would like to give thanks to the stakeholders who agreed to be interviewed and
who so graciously shared with me their thoughts, insights, and hopes for the future. I
hope I have succeeded in taking their thoughts into account and accurately representing
their views.
Thank you also to the wonderful capital community who so graciously gave their
time to provide me with their expertise. I would especially like to thank Ms. Tina Cannon
Leahy and Alf Brandt.
vii
Lastly, I would like to thank team Caballero for taking a chance on me and giving
me the opportunity to work on such amazing water issues. Thank you for the
encouragement and support over the past three years.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1
Background on California Water Issues ..................................................................2
The Federal and State Water Projects ......................................................................3
The North-South Fight over Water ..........................................................................5
What is the BDCP? ..................................................................................................8
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................................12
Consensus Building ...............................................................................................14
Susskind’s Pre-conditions for Consensus ..............................................................15
Criteria for Evaluating Consensus Building ..........................................................18
Process Criteria ......................................................................................................18
Outcome Criteria ....................................................................................................25
Challenges with Evaluating Consensus Building ..................................................28
3. CALFED: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND FOR UNDERSTANDING
THE BDCP ....................................................................................................................30
CALFED History and Purpose ..............................................................................30
Background ............................................................................................................31
CALFED Process ...................................................................................................35
ix
Outcomes ...............................................................................................................38
Criticisms of CALFED ..........................................................................................41
4. METHODS ....................................................................................................................45
Qualitative Research ..............................................................................................45
Evaluation Research...............................................................................................46
Process and Outcome Criteria ................................................................................48
Data Gathering Methods: Interviews .....................................................................50
Researcher Identity and Role .................................................................................53
Archival Documents ..............................................................................................53
5. PROCESS AND OUTCOMES OF THE BDCP ...........................................................55
Public Process to Date ...........................................................................................55
Process ...................................................................................................................56
Conflict Assessment/Neutrality .............................................................................56
Broad Representation of All Relevant Interests.....................................................58
Shared Purpose.......................................................................................................59
Self-Organizing ......................................................................................................61
Use of High Quality Information/Joint Fact-finding Process ................................62
Keeping Participants at the Table/Engaged ...........................................................64
Seeking Consensus Only after Full Exploration of Interests .................................65
Other Process Observations ...................................................................................66
x
6. SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................74
Process Findings ....................................................................................................74
Outcome Findings ..................................................................................................77
Recommendations to State Policymakers/Leadership ...........................................77
Concluding Comments...........................................................................................79
Appendix A. Interview Questions......................................................................................83
Appendix B. Consent to Participate in Research ...............................................................85
Appendix C. Draft Agreement Key Findings ....................................................................87
References ..........................................................................................................................96
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Table 1 Primary Objectives Established by the CALFED Record
of Decision (ROD) .....................................................................................................37
2.
Table 2 Principles Established by the CALFED Record of Decision (ROD) ............38
3.
Table A1 BDCP Goals Outlined in the Planning Agreement ....................................89
4.
Table A2 Scientist Liaison Goals ...............................................................................93
xii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
This thesis reports the results of a midcourse evaluation of an ongoing
collaborative process known as the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). Specifically, it
analyzes whether best practices in collaboration have been used since the planning began
in 2006. The BDCP process consists of a 26-member steering committee. Members of the
committee range from business and agricultural interests to environmental and water
agencies directly impacted by the outcome of the plan. The committee has been tasked
with developing a long-term solution for the management of the Delta while
accomplishing the co-equal goals of a reliable water supply and Delta restoration.
Despite years of the process, almost 300 meetings, and over $140 million spent,
substantial disagreement still exists among the stakeholders as to the direction of the plan
and its outcomes. Concerns became increasingly apparent in 2010 when major state
newspapers began posting headlines such as “Water Plan or Water Grab?” (Zito, 2010)
and “BDCP: Are the Wheels Falling Off?” (Campana, 2010). To further complicate
matters, one of the plan’s key players, Westlands Water District, removed its support
from the process last fall, detailed in “Big Player in California Water Plan Pulls Out”
(Taugher, 2010).
Currently, the BDCP Steering Committee is considering an isolated conveyance
facility (also known as the peripheral canal) around, or under, the delta in conjunction
with habitat restoration and other measures as the basis of the plan. Several uncertainties
2
linger for the future of the BDCP such as the shift with the new Brown Administration
and with him new leadership for the plan. This will greatly impact the way in which the
plan moves forward and the outcome that may result, making it a very critical time for
planning and decision making.
This midcourse evaluation used qualitative methodologies to measure best
practices in collaboration. Members of each “caucus” (i.e., environmental groups, water
agencies, etc.) who make up the 26 stakeholders in the process were interviewed in
addition to those who are not “formal” steering committee members, but have actively
participated in the meetings. Each committee member had the opportunity to share
his/her insights and opinions on the process to determine if indeed best practices have
been used. This evaluation was conducted midcourse to evaluate the collaborative based
on the information received from the participants interviewed and to provide, in light of
the new administration in California, recommendations on next steps in the BDCP
collaborative process.
Background on California Water Issues
When asked what a newcomer should know about California, noted western
writer Wallace Stegner answered with four words: “Water. It’s about water” (Stegner,
1980, p. 38). California has had a long history of dealing with significant water concerns,
such as severe droughts and floods. Over the years, many battles have been waged over
who gets how much of this precious resource. Perhaps Mark Twain said it best when he
allegedly stated, “Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over” (Twainquotes, n.d.).
3
Indeed, the fight for water continues today in courtrooms throughout the state and within
the State Legislature (Lauer, 2009).
One area that has seen a significant amount of this fighting is the Delta. In fact,
nearly two-thirds of our state's water flows through this unique estuary consisting of both
salt and freshwater (CALFED Bay-Delta Program, 2007). The Delta is considered the
largest estuary on the West Coast. It is home to over a half a million people and includes
over 1,000 miles of levees and roads. It is a key recreation destination and supports
extensive infrastructure of statewide importance. It is the hub of California’s water
system providing water to over 25 million people throughout the Bay Area, the Central
Valley, and Southern California (California Natural Resources Agency, 2007).
Water conveyed from the Delta supports farms and ranches from the North Delta
to just north of the Mexican Border, subsequently contributing to the economic driving
factor of California agriculture (Lauer, 2009). Moreover, its unique blend of both salt
and fresh water make the Delta a vitally important ecosystem that is home to hundreds of
aquatic and terrestrial species. Many of these are unique to the area, including several
threatened species, such as the infamous Delta Smelt. The recent rapid decline of
populations of many of these fish species has been followed by court rulings restricting
water exports from the Delta.
The Federal and State Water Projects
A network of reservoirs and canals, mostly constructed by public agencies, allows
for the storage or transfer of water throughout California. Two of the largest public works
4
projects in California’s history are the Federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and the
state-owned State Water Project (SWP) (Coppock as cited in Engelbert & Scheuring,
1982). The CVP began construction in 1935 and is operated by the Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR, 2011). The CVP stores waters of the Sacramento, American,
Trinity, and San Joaquin rivers and conveys them to the largely agricultural areas in the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys (Coppock as cited in Engelbert & Scheuring, 1982).
Although the CVP primarily serves farms, it also serves homes and industry in
California’s Central Valley as well as major urban centers in the San Francisco Bay Area.
It is also the primary source of water for much of California’s wetlands (USBR, 2011).
Major reservoirs include Shasta, Trinity, Folsom, and Millerton, also known as Friant
Dam. Water from these reservoirs flows down the Sacramento River and through the
Delta. From there, it is pumped into the Delta-Mendota Canal, and is transferred halfway
down the San Joaquin Valley. Meanwhile, water from Friant Dam serves the east side of
the lower San Joaquin Valley through the Friant-Kern and Madera canals (Coppcock as
cited in Engelbert & Scheuring, 1982). According to the California Department of Water
Resources (DWR; 2011), during any given year, CVP deliveries total almost 8 MAF.
More than 80% of this goes to irrigate nearly 2 million acres of farmland.
The State Water Project (SWP), on the other hand, is the nation’s largest statebuilt water and power development and conveyance system. This facility provides water
supplies for 25 million Californians and 750,000 acres of farmland (DWR, 2011). The
California SWP is a water storage and delivery system of reservoirs, aqueducts, and
5
pumping plants. Its primary purpose is to store and distribute water to its 29 urban and
agricultural water suppliers in Northern California, the San Francisco Bay, the San
Joaquin Valley, Central Coast, and Southern California. In all, 70% of contracted water
supply goes to urban users and 30% goes to agricultural users.
The SWP is maintained and operated by DWR and it makes deliveries to twothirds of California’s population (DWR, 2011). The key storage facility of the SWP is
Oroville Dam on the Feather River. SWP water, similar to that of CVP water, flows down
the Sacramento River and through the Delta. There, it is pumped into the 444-mile
California aqueduct and flows to the West side of the lower San Joaquin Valley and
across the Tehachapi Mountains to Southern California (Engelbert & Scheuring, 1982).
The North-South Fight over Water
California has very diverse needs as is demonstrated by the multiple uses of both
State and Federal Projects. Nevertheless, the problem engineers have been eager to solve
for many decades is the fact that most of the water is in the north, flowing either to the
north coast or to the northern central valley, while most of the demand for water is in the
south (Dennis, 1981). It must be moved through both systems to provide sufficient water
supply to farms, homes, and businesses in southern California. In addition, it must also
allow enough water to be available for the habitat and fragile ecosystems that depend on
a sufficient amount of water to survive. Over the last few decades, the north-south water
fights have erupted over who gets how much of this resource. Water exports from the
6
Delta have focused political attention on one of California’s most important and iconic
water controversies (Lund et al., 2008).
No issue has brought this as close to the forefront as the peripheral canal. In fact,
a recent San Francisco Chronicle article stated,
Forty-three cities, counties and water agencies – including those serving more
than 4 million residents in San Francisco, the Peninsula and parts of the East Bay
– say the (peripheral canal) plan is a blatant Southern California water grab that
could further harm the delta, constrict water supplies and raise water rates in
much of Northern California. (Zito, 2010, para. 3)
For decades, the peripheral canal has been considered the most likely alternative
to the current system of water delivery for the state in order to accomplish the co-equal
goals of a more reliable water supply and ecosystem restoration. The concept involves the
idea of diverting water from the Sacramento River, through or around the Delta. It would
transfer water into the California Aqueduct, primarily via the Jones and banks pumping
stations, then be pumped to Central and Southern California (USBR, 2011).
It began as an ambitious, and expensive (in 1980 dollars the price tag was
estimated to be $2.1 billion), water development package that emerged in the Legislature
during the summer of 1980 (Dennis, 1981). The package had three main components.
The first part proposed constitutional protections from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
and the north coast rivers to be submitted to the voters for approval that November. The
second component was an executive order calling for the development of water
7
conservation and a desalinization plan. The third and final piece of the package was the
passage and subsequent signing of SB 200, which authorized the peripheral canal, two
new reservoirs, and other water control facilities and guidelines for the operation of the
facilities (Dennis, 1981).
The original proposed canal was known as “the 42-mile ditch,” which would run
from the small town of Hood located in the North Delta to the Clifton Court Forebay on
the south side of the Delta. The canal was proposed to be between 400 and 500 feet wide
and would have the capacity to move approximately 18,300 cubic feet of water into the
Clifton Court Forebay every second (Dennis, 1981). By taking the southbound waters
from the Sacramento River above the Delta and moving the water around the Delta rather
than through it, the canal was supposed to make it easier to deliver high quality water to
the State and Federal pumps. This would ensure that a better water supply was received
on the south end of the canal while creating less harm to the Bay-Delta ecosystem.
Indeed, SB 200 included clauses designed to encourage the restoration of fish and
wildlife in the Bay-Delta estuary. For instance, the bill indicated that the Director of
DWR and the Director of Department of Fish and Game (DFG) must agree that the fish
screens at the intake of the canal “adequately protect fish populations” (Dennis, 1981, p.
37). Moreover, SB 200 called for the use of unregulated flows of fresh water to the extent
practicable for the restoration and maintenance of fish and wildlife in the Delta.
Nevertheless, the clear North-South “battle” was won by Northern California
voters when they defeated a ballot initiative to build the canal in 1982. The public
8
referendum, known as Proposition 9 was defeated in June by a vote of 63 to 37% of the
electorate. At the time, many observers of California water politics believed the message
was loud and clear and the canal idea was dead. However, that was not the case. In 1998,
the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, which is discussed at length in the literature review
section, began a planning process to address Delta ecological and water supply concerns.
CALFED developed three alternatives for moving water through or around the
Delta, including what planners called an “isolated conveyance facility.” This plan called
for a smaller capacity canal, around 5,000 cubic feet per second. The CALFED plan also
included several ecosystem restoration plans, such as a multi-species habitat conservation
plan, a levee repair strategy, reservoir planning studies, an “environmental water
account” program to mitigate export pumping losses of fish and water contractors, and
programs for water use efficiency and drinking water; however, the plan failed to receive
sufficient funding, and has not moved forward.
What is the BDCP?
The Bay-Delta Conservation plan is a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which is
a process designed to give incentives to non-Federal land managers and private
landowners to help protect listed and unlisted species while allowing economic
development that may harm (take) the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011). It
includes a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), which identifies and
provides for the regional or area-wide protection of plants, animals, and their habitats
while allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity (Department of Fish and
9
Game [DFG]). When completed, the BDCP will provide the basis for the issuance of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) authorizations for the operation of the state and Federal
water projects. The heart of the BDCP is a long-term conservation strategy that sets forth
actions needed for healthy Delta ecosystem.
The BDCP is being prepared by State and Federal water contractors, the
California Department of Water Resources, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the
California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, environmental organizations, and other interested
parties (BDCP). These organizations have formed a steering committee tasked with
identifying covered activities and water flow and habitat restoration actions to ensure a
more reliable water supply and recover endangered and sensitive Delta species and their
habitats. Planning for the BDCP has been ongoing since 2006. Currently, the BDCP
Steering Committee is analyzing an isolated conveyance facility around, or under, the
Delta in conjunction with habitat restoration and other measures as the basis of the plan.
In 2009, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 1 (Simitian) from
the Seventh Extraordinary Session on water. This bill, known as the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009, included several provisions that dealt with the
developments and implementation of the BDCP (Water Code §§85000). Among these
provisions was the newly created entity known as the Delta Stewardship Council (the
Council). The primary task of the Council is to implement, by January 1, 2012, a longterm management plan for the Delta, known as the Delta plan, that meets the co-equal
10
goals of providing a more reliable water supply for California. The Delta reform act
requires the co-equal goals to be achieved “in a manner that protects and enhances the
unique cultural, recreational, natural resources, and agricultural values of the Delta as an
evolving place” (Public Resources Code §§29702 (section a)).
The Delta Reform Act also anticipates that the BDCP will be included in the
Delta Plan if it meets certain requirements. The statute states, “The Bay-Delta
Conservation Plan (BDCP) shall be considered for inclusion in the Delta Plan in
accordance with this chapter” (Water Code §§85320 (a)). Included amongst these
requirements are several provisions including no use of public monies unless the BDCP
complies with an NCCP and all CEQA requirements. Moreover, consideration of flow
criteria, conveyance facilities, and even climate changes must be considered. The plan
must have buy-off from several State and Federal Water agencies such as DWR, DFG,
and input from the Delta Stewardship Council.
Finally, in addition to the requirements mentioned, the Delta Reform Act
prohibits the State Water Resources Control Boards from approving any change in the
SWP point of diversion (i.e., any change from the existing facilities to a new conveyance
facility, as is currently proposed in the BDCP) unless the order approving the change
includes,
appropriate Delta flow criteria and shall be informed by the analysis conducted
pursuant to this section. The flow criteria shall be subject to modification over
time based on a science-based adaptive management program that integrates
11
scientific and monitoring results, including the contribution of habitat and other
conservation measures, into ongoing Delta water management. (Water Code
§§85086(c)(2))
California is facing a unique, yet challenging situation unlike any it has
encountered before. Old, outdated infrastructure, newfound science, and old practices
have all led to significant negative repercussions including habitat and fish degradation,
poor water quality and decreased water reliability. Regardless of the potential solutions, it
is clear that business as usual is no longer an option and the stakeholders involved in
developing solutions must develop a process in which they can effectively implement a
plan to focus on the outlined co-equal goals of a reliable water supply and delta
restoration, while involving all stakeholders to participate.
12
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Collaboration or consensus building is usually defined as a practice in which
parties with different points of view meet to build consensus toward agreement, or policy
decision making. Supporters see collaborative planning as a more effective way to break
policy impasses, to include a greater number of interests in the decision-making, and to
offer solutions that result in mutual benefits to all involved. In recent years, consensus
building has become a common alternative to traditional technocratic approaches. This
has especially been the case surrounding environmental policy, in which traditional
approaches have resulted in lengthy delays of implementation of policies due to the
ongoing court battles over deep-seated differences among stakeholders (Connick & Innes
2001).
Innes (1999) makes a helpful distinction amongst three general types of
evaluations of consensus-based efforts. First, she discusses midcourse evaluations,
conducted midway through the negotiation to assess the progress and make process
improvements. These evaluations typically assess if the process criteria are being met, the
satisfaction of the participants and if a group has a clear focus. This type of evaluation is
critical because identifying any potential problems or concerns at this stage can make a
huge impact in the final outcome for the process and help keep participants at the table.
Next, Innes discusses end-of-process evaluations, conducted once a negotiation
has been finalized to obtain information about level of participant satisfaction and to
13
identify outcomes of the process. These evaluations are typically conducted shortly after
the process has ended. Such an evaluation is helpful for several reasons. First, it provides
conveners and participants with an assessment of what was accomplished. Second, it is
helpful for the facilitators who measure the applied criteria to determine whether they
were met during the process.
A critical measurement in this phase is the measurement of first order outcomes,
which includes learning and different attitudes among the stakeholders. Innes and
Connick (2001) develop a useful distinction between first, second, and third order
outcomes. The first order outcomes occur during the actual dialogue process among
parties. This includes the building of social, political, and intellectual capital as well as
agreement and innovative ideas and strategies. The second order outcomes include new
relationships, collaborative activities, coordinated and joint action learning that extends
outside the immediate group of participants to a larger community, and implementation
of mutual agreements. These outcomes often tend to be seen after the process concluded.
The final outcomes, or third order outcomes, are often overlooked because tracing their
roots back to a collaborative process is highly difficult and only increases with time.
These outcomes include the development of institutions compatible with or as a direct
result of collaboration along with the norms that support that institution (Innes & Booher
1999).
The final evaluation type is a retrospective evaluation, conducted much after the
negotiations have ended to identify the value and stability of agreements produced by the
14
process, the durability of relationships, and other long-term outcomes. These evaluations
are typically conducted in one to five years, after the process has concluded. These are
important for several reasons. For instance, retrospective evaluations allow for the
identification of second and third order effects, which often are overlooked or missed at
the end of a consensus process. These effects are critical to the long-term or continuing
process. For instance, many times, participants of a process will work together for years
even decades on the same issues. Retrospective evaluations allow for the participants to
“grow” together, share in joint information sharing, and build and strengthen these
relationships.
Consensus Building
According to Susskind (1999), consensus building has the ability to provide
groups with the opportunity to have agreements that satisfy the parties’ main interests and
concerns. He states, “using consensus-based approaches, groups can jointly develop
solutions and make decisions that are more creative and more widely supported than
those made using traditional decision-making methods” (Susskind, 1999, p. xvii).
Susskind believes that in a consensus building process, those who are participating gain
both mutual respect and a unique feeling of understanding of each other’s viewpoints.
This affects the level of relationship that develops among the parties and may assist in
future negotiations.
Furthermore, decisions made through such a process, often have more buy-in
from those involved in shaping the ideas. For instance, Susskind (1999) makes the
15
distinction between ad hoc or temporary groups and permanent groups and where their
loyalties lie. Individuals who belong to an ad hoc group tend to focus on their obligations
and responsibilities to the organizations or groups they have been asked to represent. On
the other hand, those who belong to a permanent organization tend to pay special
attention to the long-term well-being of the entity (Susskind, 1999). Moreover, temporary
groups tend to need more time to get organized and get established since they have no
history to build on. This makes every aspect of the process design more difficult.
Susskind’s Pre-conditions for Consensus
Susskind (1999) maintains that for consensus building to be most effective, four
preconditions must be met. The first precondition requires the group to have the correct
amount of facilitation. It is essential that groups have a facilitator who can help move the
process forward and ensure the group remains focused on substance. Additionally, it is
often helpful to have a skilled facilitator who has no stake in the process manage the
conversation. A true facilitator, for example, can remind parties of the ground rules they
have adopted as stakeholders attempt to collect information, make proposals, and defend
their points of views. The facilitator can be most helpful if their main role is to focus on
the group as opposed to worrying about his/her personal agenda.
The second precondition required is for all participants to demonstrate their
commitment to the process. This can be accomplished, for instance, through the adoption
of ground rules or a memorandum of understanding. This demonstrates the parties’
16
willingness to want to participate and work together as a team. According to Susskind
(1999),
most ground rules for consensus building cover a range of topics including (a) the
rights and responsibilities of participants, (b) behavioral guidelines that
participants will be expected to follow, (c) rules governing interaction with the
media, (d) decision-making procedures, and (e) strategies for handling
disagreement and ensuring implementation of an agreement if one is reached. (p.
26)
After adopting the procedural ground rules, it is then necessary to require all
participants to sign them acknowledging to abide by the rules during the process.
Susskind (1999) recommends that copies of these ground rules be sent directly to every
organization, group, or department that has designated a representative in the process.
Moreover, he notes that all participants need to sign the rules before they are allowed to
attend and participate in meetings.
The third precondition required allows groups or stakeholders who want to
participate in the consensus building process to build their capacity to work in this
manner. Susskind believes participants of the process must learn how to think about
meeting their needs, but also the needs of others. One way to accomplish this is to use
principled negotiation as outlined by Fisher and Ury (1981) in their book Getting to Yes.
Principled negotiations decide issues on their merits rather than through the “haggling”
17
process that focuses on what each party will or will not do. This negotiation process
suggests that parties involved look for mutual gains whenever possible.
At the heart of this principle is the focus of arguing over interests not positions.
Fisher and Ury (1981) state that when negotiators bargain over positions, they tend to
lock themselves into those positions. “The more you clarify your position and defend it
against attack, the more committed you become to it” (p. 4). Moreover, as more attention
is paid to positions, less attention is devoted to understanding and addressing the
underlying concerns of the parties involved. This is just one way in which stakeholders
participating in a consensus building process can be better prepared when they convene at
the table in order to come to agreement.
The final precondition is the “road map” to consensus building. According to
Straus (1999), Stakeholders need a “map” for the same reasons a lost traveler needs a
map to figure out how to get from point A to point B. This is initiated in what Straus calls
the process design phase (PDC). This process involves determining if a consensus based
process will function or not, those who should be at the table, and how to move forward
with a plan. This is often done through visual means known as a graphic road map, which
is literally a map demonstrating the process stakeholders will follow. Straus recommends
allowing the stakeholders involved in the process to provide input into the development
of the map. This, in addition to support from the facilitators, is a crucial step in the
planning phase of a consensus building process which can help lead to a better outcome
and clearer process for participants.
18
Criteria for Evaluating Consensus Building
Innes (1999), in her contribution to Susskind’s Consensus Building Handbook,
discusses the evaluation of consensus building processes through use of best practices in
collaboration. Innes (1999) believes consensus building evaluations must assess both its
strengths and weaknesses and should be compared directly with traditional decisionmaking processes. She does state, however, that sometimes it may be difficult to compare
the two because there are some benefits to consensus building that cannot be measured,
such as relationship building, increased knowledge, understanding, and trust. This section
discusses the criteria for evaluating consensus-based processes.
According to Innes, Gruber, Neuman, and Thompson (1994), the criteria outlined
are based on the idea that consensus building is a method for creating “a self-organizing,
adaptive system for a complex, changing, and uncertain context” (p. 647). Moreover,
these criteria are also based off of much research conducted in the practice of consensus
building (see Innes 1999; Innes et al., 1994). These ideas have been greatly impacted by
the work of social theorists, such as Habermas (1981) who provided a theory for joint
learning that underlies best practices of consensus building.
Process Criteria
Innes (1999) recommends using two sets of criteria: one for process, and another
for outcomes. Although Innes states that it seldom occurs that a consensus building
process will meet all process criteria, a process will be much more effective as more
criteria are met. Process criteria include conducting a conflict assessment; broad
19
representation of all relevant interests; a practical purpose shared by the group,
participants who are self-organizing, use of civil discourse, the use of high quality
information, the encouragement of members to challenge assumptions, keeping
participants at the table interested and learning, and seeking consensus only after a full
exploration of interests and efforts to find innovative solutions has been sought.
Conducting a Conflict Assessment
Perhaps one of the most important process criterions is not really a “process
criterion” at all. Prior to initiating the recommended processes, it is of great advantage to
conduct a conflict assessment to determine whether there is room at all for collaboration.
Susskind (1999) believes an assessment is a critical information gathering exercise that
produces four recommendations. The first is to determine who has a stake in the conflict.
Second, is to determine what issues are important to the stakeholders. The third is
whether it makes sense to proceed given constraints, and finally the circumstances under
which parties will participate. These conflict assessments are often conducted by a
professional third party. Key information is gathered during this process, such as who
will cover the cost of the collaborative, how the issues will be framed, and how many
meetings to hold.
One such key issue often overlooked by the conveners of a consensus building
process is the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement also known as the BATNA
(Fisher & Ury, 1981). Often, conveners who fail to conduct a conflict assessment
overlook the fact that participants are at the table to negotiate or accomplish something
20
better than what they can obtain without negotiating. The BATNA, according to Fisher
and Ury (1981), is the standard by which any proposed agreement should be measured –
failure to recognize a participant’s BATNA can be a mistake and may effectively derail
the consensus building process if one or more participants share this hardline BATNA
approach. A conflict assessment conducted by a neutral third party often helps identify
such BATNAs. This is then “calculated into the equation” by the third party, which will
determine whether the process should or should not move forward. Nonetheless, “all of
these determinations must be made carefully, because the ultimate success of every
consensus building process depends on these early ‘design’ decisions” (Fisher & Ury, p.
99-100).
Broad Representation
Innes (1999) believes that having all relevant stakeholders present and actively
participating is vital to the success of a collaboration. Indeed, stakeholders who are
involved immediately have a greater sense of responsibility to actively engage in the
process. On the other hand, when key groups or stakeholders are left out or are missing, it
is easier to criticize or “throw rocks” at a process from the outside. This, in turn, makes it
much more difficult when an “agreement” is reached because often, those not present or
participating do not buy in to the final outcome. Similarly, Potapchuk and Crocker (1999)
believe that for implementation to be successful, the process design of the collaborative
must be sound as it refers to adequate representation. For instance, Potapchuk and
Crocker emphasize that the individuals who can implement the ultimate agreement – or
21
block it – should be included in the process. Similarly, process protocols that enhance the
feelings of ownership of the process by all the stakeholders can increase the likelihood of
implementation.
Participants Share a Common Purpose
Having a shared purpose can help increase interest and involvement in a process.
This is critical because having a mutual goal can ensure the momentum is not lost in a
consensus building process. It is what keeps stakeholders at the table – all favorable
contributions that may result in an agreement among the stakeholders. As participants
continue to move forward, there may be potential for unclear goals to derail the process.
Innes believes that if the goal is broad enough, it will allow people with differing
perspectives to share it. However, it is critical the purpose or goal be made very clear
throughout the entire process. Ensuring goals become more specific and direct will help
reassure stakeholders that their time is well spent.
Nonetheless, it is important to note it is not necessary for stakeholders to literally
have the same goal. There are obvious biases and goals on behalf of each stakeholder and
his/her organization. They arrive at the process with these goals in mind, but they do not
always leave the table with each of these goals fulfilled. In fact, it is often their
dissatisfaction with the status quo that unites them in the first place. For instance, the
environmental degradation of the Delta has long become a sizeable concern to the water
community and to the State. However, there are many different proposals and suggestions
of how to “fix the problem.” Thus, the two co-equal goals of water supply reliability and
22
ecosystem restoration have been adopted by the BDCP Committee. These two broad
goals are large enough to cover almost everyone within the water community; in other
words, it gives stakeholders a reason to come to the table to work out a solution to the
mutual goals.
Participants are Self-organizing
One of the critical goals is the ability for stakeholders to be self-organizing. Innes
(1999) believes stakeholders should have the authority to establish their own ground rules
and objectives. This helps reinforce the responsibility of moving forward in sharing that
common goal. This component of the process allows participants to feel empowered by
making key decisions on how the process will move forward and what tasks will be taken
on by the group. This may include a memorandum of agreement, group principles, or
other specific processes. In many “so called” consensus building efforts, these rules and
objectives are often imposed on the group as “standard procedures” and stakeholders are
given very little autonomy or opportunity for input. This may leave stakeholders feeling
dissatisfied or not being listened to.
Indeed, the self-organizing process is a critical one because without it,
stakeholders may assume a more dormant role in the learning and decision making
process. This may result in a failure to respond to the needs of the group and in a less
efficient process. Thus, lack of opportunity to take ownership of the process often results
in increased stakeholder concerns and may result in decreased interest and involvement.
When stakeholders are interdependent and have the authority to decide under which
23
terms and conditions they will work together, the tone is set for the rest of the process,
which has an increased likelihood of success.
Civil discourse principles and use of high quality information. The dialogue in a
consensus building process is key to ensuring a successful collaboration takes place.
Innes (1999) believes one of the best means to help accomplish this is by good oldfashioned face-to-face discussions. This ensures all participants have a forum in which
they can speak about their interests and their colleagues’ interests through the adoption of
high quality information. This often begins by a process known as joint fact finding in
which stakeholders and experts work together to collect and analyze information. This is
critical to the consensus building process because it allows participants to be on the same
page and it allows for better informed participants.
Once everyone is in the same place with regard to the information, more
opportunity exists to consider creative and new proposals. Often, the placement of all
parties involved in a single space where the joint fact finding process and an authentic
dialogue process happen can help facilitate the path to agreement. Booher and Innes
(2001) believe authentic dialogue includes sincerity, accuracy, comprehensibility, and
legitimacy. It allows participants of the process to speak openly and in an informed
manner about their interests and understanding and allows all people involved to listen
and be listened to.
Encouraging participants to challenge assumptions and stay at the table. Innes
(1999) believes one of the greatest benefits of consensus building is “its capacity to
24
identify new directions and ideas that would not otherwise be considered by an agency
official or chief executive, both of whom must make decisions within existing
institutional and resource constraints” (p. 649). Indeed, one of the biggest concerns
outlined by stakeholders is oftentimes grounded in a “power imbalance,” that is, many
stakeholders who do not represent the large powerful lobbyist; for instance, may feel as
though their opinion does not count or matter in the scheme of things, and, thus, may feel
more reluctant to contribute or provide input in consensus building processes – this
criterion is critical to a successful collaboration. This, then, leads to more stakeholder
involvement and further positive and constructive discussion. Moreover, these key points
allow for making a consensus process a continuous, joint learning project in which
participants are eager to participate and become a part of the solution.
Seek consensus only after discussions fully explore issues and interests. The last
process criterion states that after the participants have met, listened to one another, and
discussed all concerns, only then should an agreement be sought. Disregarding these
concerns or prematurely attempting to reach an agreement without first having fully
explored all options can have detrimental impacts on the process itself. Innes (1999)
believes it is quite unlikely that any consensus building process will meet all of these
criteria. For instance, it may not be possible for stakeholders to have the resources to
cover technical experts in the joint fact finding process. Moreover, due to time conflict or
external pressures, a conflict assessment may be out of the question. However, Innes
believes that it is never too late! These groups can always find a way to improvise. For
25
instance, the group may raise funds or may consult local Universities for expert advice if
funding is low. The focus is to have consensus groups do everything within their power
to meet as many of these criteria as possible.
Outcome Criteria
In addition to evaluating consensus building by the quality of its processes, Innes
(1999) believes it should also be evaluated by its outcomes. Moreover, she mentions that
a consensus building process that has been effective will meet at least some of these
criteria. This section will outline some of the key criteria during a consensus process.
Produced a High-quality Agreement and Ended Stalemate
The most coveted of the outcomes criteria is without a doubt the production of a
high quality agreement amongst the stakeholders. Such an agreement is the carrot many
participants seek throughout the consensus process. An ideal agreement would have
effectively addressed the concerns of the stakeholders through joint mutual gains. This
can be done by reflecting several aspects such as an open dialogue, and commitment to
make the agreement implementable and cost-effective. Innes (1999) believes that if
participants have reached an agreement it has effectively ended the stalemate. However,
she also emphasizes the importance of what can be accomplished if a formal agreement is
not reached. For instance, it is often the case that stakeholders may reach new levels of
trust, and achieve a joint learned informative process they would not have been exposed
to had it not been for the consensus process. Moreover, even after a process has been
terminated, these stakeholders may continue their effort to reach agreement.
26
Produced Creative Ideas for Action and Enhanced Knowledge and Understanding
One of the key ideas in consensus-based collaboration is the ability for
stakeholders to come together and have a newfound information or knowledge base and
have the opportunity to explore creative ideas to resolve the concerns at hand. These
ideas, whether implemented or not, can ultimately help end stalemate and conflict.
Moreover, the opportunity to partake in this process concurrently with their colleagues
fosters the necessary change in stakeholder’s attitudes toward other stakeholders and their
ideas, interests, and concerns.
Social and Political Capital
Another critical idea instrumental in collaborative and consensus building
processes is the building of social and political capital. This involves the networks and
linkages crucial to the adaption of a complex system as Innes (1999) states. This outcome
is among the most important in the process for several reasons. First, participants of a
process tend to work on similar issues for many years. Often these individuals will work
with each other many times over the course of their professional careers. Although the
organization they represent may demand the individual do everything within his/her
power to achieve a best case scenario for the organization, the reality is that he/she will
work with his/her colleague, who wants the exact opposite to happen, for many years.
He/she understands it will not be the last time he/she works on an issue with his/her
colleague. Thus, fostering these relationships with individuals while attempting to
accomplish the goals of an organization is a critical path, which must be treaded on
27
carefully. Susskind and Cruikshank (1987) agree and emphasize that implementation of
agreements, and the success of any agreement, will largely depend on the quality of the
relationships among the participants.
Produced Outcomes Regarded as Just That Serve the Common Good
Innes (1999) believes outcomes must be fair to all stakeholders, and they should
not come at the expense of others in the process, such as the “powerless.” Oftentimes,
collaborative processes, especially surrounding environmental resources issues, may
include traditionally marginalized groups such as the indigenous tribes, or others who
may be subject to fewer resources than the more powerful groups. It is often easy to find
solutions that continue the process of marginalization, and agreements may exclude the
concerns of such groups. Moreover, Innes believes these outcomes must be what are best
for the community as a whole. This requires mutual cooperation on behalf of the
stakeholders to understand, as they are negotiating, what is in the best interest of the
community. The community, on the other hand, must also allow the stakeholders to find a
solution by allowing them the opportunity to operate more productively.
Sustainability of Natural and Social Systems
Innes (1999) believes a good consensus effort will result in proposals co-equal in
maintaining the sustainability of both social and natural systems. This is often a very
common goal surrounding environmental policy. For instance, participants may attempt
to address both resources concerns such as the environment, water, or air quality, and
wildlife protection, while making it feasible for those who benefit from the same
28
resources. Innes (1999) believes sustainability is ultimately the ability to adapt to change
and stress in a creative way. Often the old technocratic system did not offer a means to
accomplish this. Innes states that the learning and information sharing that takes place in
these processes builds toward the participants and community having a mutual
understanding toward sustainable systems in continuous ways. If indeed a consensus
building effort meets the process criteria mentioned here, it is also highly likely that most
of the outcome criteria outlined will also be met. Thus, the greater increase we see in the
process criteria, the greater result we will see in outcomes.
Challenges with Evaluating Consensus Building
Innes (1999) states there are many challenges in evaluating consensus building
processes because unlike traditional policymaking processes, there is more to measure
than simply whether an agreement was reached or not. She mentions that although an
agreement is an important measure, there are times when the process may be deemed a
failure. Innes believes that even if an agreement is reached, there is not much meaning
behind it if it will simply result in additional conflict and does not resolve the root of the
concerns. Additionally, that agreement does little to help move the policy goal forward if
it has been poorly informed, or is socially or politically infeasible. “Agreement for the
sake of agreement is not success. Quality matters” (p. 639).
Critics of consensus building and collaboration have argued that consensus
building often leads to lowest common denominator agreements. They also argue that
collaborative processes are time-consuming and result in continued inaction. Innes
29
(2004), however, states that quite often, criticism "conflates consensus building with the
broader set of collaborative planning practices and communicative planning theory” (p.
6). Innes emphasizes, however, that consensus building is only one of many approaches
under the large umbrellas of the two latter concepts. Therefore, one must not accuse
consensus building for failures of its sister approaches. To understand consensus building
properly, one must be familiar with the "practices and theories of interest-based
bargaining, mediation and alternative dispute resolution with the "nature of collaboration
... [and] the nature of dialogue, as differentiated from debate” (p. 7).
Innes describes the potential benefits of well-conducted consensus building
processes. She does so not to advertise this approach but to clarify what kind of results
should be acknowledged as genuine benefits. She stresses that consensus building
processes do not automatically lead to all-encompassing harmony. They can also lead to
various "second order effects such as spin-off partnerships...new ideas for use in other
situations...new institutional forms of planning and action...a reframing of the
participants' identities in relation to a larger picture” (pp. 8-9). In other words, not
reaching an agreement is not necessarily a failure "because so many other things are
accomplished” (p. 8).
30
Chapter 3
CALFED: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND FOR UNDERSTANDING THE BDCP
CALFED History and Purpose
New approaches such as adaptive management and collaborative processes have
exemplified consensus building processes in California water policy. This chapter utilizes
the process and outcomes criteria discussed previously and reports an evaluation of one
of California’s most important water policy collaboratives – the CALFED Bay-Delta
program. This case study has been selected because of its similarities to the BDCP. Like
the BDCP, the CALFED program was large, complex, and addressed multiple water and
natural resource issues. Stakeholders interacted in a multitude of ways, had very diverse
types of information, and deliberated over potential plans of action. It was also well
funded and had support staff to provide assistance. CALFED was also connected to the
Delta region, confronted many legal and political issues and involved many of the same
participants (Innes & Connick, 2001).
Most evaluations conducted on CALFED have been end-of-process and
retrospective evaluations by agencies, researchers, and analysts (Booher & Innes, 2006;
Brandt, 2002; Hanemann 2009; Innes, Connick, Kaplan, & Booher, 2006; Legislative
Analyst’s Office [LAO], 2006; Little Hoover Commission, 2005; Nawi & Brandt, 2008).
Many of these studies have focused on reform for CALFED, but most have focused on its
outcomes. Some have called it a failure, “the fate of CALFED has been seen as a
continuing failure to overcome fragmentation among agencies and among narrow
31
scientific disciplines” (Hanneman, 2009, p. 16). Others have praised the innovative
“CALFED way,” which
has unlocked many of the paralyzing stalemates that afflicted California water
management in the past; it has built social and political capital among previously
warring parties; it has built shared understandings and heuristics among disparate
interests and agencies; and it has improved the quality and acceptability of
scientific information on which decisions are based. (Innes et al., 2006, p. 5)
This chapter does not seek to advocate for either side. However, because of the
similarities to the research conducted in this paper on the BDCP, it focuses on best
practices in process and outcomes.
Background
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program was initiated in May of 1995 to build an
adaptive management framework for California’s most valued resource: water. The
CALFED program is a collaborative interagency effort that included 18 State and Federal
agencies with regulatory responsibilities for the Bay-Delta (CALFED Bay-Delta
Program, 2007). The primary goals for CALFED were to restore the ecological health of
the fragile Bay-Delta, to improve the water supply reliability to the states, farms, and
cities, to protect drinking water quality and to protect the Delta levees. The CALFED
program became a collaborative effort that included representatives of the agricultural,
urban, environmental, tribal, and business interests. At the time, the program was
considered “the most complex and extensive ecosystem restoration project ever
32
proposed…It is the most far-reaching effort to improve the drinking water quality of
millions of Californians as well as an unprecedented commitment to watershed
restoration” (CALFED Bay-Delta Program, 2000, p. 1).
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary is the largest estuary on the West
Coast. It is home to numerous plants and wildlife supporting over 750 plant and animal
species. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta includes over 738,000 acres, which cover
five counties. The Delta is “critical to Californians and provides irrigation water for over
7 million acres of the most highly productive agricultural land in the world” (CALFED
Bay-Delta Program, 2000, p. 2). Moreover, two-thirds of Californians receive their water
from the Bay-Delta through a series of projects and canals known as the State Water
Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP).
In recent years, California has undergone severe droughts, which have resulted in
decreased water allocations throughout the state. Fisheries in the Delta and its tributaries
have been closed for several consecutive years, and the list of fish on the endangered
species list continues to grow every year. As a result, new pumping restrictions on water
moving directly from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (the Delta) have been severely
restricted by Federal court orders, thereby severely impacting many areas of the state,
especially the Central Valley where the unemployment rate has reached levels as high as
45%.
This is not a new issue. In fact, between 1987 and 1992, California faced a
significant drought which, much like today, caused cutbacks in water deliveries,
33
deteriorating water quality, and a decline in fish species. As a result of the stalemate
being experienced by stakeholders, an alternative approach to the traditional governance
models was enacted through the formation of Club Fed. This informal group set the stage
for what would become CALFED through the cooperation of long-time “adversaries:”
the agricultural community, the environmental community, and the water users. In
addition, Former Governor of California Pete Wilson, and Former Secretary of the
Interior Bruce Babbitt joined forces to propose alternative water quality standards and a
program for Delta restoration.
According to Booher and Innes (2006), The CALFED program operated within
the underlying shadow of existing institutions, that is, within the existing legal framework
of environmental protection, water rights, and agency mandates. However, it did not act
as an agency with its own mandate, rules, or procedures. Additionally, the CALFED
process had a great deal of stakeholder input in which they had the opportunity to work
directly with each other and did most of the work of researching and developing
programs and providing input regarding implementation.
CALFED was led by heads of state agencies directly accountable to the Governor
and to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. Although the group met often, those meetings
were kept closed to the public and provided agency directors with the opportunity to
understand each other’s perspectives and gain political as well as social capital. Chapter
812, Statutes of 2001 (SB 1653, Costa) created a new state agency within the Resources
Agency, which enacted the California Bay-Delta Act. This newly formed act established
34
the California Bay-Delta Authority (CBDA) as the governing oversight body of
CALFED. The CBDA’s 24-member board, was led by a Governor appointed Chair, it
included 12 representatives from State and Federal agencies, seven public members (five
of which were appointed by the Governor, two by the Legislature), four nonvoting
members of the Legislature, and one representative from a public advisory committee.
The CBDA was charged with coordinating the activities of the various implementing
agencies and was in charge of reviewing and approving the annual work and expenditure
plans of implementing agencies. However, CBDA governance legislation explicitly
stated that nothing in the enacted legislation would limit or interfere with the final
decision-making authority of the implementing agencies (LAO, 2006).
The Bay-Delta Advisory Committee (BDAC), on the other hand, was a 30member body comprised of Delta stakeholders including agriculture, environmental
justice, business, tribal, and other interests. Their duty was to provide recommendations
on program implementation to the CBDA. Subcommittees of BDAC did much of the
work that went into the CALFED process and operated in a very informal way, highly
relying on collaborative efforts. These “sub groups” focused on a range of different tasks,
including ecosystem restoration, conservation, and water use efficiency, financing, and
watershed protection. Each committee was led by co-chairs who were chosen from
among the group. Stakeholders had the opportunity to decide which committees they
wanted to be a member of based on interest in topic area. The CBDA met on a monthly
basis, while the BDAC met more frequently. All meetings were open to the public; no
35
one was turned away if they wanted to participate in the sub-meetings, which consisted of
an audience of about 50 people, on average. Agency participants, or stakeholders
involved remained present, but the specific participants alternated as they moved through
organizations (Nawi & Brandt, 2008). Additionally, there were no outside facilitators but
rather various participants would lead the discussions or lead problem-solving
workshops.
In addition to the CBDA and BDAC, there existed within the CALFED program a
science program where the lead scientist, in cooperation with the implementing agencies
was responsible for the science element. The belief was that scientifically based decision
making should be integrated into the implementation of CALFED through “adaptive
management,” which required the lead scientist to monitor programs regularly and ensure
the best science-based decision making had been integrated into the implementation of all
CALFED program elements (Little Hoover Commission, 2005). As part of the science
program, the Independent Science Board, composed of scientific leaders advised the
CBDA on science issues and provided independent reviews of the quality and
effectiveness of the science program.
CALFED Process
The first process criterion effectively demonstrated by CALFED was the
representation of all interests or stakeholders. Innes (1999) believes adequate
representation is imperative to ensure the discussion includes all parties’ perspectives and
that the process is fair and legitimate. Moreover, a fair process would also provide for a
36
way in which all information is made public and input may be given from others. A
process that includes all stakeholders will have a better chance of reaching an agreement
by all stakeholders. CALFED included numerous State and Federal agencies and
effectively engaged additional participants with varied interests including agricultural and
urban water users, environmentalists, Native American tribes, and watershed
communities (Innes & Connick 2001).
The second process criterion attempted was to create a road map of the process
for the stakeholders. In August 2000, the interested parties completed the development of
a comprehensive management plan for the Delta (Hanemann, 2009). The plan came
together in a document known as the Record of Decision (ROD), endorsed by all 23 state
and federal agencies. The plan demonstrated that a purpose was shared by the group,
which according to Innes, can be an agreement shared by all participants of a
collaborative process (Innes, 1999). The primary objectives established by the CALFED
Record of Decision were treated as resource management objectives that were
interrelated and interdependent, to be carried out concurrently. The ROD was designed to
provide a blueprint to address the needs of the major stakeholders and identified four core
program goals: water supply reliability, ecosystem restoration, water quality, and levee
system integrity (CALFED Bay-Delta Program, 2000).
A third criterion done targeted the use of civil discourse by establishing principles
through the ROD on how program objectives would be carried to ensure fairness to all
parties. These fundamental guiding values were called the CALFED Solution Principles
37
because they provided guidance on the evaluation of the program. The principles were
the following: affordability, equitability, implementability, durability, reduction of
conflicts in the system, and no significant redirected impacts.
Table 1
Primary Objectives Established by the CALFED Record of Decision (ROD)
Water Supply
Reliability
Expand water supplies to ensure efficient use of the resource
through an array of projects and approaches.
Water Quality
Improve water quality from source to tap for 25 million
Californians who receive at least some of their drinking water
from the Delta.
Ecosystem
Restoration
Improve the health of the Bay-Delta system through restoring and
protecting habitats and native species.
Levee System
Integrity
Improve Bay-Delta levees to provide flood protection, ecosystem
benefits, and protection of water supplies needed for the
environment, agriculture, and urban uses.
(CALFED Bay-Delta Program, 2007)
38
Table 2
Principles Established by the CALFED Record of Decision (ROD)
Affordable
An affordable solution is one that can be implemented and
maintained within the foreseeable resources of the CALFED BayDelta Program and stakeholders.
Equitable
An equitable solution will focus on resolving problems in all
problem areas. Improvements for some problems will not be made
without corresponding improvements for other problems.
Implementable
An implementable solution will have broad public acceptance,
legal feasibility and will be timely and relatively simple compared
with other alternatives.
Durable
A durable solution will have political and economic staying power
and will sustain the resources it was designed to protect and
enhance.
Reduce
Conflicts in
the System
A solution will reduce major conflicts among beneficial users of
water.
No Significant
Redirected
Impacts
A solution will not solve problems in the Bay-Delta system by
redirecting significant negative impacts, when viewed in its
entirety, in the Bay-Delta or other regions of California.
(CALFED Bay-Delta Program, 2007)
Outcomes
Many researchers agree that CALFED produced numerous innovative outcomes
regardless of whether the process succeeded or failed. The CALFED collaborative is an
example of adaptive management attempting to survive, especially during its early phase,
in which there was a high level of work being accomplished by the impacted
stakeholders. For many of them, it was the first time they could get past the gridlock
39
struggle and actually work together (i.e., state and federal agencies). As one participant in
the process noted. “you have high level state and federal people one-on-one talking, and
the more of that the better. They are establishing relationships, establishing trust, and not
posturing as much probably” (Innes et al., 2006, p. 32). The CALFED collaborative
provided them with the opportunity to build the social and political capital necessary to
move past the waging court battles that had been the norm in the past.
By 2004, the CALFED process had produced significant progress in sustainable
management of the state’s water. It had reached agreement on the ROD, and stakeholders
successfully built the support needed to raise billions of dollars of bond funding to
support infrastructure such as projects and water operations, which also included
environmental restoration of the ecosystem. In fact, Booher and Innes (2006) state that
CALFED resulted in an additional 500,000 acre-feet to the state’s water delivery system,
and it maintained or improved about 700 miles of levees.
Among the most significant contributions of the CALFED program have been the
innovative governance practices as identified by the work of Booher and Innes (2006).
The first consisted of new norms and heuristics for governing interactions, known as “the
CALFED way.” Essentially, the CALFED way means, “first, that collaboration has
largely replaced gridlock and litigation as a form of governance. Secondly instead of each
agency making project decisions independently, the ROD is the framework into which all
decisions must fit” (Innes et al., 2006, p. 30). Another significant change in governance
has been the shift toward more local and regional initiative and problem solving to
40
replace top-down centralized decisions. CALFED conducted regional stakeholder
meetings and workshops and integrated those goals into the implementation through the
advisory committee. One of its priorities focused on transparency, as discussed earlier, or
opening up the meetings to the public and allowing them to provide direct input on the
process and policy discussion phase.
One of the most significant contributions of CALFED has been the integration of
an independent science review board to its existing science program. Innes and Booher
(2006), for instance, claim that before CALFED, scientific research for California water
policy was conducted solely by internal agency scientists or consultants to the agency.
Thus, regardless of who actually did the study, the data was often regarded as
untrustworthy. The integration of an independent review board, helped ensure the
scientific management approach was upheld.
High quality agreements, according to Innes, genuinely alleviate, if not solve
problems. These agreements are widely acceptable among the stakeholders involved.
Moreover, a high-quality agreement seeks to resolve disputes to take advantage of the
opportunities for mutual gains. In addition to finding new opportunities, it is also fluid,
adaptive, and flexible to provide ways to adapt to new conditions in response from
stakeholders (Innes, 1999). By far, one of the best examples of such an agreement
produced by the CALFED process was the creation of the Environmental Water Account
(EWA).
41
According to Alf W. Brandt (2002), one of the key creators of this concept, “The
premise behind an environmental water account is that it provides an efficient and
flexible mechanism to acquire and use water assets to adjust water project operations in
response to changing hydrology and fishery needs” (pp. 427-428). In other words, the
purpose of the EWA was to establish, similar to a bank, the opportunity for participants
to develop water assets by acquiring water or the use of excess water and allow for those
who need the water to use it at a time designated “safe” for fish. The EWA also has the
capacity to allow participants to borrow water, as long as the pumping is done in such a
way that does not reduce the water required for listed species and it takes into account
wet and dry years during periods of high Delta outflow. Furthermore, the EWA was
supported by most major interests because of its dual goals of helping both water users
and the environment.
Criticisms of CALFED
Although CALFED was directly responsible for many innovative and productive
changes in the process, there were also many issues not adequately addressed according
to the literature. By far, the most significant challenge facing CALFED was the tension
with the traditional form of governance. For instance, although the Legislature codified
the CBDA with its “management” duties, ironically the authority lacked the ability to
actually implement decisions. Because the CBDA was not given explicit authority in the
enacting legislation, it was not clear within the implementing agencies who was actually
in charge of CALFED implementation. In fact, in June 2005, Governor Arnold
42
Schwarzenegger asked the Little Hoover Commission to examine the governance
structure of CALFED as part of a comprehensive review. In its report, the Commission
found that the existing structure of CALFED was “convoluted” and reporting was not
clear (Little Hoover Commission, 2005). In that report, the commission cited the two
biggest problems were the lack of clear assignment of authority and lack of
accountability.
In addition, the commission found the program had many positions of authority,
including the CBDA Executive Director, the CBDA board, the heads of the many
implementing departments, and the Secretary of Natural Resources. In essence, the
commission stated that the program under the current structure was severely lacking a
leader to move the program forward, more importantly a leader who could be held
accountable directly to the Legislature and the Governor for the performance or lack of
performance of the program. The Commission’s recommendation was to focus on the
structure of the traditional government hierarchy to improve CALFED’s leadership to
provide for accountability.
Various reports, including the evaluation done by the Little Hoover Commission
and the Legislative Analyst’s office, both agreed that a traditional government hierarchy
is the best way to “save” CALFED. Nonetheless, Booher and Innes (2006) believe many
who looked through the lens of traditional governance and authority saw the existing
CALFED structure as “mystifying.” The idea of creating a formal oversight structure in a
networked and self-organizing system is paradoxical since a traditional hierarchical
43
authority is a very different concept of governance from CALFED’s form of structure
based upon collaborative interactions. Many could simply not make sense of how
CALFED truly worked and did not trust the process if there was not a person who could
be held accountable for the program.
Another major concern raised was a disagreement on priorities. Some findings
made in various reports have outlined that CALFED was not being guided by clear,
specific goals that reflect the state’s priorities for the program. Although the ROD and
CALFED governance legislation include guidelines and objectives for the continuance of
the program, the literature claims these were stated very broadly, thereby leaving
decisions to be made in the future about specific means to pursue them. The LAO, for
instance, claimed in their report that major decisions with potentially substantial policy
and fiscal implications should not be made. However, they argued that the program’s
progress was being held up because agreement was lacking on what CALFED’s priorities
and preferred implementation strategies should be.
Yet another criticism of the program has been an inability to measure outcomes
and what the state has achieved from spending billions of dollars of state general funds
on the program. Although the law required CBDA to track and evaluate program
performance, it did not specify any performance measures. As a result, although there
was reporting done to the Legislature that accounted for the dollars spent and status of
projects, specific data to support the use of those funds for projects was not proven.
44
Although clearly collaboration and consensus building may lead to innovative and
new outcomes, there are those who believe not everything can be resolved through
collaboration, especially the issues occurring in the Delta. Hanemann (2009), for
instance, believes that ultimately the Delta has two very different viewpoints. There are
those who oppose water diversions, and want to preserve the Delta, and those who
support diversions and wish to modify the flows going into the Delta. He believes, in
economic terms, this can be viewed as a negative externality.
Water diversions, whether for agriculture or urban uses, create a negative
externality for the Delta ecosystem, while protecting the Delta ecosystem creates
a negative externality for would-be-water diverters. This can also be seen as a
zero-sum game where increasing the benefits to one party necessarily causes a
reduction in the benefit to the other party” (p. 16)
Hanemann further argues that while some of CALFED’s ideas, like water
conservation may work well for all parties, there is still only a “finite” amount of water
available. Because the interests in the Delta are so varied, he believes no one party may
be satisfied without significantly harming the other.
45
Chapter 4
METHODS
This chapter explains the methodology used in conducting the midcourse case
evaluation of the BDCP. The research evaluates the BDCP collaborative by measuring
both process and outcomes. It is my hope that the findings of this evaluation will assist
the new leadership of the program under the new administration, to help it make
improvements as it moves forward. The following section discusses qualitative research
and why the evaluation research approach is relevant to this field. It also discusses the
process and outcome criteria used in the analysis, the interview process used including
the human subject requirement of the university, and the selection of the sample of
interviewees. Lastly, it discusses my role as a researcher and the review of archival
documents to supplement the interviews conducted in this study.
Qualitative Research
In their landmark book, Qualitative Data Analysis, Miles and Huberman (1994)
describe qualitative data as falling under four major themes: participant observer,
nonparticipant observer, interviewing, and archival research. The first research theme is
participant observation, which, according to the Miles and Huberman, is among the most
widely known. Participant observation includes both ethnography and field study.
Characteristics of ethnography include specific designs of community studies, ethnology,
and anthropological life stories. Field study attempts to obtain first-hand data by actively
participating in activities. Thus, the researcher obtains the data first-hand through his/her
46
own experience. The second theme is non-participant observation, which includes human
ethnology, and non-reactive research – this is the data obtained by a researcher who is not
actively engaged in a given activity, but rather is an “outsider” observing behaviors.
The third research theme is the interviewing process. Miles and Huberman (1994)
claim this may be the most common qualitative method practiced in organizational
research. Applications include investigative journalism, biographies, and oral histories.
This is a powerful tool used in qualitative research because it permits the researcher to
develop conceptual models based on personal stories and shared information obtained
through the interview process. This research theme is the one used in the BDCP study.
The interview process was used to evaluate the process and outcomes of the BDCP thus
far.
The fourth and final research theme in qualitative research is archival. Its specific
characteristics include histories, content analysis, and literary criticisms. Researchers
often generate extraordinary narratives through reading newspaper articles, press
releases, official documents, and interview transcripts of key events to help explain key
decisions. I used archival literature in my research to supplement the interview data I
gathered.
Evaluation Research
I chose to use evaluation research in conducting the study of the BDCP. The
purpose of evaluation research, according to Weiss (1972), is to measure the outcomes of
a given program against the goals it set out to accomplish. This is especially helpful in a
47
midcourse case study, such as this, because it allows participants to measure how much
progress has been made based on the purpose of the program.
Weiss (1972) argues that expectations about the evaluation vary greatly from
person to person. Specifically, three sets of actors have the most interest in such an
evaluation. These consist of policymakers, program directors, and practitioners. First,
policymakers ask for an evaluation of a program to determine whether it is worth
continuing. In addition, they want to know if more funding should be allocated to the
program or to another who is more meritorious of the funding. They also commonly want
to understand the overall effectiveness of the program. Second, the Directors of the
program have multiple ideas they are pursuing. Most importantly, they want to know
whether the program is achieving its purpose and which strategies within the program are
most effective or need improvement. Lastly, the practitioners in the process are more
interested in looking at the day-to-day processes and activities. Practitioners are those
individuals who work in the field, such as a facilitator of a consensus building process,
for instance. They consider such things as whether time is being spent in the best manner.
Moreover, they consider whether the correct people are at the table and if anyone is
missing. In summation, evaluation research is often called upon to help with the decision
making in determining whether to eliminate, improve, or continue a program. Although
there are many different expectations from the different actors, evaluation research helps
to answer these questions. As Weiss (1972, p. 17) mentions, “It is the search for
48
improvements in strategies and techniques that supports much evaluation activity in the
present."
Moreover, Innes (1999) discusses three types of evaluations that can be used to
evaluate a process or program. Midcourse evaluations evaluate an ongoing process to
determine whether the criteria are being met. End-of-process evaluations are conducted
shortly after the process has concluded and are used to determine what the
accomplishments were and retrospective evaluations are usually conducted one to five
years after a process has completed. These evaluations allow for the comparison of
multiple cases and second and third order effects. I chose to conduct a midcourse case
study evaluation of the BDCP because the BDCP is currently undergoing major
developments such as a change in its leadership, a new administration under Governor
Jerry Brown, and many remaining unanswered questions that have been asked on behalf
of participants, policymakers, and the public as to the future of the plan. An evaluation at
this point is very useful because improvements can be made and the participants get an
idea of how the process is doing thus far. Innes (1999) believes that midcourse
evaluations can also anticipate outcomes by finding out whether participants are learning
and seeing possibilities for agreements or joint activities.
Process and Outcome Criteria
Innes (1999) believes that to conduct a useful and meaningful evaluation, a
researcher needs a set of explicit criteria. The purpose of this case study evaluation is to
assess whether the BDCP process has followed best practices in collaboration as outlined
49
by Innes. This case study will evaluate both process criteria and outcome criteria,
discussed in detail in Chapter 2. Process criteria include conducting a conflict
assessment; broad representation of all relevant interests; a practical purpose shared by
the group; the use of civil discourse; the use of high quality information; the
encouragement of members to challenge assumptions; keeping participants at the table,
interested, and learning; and seeking consensus only after a full exploration of interests
and efforts to find innovative solutions has been sought.
Outcome criteria, on the other hand, measures whether indeed a consensus
building process has been effective. Innes (1999) mentions that not all of these criteria
need to be met, but at least some of these criteria should have been met. Outcome criteria
include the production of a high quality agreement and ended stalemate, the production of
creative ideas for action and enhanced knowledge and understanding, social and political
capital, the production of outcomes regarded as just that serve the common good, and the
sustainability of natural and social systems. In the case of the BDCP, this would apply to
the co-equal goals of a reliable water supply and ecosystem restoration.
Both the process and outcome criteria discussed in Chapter 2 are applied using the
data obtained through the interview process. The feedback received from each of the
interview respondents was thoroughly reviewed and evaluated. Once completed, their
responses were placed under several general themes (i.e., broad representation, use of
high quality information, etc.). If additional themes in the responses did not match the
criteria, these were noted in the findings. I also used the archival documents that have
50
been reviewed to supplement the interviewee responses. The archival literature is quite
extensive. Including it is a critical piece of the data gathering process. One critical piece
is the draft agreement published in November 2010 (November draft) specifically
containing the issues that have been negotiated extensively during the process. I have
reviewed this and other key documents made available by the Natural Resources Agency.
I did not seek any specific information from the documents as I analyzed them; rather, I
first read them and then placed my findings under several main points. These points are
discussed further in the following chapter.
Data Gathering Methods: Interviews
I chose to conduct interviews as my primary method of data gathering. My
primary objective was to gain a thorough understanding of the BDCP, its processes, and
its outcomes through the descriptions and interpretations of the participants. Innes (1999,
p. 667) for instance, believes the “most valuable information about a consensus building
process will come from in-depth interviews with participants, sponsors of a project, staff,
and observers.” Moreover, she argues that interviews provide a great deal of knowledge
and insight that other data gathering methods do not, such as surveys or questionnaires.
Interviews, she states, “can be well suited to finding out what participants learned and
how the learning occurred, how they view the process and the other participants, how
their organizations reacted to the process, and how they changed” (p. 668).
There were a total of 26 stakeholders who made up the BDCP steering committee
membership. These members represented a broad range of interests from environmental
51
advocates to agricultural and state agencies. They are formally identified under five
categories: State and Federal Agencies, Potentially Regulated Entities, Environmental
Organizations, Fish Agencies, and other stakeholders. I attempted to interview a
representative sample of stakeholders. Of the 26 total committee members, I interviewed
13 members plus two BDCP staff and three outside interests who were not formal
steering committee members but actively participated in the meetings, for a total of 18
interviews. Three interviewees were State and Federal Agencies, three were Potentially
Regulated Entities, three were Environmental Organizations, two were Fish Agencies,
and two were other stakeholders.
Due to the small number of stakeholders on the committee itself, I did not list the
names of the organizations they represented to protect the interviewee’s confidentiality. I
decided to interview “outsiders” of the formal steering committee process who were
heavily involved in the meetings and the issues. I found it was a critical point to
understand their concerns and motives that drew them to not actively participate on the
committee. The interviews were semi-structured and focused on several themes. Under
each theme, I outlined more directed and open-ended questions to allow participants the
opportunity to expand on their answers; I also allowed for further discussion of the topic
if needed (see Appendix A for the complete list of questions). Semi-structured interviews,
according to Lee (1999), represent a compromise between structured and unstructured
formats. Semi structured interviews usually contain topics or themes with targeted issues
52
and predetermined questions. During these interviews, the researcher maintained a
balance between a “free-flowing and a directed conversation” (Lee, 1999, p. 62).
Prior to commencing the interview process, I applied for and received approval
from the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects in the Department of Public
Policy and Administration. Research conducted by university students involving the use
of human subjects is governed by federal law and regulations as well as University
policies. All documents sent to participants were approved by the Committee. Upon
approval of my request, I sent all 26 stakeholders, BDCP staff, and outside participants
an interview request, a letter explaining the purpose of the study, and consent form (see
Appendix B). The form guaranteed participants complete confidentiality, unless they
authorized one of three options. A) “I wish to be identified by name in the written
research report,” B) “I request that my name not be disclosed, but consent to being
identified as a representative of the organization I represent,” or C) I request that nothing
I say be publicly attributed to me, my employer, or clients I represent.” To further protect
confidentiality, I was the only person to view the raw data from the interviews.
Those who agreed to be interviewed also received a copy of the questions in
advance for their review. As I began to hear back from potential interviewees, I started
the process of ensuring they received all materials prior to interviewing and, additionally,
ensured a representative sample of each caucus was interviewed. Interviews lasted
between 45 and 90 minutes, with most interviews averaging at about one hour. I
conducted interviews both in person and over the phone with a total of 13 interviews
53
done face-to-face and five done over the phone. I took detailed notes of all conversations
and the questions were asked in the same order for each stakeholder interviewed.
Researcher Identity and Role
I am currently employed as the Legislative Director for a member of the
California State Legislature. Prior to that role, I served as the lead staffer on water issues
for a different member. My interest in this topic stemmed from the last few years of
working extensively on natural resources issues. When I decided to conduct this
evaluation, however, I was concerned that my “other hat” as an advisor to a policymaker
could affect perceptions of my academic objectivity and, thus, would impact the internal
and external validity of the study. For instance, in reaching out to the stakeholders, I
noticed several patterns. First, I received a much better response rate from those “at the
table” than those not actively participating or who were not formal members of the
steering committee. This could be due to several reasons; I can only speculate that
because of my “policymaker role,” those participating may have felt more obligated to
respond to my request.
Archival Documents
In addition to the interviews, I also obtained extensive background information on
the BDCP from archival documents. The Administration has created a site to promote
further transparency and to educate the public on the current process and status of the
BDCP. One way in which they do this is by posting all their documents onto their
website. Key documents are available such as the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA),
54
signed by the interested parties in 2006. I began first with the initial documents such as
this MOA and then continued reviewing other documents such as key foundation
documents, meeting notes, and other background material. The extensive archival
literature provided a huge benefit to filling information gaps as needed, or in some cases
helped reaffirm the data gathered through the interview process. As mentioned
previously, I first read through and analyzed the material before linking it to the
interviews and describing the main points found.
55
Chapter 5
PROCESS AND OUTCOMES OF THE BDCP
Public Process to Date
The BDCP process began in late 2006 with the adoption of the MOA and
principles of agreement. The Steering Committee members began the process of diving
into a very complex and difficult discussion of how to accomplish the co-equal goals.
The participants of the process have included the various state and federal agencies, the
steering committee members, as well as other interested parties including the public. In
all, there have been approximately 122 meetings with all supporting material having been
made publicly available. I also reviewed several other key documents such as the
planning agreement document (which has been revised numerous times), draft
conservation strategy plans, and the JPA agreement between state and Federal
Contractors. Another critical piece of information I analyzed is the Independent science
review panel reports. Several have been done in the past few years on topics such as
adaptive management and non-aquatic resources.
Additionally, I have reviewed the meeting notes for many of the meetings that
have taken place since 2006. The summary notes of the meetings are usually broken
down into several categories. For instance, most summaries begin by noting the Steering
Committee hearing date, time, and place. Next, is the document and handouts section,
which explains to the steering committee members which documents were received at the
meeting such as the agenda, and a working draft of given chapters. The next section
56
contains a list of action items and key decisions agreed to in the meeting. These are
explained with great detail and include all suggestions and comments made by steering
committee members. Fourth is the updates section in which current affairs, outside the
actual BDCP process, are discussed as they related to the BDCP, such as meetings,
appointments, and department notifications. The comments made and questions asked are
also reflected in the summary of notes. This includes the comments made by both
individuals at the table and the public commentary. The last section of the hearing
document contains a detailed list of all attendees both in-person and on the phone who
participated in that meeting.
Process
The criteria I used to outline the process of the BDCP are discussed in detail in
Chapter 2. However, seven general criteria that surfaced during the interview process are
discussed. I address each theme and how the stakeholders portrayed it. The criteria are
the following: conflict assessment, broad representation of all interests, shared purpose,
self-organization of the group, the use of high quality information, keeping participants at
the table and engaged, and seeking consensus only after all options have been explored.
Conflict Assessment/Neutrality
A conflict assessment is usually conducted prior to initiating a process to
determine if there is room for collaboration. This is done by gathering and evaluating
critical information about the issues to be discussed, the stakeholders, and other key
factors. It is mostly conducted by a neutral third party – this is beneficial because they do
57
not have a stake in the outcome of the process. When the third party completed his task,
he then determined whether the process should or should not move forward based on predetermined criteria.
During the interview, the question was asked to stakeholders whether they were
aware of whether a conflict assessment had been conducted prior to initiating the process.
The overwhelming response was no. Indeed, the Natural Resources Agency, which
served as both the convener of the meetings and the Chair of the meetings, stated that a
formal assessment was not conducted nor was a neutral third party used to help facilitate
meetings. However, the representative claimed an informal assessment was conducted
using “prior knowledge” and experience in the field. The evaluation determined the
process should indeed be moved forward; however, the criteria used to determine this
was not provided to me.
Nonetheless, other parties had mixed feelings about a conflict assessment having
been done and the lack of neutrality. For instance, one interviewee stated, “I thought the
Chair of the committee did a great job through the process; however, [the representative]
had multiple hats on and it made it difficult at times to make decisions” (interviewee #2).
Indeed, it was confirmed through all stakeholders that the Agency responsible for
convening the meetings also chaired the committee. Thus, wading through many of the
issues became further complicated by the conflicting interests at the table.
Overall, stakeholders recognized that the Chair’s job was a difficult one and
credited the representative for moving the group through the process. Neutrality;
58
however, is a key issue in any consensus building process. Given that the stakes are so
high in this collaboration, a neutral third party facilitator is highly recommended. Moving
forward, this should be among the first tasks completed. Having a skilled neutral
facilitator present will allow the participants of the process to clearly articulate their
concerns and ideas without feeling pressured or uncomfortable.
Broad Representation of All Relevant Interests
Innes (1999) argues that having all relevant stakeholders at the table and actively
engaged in a collaborative process is vital to the success of the process. It is especially
important for those groups who have the possibility of blocking an agreement or who
may strongly contribute to its stalemate to be involved as well. The question was asked to
interviewees of whether they felt all interested parties were at the table. Every
stakeholder interviewed had the same response, several key parties were missing.
Almost all interviewees agreed that such a group consisted of the Delta
representatives. In fact, out of the 26 participating stakeholders on the steering
committee, only one group currently represents any Delta interests. One interviewee
stated, “this has always been a sore spot among the group. They (the Delta
representatives) were invited but they didn’t want to join” (interviewee #2). Those on the
outside claim the story is quite different, however. One interviewee stated, “it’s not that
we didn’t want to join, but in order to be formal steering committee members we had to
sign onto an agreement that accepted all decisions made prior to us joining on…we didn’t
agree with all decisions made so if we didn’t agree we couldn’t join” (interviewee # 8).
59
Indeed, this was confirmed in an amended MOA signed the following year in
which several new stakeholders joined the group. It stated that any new stakeholders who
wanted to participate had to agree on all of the principles or points of agreement prior to
joining. Most outside participants did not agree with this policy. They felt that this was an
unfair process, and they should not have to be held against old beliefs to become part of
the decision-making process. Thus, many of these stakeholders who claimed they were
left out of the process participated in the meetings only as “interested observers” and
were allowed to provide input only at the end of each committee meeting. Stakeholders
currently at the table recognized the absence of key missing groups. Many have
importantly made note that this key group has enough political clout to block an
agreement or make it difficult to accomplish the agreement of the group as was pointed
out in the recent Sacramento Bee article.
Shared Purpose
A shared purpose is critical in a process such as this because it is what keeps the
stakeholders at the table and moving forward with the hopes of reaching an agreement.
The co-equal goals were outlined for the BDCP early in the process; however, these goals
are very broad and encompass a whole host of issues. Little else has been formally agreed
to by all parties on paper, as stated in the draft agreement findings (see Appendix C). It is
essential these goals be taken to the next step and be made much clearer by identifying
and adopting specific processes or plans for the committee to implement.
60
Also, as discussed in Chapter 2, it is not necessary for all stakeholders to agree to
the same goals and ideas in order to share a mutual purpose. In a perfect world all the
steering committee members would have the same goals and reach a mutual agreement –
in which case we would not need collaboration. However, in this case, most have come
together because the status quo is no longer acceptable. Indeed, this point was raised in
several interviews.
There are too many people in this state that depend on us so that water comes out
when they turn on their faucet. At the rate we are going [with the litigation and
Federal Court restrictions, etc.] we will not be able to guarantee service to our rate
payers. (interviewee #15)
On the other hand, some at the table liked things as they were. For instance, some
who are not at the table chose not to participate because they do not want to be a part of a
process they perceive as taking more than it will give back – both to the environment and
the Delta residents. They claimed, “if the process falls apart, so be it” (interviewee #3)
and “I’m sure that if this fails they have to have a plan B” (interviewee #12).
However, during the interview process, it was clearly articulated that there was no
plan B. The lack of having clear outlined goals on the table has led to a great deal of
frustration among many of the participants. It is important to recall that the individuals
participating in the process need to feel as though they have made progress, especially in
a multi-year, multi-million dollar effort such as this. The lack of clear, identifiable goals
has resulted in increased uncertainty in the process and its direction.
61
Self-Organizing
Self-organization of participants is a critical component of a true consensus
building process. Often the decisions made at this point set the tone for how the process
will move forward. This may include setting ground rules, items of discussion, and other
process-related decisions. In this case, it appears that although there was a self-organizing
process, it did not completely involve all of the stakeholders' input. For instance, the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was established by just several of the participants –
mainly the State and Federal Agencies and signed by only a few entities. This and other
key initial documents outlined process information such as when the meetings would take
place and how the meetings would proceed.
Moreover, the lead agency, the Natural Resources Agency, which established and
implemented many of these procedures, was the convener of the group. Under the
direction of the Undersecretary, several key processes were established such as the
decision-making process, how the agendas were to be developed, when the public could
express their concerns and opinions, and other critical details. The Agency also had the
authority to allow stakeholders to join the steering committee by requiring their
organization to accept all decisions made prior to their membership. Thus, many
organizations opted not to join for this reason. Even if participants at the table felt it
necessary to have certain representatives present, they did not have the authority to
include them directly. The likely participants must follow a protocol outlined by the
Agency. One interviewee stated, “we should have had some of those [missing] groups
62
there from the beginning...or at least when they tried to join later in the process...keeping
them out only made things worse” (interviewee #8).
One of the major findings in my research is that all stakeholders interviewed
stated the participants in the process had been given sufficient authority to make
decisions on behalf of their organization. Interviewees felt if a decision needed to be
made, it could happen if those at the table agreed to it. Thus, it makes little sense that
individuals who possess the sufficient authority are not given the opportunity to establish
a process in which they will feel comfortable using that authority.
A process that involves stakeholders who can make a decision on the spot is rare
and difficult to come by. However, because the stakes are so high in this matter it makes
sense that those at the table are given this level of authority. Stakeholders must be
involved in the decision-making process and must be willing to do so on their own. This
is especially true of key processes such as stakeholder participation. Doing so will enable
and empower the committee’s membership and may result in a more expeditious and
successful outcome.
Use of High Quality Information/Joint Fact-finding Process
Innes (1999) argues that the beginning of a good collaborative process often
begins through the joint fact-finding process in which stakeholders and experts work
together to collect and analyze information. This is a critical component of a
collaborative process because it allows its participants to be better informed and, thus,
make more knowledgeable choices. The interviewee’s overwhelmingly agreed that there
63
was not a joint fact-finding process that took place. Rather, the group would be given
information in the form of a packet prior to the committee meeting and participants just
“picked things up” as the process moved forward. As one interviewee stated,
there was never a learning process that took place that assured that all who were
at the table really had a good grasp on the issues at hand. I think it was just
assumed we knew because most of us had backgrounds relevant to the field.
(interviewee #8)
Another interviewee stated, “It was basically on you to get caught up to speed”
(interviewee #2). Having a joint fact-finding process is critical in consensus building
because not everyone may have the same information or access to new information.
When stakeholders are mutually involved in this type of process, it helps harbor mutual
understanding of issues and may increase the opportunity for additional solutions.
In addition to not having a joint fact-finding process, there were additional
concerns by the stakeholders in regard to receiving information about the meetings. Many
of the participants claimed the information packets for the meetings were often received
the night before or even the day of the meeting. They claimed that because they did not
have adequate time to review the information, they often felt unprepared. This was
another area of frustration to stakeholders, since many felt information was not being
given with enough time. However, it appeared as though this improved significantly
throughout the process. One interviewee, for instance, stated that at the beginning of the
64
process, she had to obtain the meeting packet through “back door means” because she
could not obtain the information directly from the Agency.
Receiving high quality information in a timely manner is another critical piece to
ensuring this process is successful. Also, if making tough choices will be expected of the
process participants, it will be key to ensure they have the information necessary in a
timely manner. In addition to providing the documents at least one week prior to the
meetings, it may also be useful to allow time either at the beginning or end of each
meeting to do a re-cap of the prior events and information to ensure all participants are on
the same page; this is also known as contributing to the groups memory.
Keeping Participants at the Table/Engaged
Another component of any collaborative is the ability to keep all parties engaged
and actively participating. The BDCP process and those directly involved with it were
tested last fall when one of its key players, the Westlands Water District made the
decision to leave the process. According to their formal statement made by President Jean
P. Sagouspe, “As a public agency, Westlands cannot continue to spend millions of our
ratepayers dollars on a project that is likely to deliver no more and potentially less water
to the public that they are receiving today” (Bacher, 2010, para. 3). Indeed, Westlands
and other agencies dependent on Delta water have invested over $140 million in the
process. Now that more funding is being requested to move the process forward,
Westlands has grown very frustrated that results seem to be coming too slow.
65
It is clear that situations such as these are a direct result of a failure in
communication among those involved in the process. Several of the stakeholders
interviewed found out about Westlands’s actions through a newspaper rather than
through the direct party. Many felt this was nothing more than a “publicity stunt” to put
more pressure on the process and attempt to sabotage it. Nonetheless, in December of that
same year, Westlands agreed to remain in the planning process for an additional period of
time to see if further progress was made. As of today, Westlands is still a member of the
steering committee of the BDCP; however, they have claimed that the next 60-90 days
will be critical in determining whether they continue in the process or not.
In addition to improving the communication among participants of the process, it
is imperative for the new leadership to listen and understand their concerns to help avoid
another situation such as this. Westlands’s action is also indicative of a growing
frustration with a lack of tough decision making. Given the amount of time, energy, and
resources that have been placed in the process it is natural to want to see outcomes.
Seeking Consensus Only after Full Exploration of Interests
The final process criterion is essential because it demonstrates the importance of
participants taking each other into account during a collaborative process. This criterion
emphasizes that consensus or agreement on ideas should only be sought after all
participants have met and been listened to. In the case of the BDCP, goals are still being
debated, and there is still much disagreement among parties on many ideas. However, the
66
draft agreement is supposed to represent that “an agreement” exists among the
participants, but not all stakeholders agree to many of its components.
The looming November deadline caused the agency to move swiftly to put
something down on paper to have evidence made available to the public and to
policymakers of the progress being made. However, it may not always be beneficial to
put something on paper simply to have a product. For example, it could be the case that
during the course of the meetings, certain ideas or concepts were very close to being
accepted by the group; however, the specific idea may not have been agreed to at the time
the draft agreement was published. This may leave some stakeholders with feelings of
being disrespected and not taken into account. Thus, these actions can cause more harm
than good in the long run.
Other Process Observations
In addition to the process criteria observed above, additional process issues were
raised during the interviews with the participants. These observations are significant
enough to merit mention here.
Decision-making Process
Every organization represented on the steering committee had one designee who
would attend the meetings and an alternate for that person. When stakeholders were
asked whether participants at the table had sufficient authority to make decisions on
behalf of their organizations, all participants interviewed stated yes. As stated earlier,
those who were present did hold the sufficient authority necessary to make the decision
67
needed to move further. The Chair of the Steering Committee, who also represented the
Natural Resources Agency, would seek consensus on a given issue not by taking a vote,
but rather by asking each stakeholder if they could “live with a given decision.”
One interviewee stated, “the Chair would ask us to nod our head one way or the
other when a decision needed to be made, the Chair did a sort of temperature check with
each one of us” (interviewee #16). This was done according to the Agency Chair, to
avoid having “winners and losers.” In other words, the goal of this process was to
continue to move participants forward even if not everyone was pleased with the outcome
of the decision. However, several concerns were raised by the interviewees in the use of
this process. Many felt that because there was no actual vote, the tough decisions were
not actually made, rather, they just continued to move forward without having really
made a decision on the issue, or “kicking the can down the road.” Moreover, this brought
additional frustration to the agency because participants would instead submit lengthy
letters detailing their concerns on a given issue discussed in the committee meeting.
Thus, the potential existed for key information to be left out of the discussions in the
meetings.
Another issue raised by participants is the opportunity to provide public comment
by those not formally participating in the process. A common concern raised by several
of the “outsiders” interviewed was the limited opportunity to provide feedback on key
issues or ideas during the meetings. For instance, initially, any interested participants of
the process had to wait until the meeting ended before he/she could provide public
68
comment. However, because there were multiple issues being discussed, often there was
a missed opportunity to provide key feedback immediately after the issue was debated.
According to the stakeholders, it appears that this situation has greatly improved
over the last one to two years; however, concerns still exist with the length of time
participants are allowed to speak. Often, these participants have felt the window of
opportunity for discussion is not enough to thoroughly allow for public input and review.
As one interviewee stated, “often the chair would ask for public comment, and if you
weren’t up and ready to talk they would skip right over you and move on to the next item
on the agenda without allowing much opportunity to speak” (interviewee #13). Although
the public comment opportunities may have improved over time, sufficient time must be
allotted to the participants, both to the public and interested observers, immediately after
each item has been brought up. These individuals may provide key information that may
have otherwise been completely missed or left out of the discussion
Outcomes
Innes (1999) states that in addition to evaluating collaboratives by their processes,
outcomes should equally be evaluated because a consensus process that has been
effective will meet some of the outcomes it proposes. This study measures outcomes at
the midcourse point of the BDCP, keeping in mind that these outcomes may be changed
over time and may reflect changes that may be incorporated before the process is
completed.
69
Produced a High Quality Agreement and Ended Stalemate
The most coveted outcome is the production of a high quality agreement in which
all parties feel they have accomplished their goal. However, at the midcourse point, the
closest agreement that has been produced to date has been the November draft agreement.
Although this agreement has not received sign off by all participating stakeholders, there
have been several documents, such as the MOA, the amended MOA, and other points
that have been agreed to by several of the participants. These are critical components to
the process because they are the founding documents in which stakeholders recognize
there is a problem that needs to be solved.
Although the process may be off to a good start, specific clear goals must be
outlined if any agreement is to result from this process. As mentioned previously, this
requires an unpopular choice of making tough decisions. This may not be well received
by all but will lead participants to reach a decision regardless of which side it may fall on.
To get to that point, however, stakeholders must all be able to meet their core interests by
balancing what they receive with what they give up. Not all stakeholders can walk away
from the process with everything they initially sought. Concessions must be made and
tradeoffs granted to help accomplish the larger goals.
Produced Creative Ideas for Action and Enhanced Knowledge Understanding
One of the key ideas in consensus building is the opportunity to come together to
gain a newfound knowledge base and explore and create ideas that may help accomplish
the intended purpose. Although the BDCP process did not enjoy a joint fact-finding
70
process, the time participants spent with colleagues who have a substantive amount of
technical expertise in the field helped them expand their learning and knowledge base.
For instance, several stakeholders brought up the importance of the learning process that
took place during the workshops.
We were each asked to join a break out group which was to focus on a specific
issue, such as governance, science, finance, etc. This really helped us become
‘experts’ on the issue our group was working on because we would learn a lot
from each other and report this information back to the rest of the group.
(interviewee #8)
Break-out groups or workshops, such as the ones the stakeholders participated in
during the BDCP process, may allow for potential exploration of new ideas that may
flourish during the collaborative process – ideas that potentially had not been considered,
but may help reach agreement among the group.
Developed Social and Political Capital
The building of social and political capital is instrumental in collaborative
processes. This involves the networks and linkages crucial to adaptation in a complex
system. In the case of the BDCP, several factors have led to a decrease in political
capital. The first and perhaps largest one is the division that exists between those at the
table as formal steering committee members and those on the outside who are interested
participants. Some interviewees, who were outside observers, wished to be a part of the
steering committee but were unwilling to sign off on all ideas agreed to before they
71
joined. One interviewee stated, “a few months into the process we asked to be a part of
the steering committee membership, but we did not feel comfortable agreeing to ideas
that had been decided on before we had attended our first meeting” (interviewee #14).
Perhaps, if this policy were changed to allow those who want to become formal
stakeholders be at the table, the division among the groups may be lessened.
Additionally, it could help address another concern – that of power imbalance. As
mentioned previously, many of the stakeholders agreed that major participants, such as
the Delta interests, were missing from the process. In fact, all but one Delta interest group
was formally at the table. Many of the would-be Delta interests declined to participate
because they did not want to sign off on prior arrangements made in the process. Thus,
those at the table have felt the steering committee makeup has not consisted of a
representative sample of the stakeholders.
Sustainability of Natural and Social Systems
While attempting to resolve key environmental policy issues, proposals often will
contain both social and natural system goals. In this case, the two broad goals are coequal and seek to restore the ecosystem and obtain a reliable water supply. While the
goals are broadly supported by all the stakeholders, participants involved in the process
need to be realistic and willing to truly seek common ground. Nonetheless, concerns
remain on how best to achieve these goals.
For instance, during the interview process, some claimed, “if it’s not this way,
then I don’t want anything to do with it.” However, stakeholders may need to reflect on
72
what may happen if an agreement is not reached and a stalemate continues. This comes
with the threat of more litigation, increased frustration, a declining Delta, and unreliable
water source. Although not every demand may be granted coming out of the process,
stakeholders may have the assurance that the decisions they make today will have a
lasting positive impact on California’s and their water for many years to come.
What Would You Change?
During the interview process, participants were asked to identify what they would
change about the process moving forward. Three main ideas surfaced. The first was to
help participants continue moving through the process by making the tough decisions as
opposed to simply delaying the process. This idea was echoed through the group of
interviewees who felt it was time for the next step to move forward. The second
recommendation made was to bring the missing participants to the table. Many felt the
missing group was a key part of the process and that those not present have the potential
to make or break an agreement – this alone should be sufficient to include them in all
major decision making. The third and final suggestion made was one directed toward to
the Agency. Stakeholders suggested the Agency be more realistic about the schedule,
timelines, and deadlines. They also stressed the importance of making all information
available to participants and the public as far in advance of meetings as possible to allow
for better decision making. As one interviewee stated, “you need to give people adequate
time to make informed decisions and give them the tools to do so in a timely
73
manner…we need to get these decisions done right the first time to avoid having to come
back to something later” (interviewee #8).
74
Chapter 6
SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Process Findings
All seven of the process criteria defined in Chapter 2 surfaced as dominant themes
in the interviews. The first criterion considered whether a conflict assessment was
completed by a neutral third party. The interviews demonstrated that it did not occur.
Instead, an internal assessment was conducted by the Natural Resources Agency; no
outside resources or facilitators were used during this process.
The second criterion considered the representation of all parties present during the
BDCP process. The interviews demonstrated several key groups were missing.
Specifically noted by interviewees was the fact that a key missing group of stakeholders
were the Delta representatives. One of the predominant concerns for not joining the
formal group, according to some outside the formal steering committee process, was the
MOA requirement to sign off on all prior decisions made by the group. This process
raised serious concerns for those wanting to participate after the process began.
The third criterion was a shared purpose within the group. It was clarified that a
shared purpose need not be the same goal for all parties. All that is necessary is a shared
reason to participate. For some participants their dissatisfaction with the status quo was
sufficient to join the discussions; for others the status quo was found preferable to a new
potentially “less beneficial approach.”
75
The fourth criterion discussed was self-organization, a critical component because
a good collaborative process allows participants to be independent and create their own
rules, tasks, and other key processes. However, the interviewee responses demonstrated
little initial input from many of the stakeholders; instead, most of the organization came
from a select few state and federal agencies who put together key components.
The fifth criterion was the use of high quality information also known as a joint
fact-finding process. This is a critical element to any collaboration because it allows
stakeholders and experts to work together to collect and analyze information and creates
the opportunity for better informed decision making. However, the research indicated the
BDCP did not engage in such a process. According to stakeholders, it was “assumed” that
those at the table were knowledgeable about the issues at hand and taking time to
examine all issues every time a new participant joined would simply be too time
consuming. However, through the interview process, stakeholders agreed that the
workshops in which they participated enabled them to gain a greater understanding of a
given issue area.
The sixth criterion was keeping participants at the table. This considered whether
the involved parties were engaged and actively participating in the process. This criterion
is a timely one given the recent headlines made in regard to participants “pulling out of
the process.” After one of the involved parties claimed they were leaving the BDCP,
further talks successfully ensued to keep all parties at the table. However, it should not
take a participant of the process threatening to leave before these discussions occur. This
76
series of events demonstrate the importance of communication among the stakeholders
and the convening agencies to ensure the process is meeting the needs of the participants.
Nonetheless, it appears all parties have remained at the table and are anxiously awaiting
the next steps of a new administration.
The last criterion was to seek consensus only after full exploration of interests.
This is critical since, as was noted in the findings of the draft agreement, not all parties
were taken into consideration when the draft was written. Moving ahead simply to have a
product may undermine the process if it results in preventing a full exploration of all
options or discourages stakeholders from continuing as part of the process.
Lastly, several other significant findings were made that merit mention here. First,
was the authority granted to steering committee members. All stakeholders agreed that all
participants at the table had sufficient authority needed to make decisions. This is an
important point given the high stakes involved in the process. Other key process findings
detailed how the decision-making and public comment processes worked. The decisionmaking process did not consist of a vote by participants, rather the Committee Chair
would determine whether the participants could “live with” the decisions being proposed
by looking for head nods. No vote was ever taken on any decisions to avoid creating the
perception of a winning or losing side.
However, this represented a problem for many stakeholders who felt this process
did not allow for any “tough decisions” to be put forth. The public comment concern was
also raised by many of the outside participants who felt their opinions and suggestions
77
were not considered because the process for their input did not allow them to timely offer
that input. However, it was noted by several interviewees that this system has greatly
improved and now public comment is allowed after each individual item is discussed as
opposed to the end of the meetings.
Outcome Findings
As noted, because the process is at its midcourse point, we can only consider what
has been demonstrated thus far in the process. The most obvious, and only, written
outcome is the November draft agreement. However, this research found that this
document did not have buy-in from all stakeholders, but was done to meet a given
deadline. Thus, many of the tough decisions are still in discussion. Another key outcome
is the production of ideas and enhanced knowledge. One of the key ideas in consensus
building is the opportunity to have experts in the field and knowledgeable stakeholders
all in one room sharing ideas and finding solutions. This was done through the
“workshop” process. During this process, stakeholders chose one or more groups dealing
with critical issues of the BDCP. Along with the rest of their group, these stakeholders
would work with technical experts to become more knowledgeable about the given issue
(i.e., finance, governance, science, etc.). They would then be responsible for reporting
back to the larger group and keep them updated.
Recommendations to State Policymakers/Leadership
Based on this research I offer several recommendations to policymakers to aid in
the difficult task of managing this process moving forward. These recommendations are
78
meant to help ensure the process has a favorable outcome, both in regard to reaching an
agreement among the stakeholders and to assure the process is fair to all participants.
Hire a facilitator/Neutral Third Party
Although most of the participants stated the former Undersecretary of the Agency
did a “great job at managing the meetings,” it is essential, especially given the highly
contentious issues and various stakeholder interests involved, that a skilled facilitator
manage the meetings. A skilled third party facilitator can help ensure everyone is listened
to and ground rules are established and followed by the group on how the process will
proceed. This could be a significant improvement on the process and ultimately the
outcome since neutral facilitators may help stakeholders open up in dialogue because
they do not feel constrained by the authority of the convener. Similarly, the convener may
also participate freely and not feel constrained by the responsibility to facilitate.
Bring All Missing Parties to the Table
Bringing all interested stakeholders to the process should be done immediately.
This is especially the case, given the high political thunderstorm that has ensued on these
issues in the past 30 years. It is foolish to believe a process which handles such high
stakes issues can have a chance at moving forward with key stakeholders not included in
the decision-making process. One of the principal rules of collaboration is to include all
those who have the ability to block an agreement at the table. Excluding key interest
groups may be detrimental to the process and to implementation of an agreement once
reached. A good way to begin this process is by removing the previous requirement that
79
prevents stakeholders from participating as committee members if they do not agree to all
prior decisions. Removal of this requirement would permit important missing
stakeholders to actively engage in the process.
Be Realistic about Timelines and Outcomes
The purpose of the BDCP is to establish a plan for the Delta and California's
water for the next 50 years. That is no small feat. The last time California did major work
overhauling its water and infrastructure was over 30 years ago. To set pre-determined
deadlines on when agreements must be done “even on paper” represents the traditional
way of “getting things done.” The collaborative approach does not fall neatly under this
traditional approach of setting deadlines and reports to ensure accountability, rather it
requires participants to work as a group and reach agreement on ideas before making
decisions. However, to accomplish this, there must also be a process of informing and
reassuring the public and policymakers on consensus building processes. For example, if
there is agreement on four key points among stakeholders this may be more meaningful
than 1,000 pages of proposals or ideas that have not been agreed on by all parties.
Concluding Comments
The BDCP process has been very complex and has been received with mixed
feelings, or as one interviewee stated, “it has been one long rollercoaster ride of emotions
for those of us participating” (interviewee # 11). However, there is a clear responsibility
and a continued momentum to reach an agreement since other approaches have failed.
One interviewee stated, “we all ultimately remain at the table because we don’t want to
80
say we failed” (interviewee #10). There is newfound hope, however, in the new
leadership of Dr. Jerry Meral (2011) who has made several remarks in regard to the
Governor’s vision for moving the process forward. He recently quoted the Governor’s
water policy message and hopes for the program.
California must implement a science-based plan to ensure safe and adequate water
supplies while addressing the severe challenges facing the Delta…As Governor, I
will ensure the co-equal goals of restoring the Delta ecosystem and creating a
more reliable water supply for California (Meral, 2011, speech)
Dr. Meral (2011) carries a large burden on his shoulders as the person responsible
for the BDCP. He indicated his optimism that the co-equal goals can be achieved when
he stated that the state has never been closer to reaching common ground on this issue. In
his remarks, he acknowledges that to some, the BDCP has not necessarily been a good
process; however, he states that he will be focusing his energies on ensuring that the
BDCP will be about making science-based decisions, “it will be a stakeholder driven
process that will involve broad participation above all else” (Meral, March 2011). His
hope is that if the BDCP is successful, it will be permitted to operate both the state and
federal water projects in full compliance with endangered species law and get the process
away from the litigation net that had consumed it earlier. Data from the interviews
showed that many of the stakeholders are looking to Dr. Meral for guidance and
leadership on how to improve the process to make it succeed. At the time of this writing,
a workshop was being planned on how to move forward with the BDCP. It will be hosted
81
by key state and federal agencies in the process – all interested participants and the public
have been invited.
The direction that will be followed during the course of the next few months will
be critical in ensuring the process heads in a positive direction and accomplishes the
goals it has set out. Several of the interviewees claimed their membership within the
committee depended on this new direction. Nevertheless, it is clear that California cannot
continue to live with the status quo. The Delta levees and ecosystem, are much too
fragile. California has been fortunate that it has not yet been hit by catastrophes such as
have been seen in New Orleans and Japan. However, stakeholders have made it clear
there is no plan B. “This process is all we have right now…we need to make it work”
(Interviewee #12). Important resources, time, and effort have already been expended in
this process. One can only hope the new Administration and its new leadership will help
finish the process to achieve the goals outlined in the MOA agreement signed back in
2006. California’s water supply and health of the Delta depend on it.
82
APPENDICES
83
APPENDIX A
Interview Questions
Bay-Delta Conservation Plan Case Study
Research Question: How does the collaborative process affect the outcomes of the BayDelta Conservation Plan (BDCP)?
1) Introduction to Project
a. Purpose of research: To obtain more information about the BDCP collaborative
effort’s outcomes, including, its impact on social capital and joint fact-finding
process.
b. May accommodate anonymity and confidentiality if preferred.
c. Request signature on consent letter.
d. Any questions before we begin?
2) Background
a. Please tell me about yourself, including specifically what your role is within your
organization and at what point you first became involved in the BDCP Process?
b. Additionally, why did your organization decide to get involved in the BDCP? What
were the expected outcomes?
3) Process
a. Are all the necessary parties present?
b. Do you have knowledge of whether a conflict assessment or similar process was
conducted prior to initiating the collaboration?
c. Do you feel participants have sufficient authority to make commitments on behalf
of their organization or agency?
4) Joint fact-finding process:
a. Did the group have an opportunity to develop an educational stage prior to
engaging in the meetings?
b. Was there opportunity to express your point of view and learn others points of
view?
c. Did you feel you were able to adequately advance your own interests in the
process? If not, what factors interfered with your equal participation (i.e., power,
financial,).
d. How were decisions generally made within the BDCP? Were you satisfied with
the way these were made? If not, how would you change the decision making
process?
84
4) Draft agreement:
a. Were you and your organization satisfied with the draft agreement released last
fall? In retrospect, do you feel the agreement was based upon adequate information?
5) Indirect Outcomes:
a. One of the goals of this study is to describe the various types of outcomes that
have resulted thus far out of the BDCP process, such as increased social and political
capital….
b. has your organization had changes in activities, policies or structure since
involvement in the process began? What have you learned from the process?
c. Have you observed changes through the process in how others operated and
interacted? Were there any observable changes in positions, definitions, or conflicts
over information?
d. What effect did this process have on your relationship with other stakeholders?
What effect on the balance of power between stakeholders?
6) Suggestions:
a. After almost 300 meetings, and a substantial amount of time energy, and resources,
what recommendations would you make to improve the process?
b. Do you feel it is worth it to continue the process as is?
c. What would you have changed about the process if you could start all over again?
Would you still participate?
85
APPENDIX B
Consent to Participate in Research
Introduction: You are being asked to participate in research conducted by Aracely Campa
as a thesis requirement for the Master of Public Policy and Administration program at
California State University, Sacramento.
Purpose of the research: I am conducting a mid-course evaluation of the Bay-Delta
Conservation Plan (BDCP) collaborative process as it relates to best practices in
collaborative planning in order to evaluate its outcomes and make recommendations for
improvement.
Funding for the research: This research will be funded in its entirety by the researcher.
Research Procedures: The research involves several levels of data collection including
interviewing stakeholders and participants of the BDCP Steering Committee. During the
interview, you will be asked about your experiences, opinions and suggestions as they
relate to the BDCP process and its outcomes. The interview will require up to 60 minutes
of your time.
Compensation: You will not receive compensation for participating in this study.
Benefits: It is the hope of the researcher that the results of this study will help the
stakeholders of the BDCP process, conveners, and policy makers use collaborative
strategies more effectively. In addition, you may share your insights with a wider
audience through the publication of this study as a master's thesis.
Risks Involved: The research will be published as a thesis and may be publicly accessible
in digital or print formats. You may decline to answer any question if you wish. Your
participation in the interview is entirely voluntary. Please refer to the section
"Confidentiality" for information about risks associated with making public statements.
Confidentiality: Everything you say in the interview will remain confidential unless you
grant explicit permission to be identified by name and/or organization in the final report.
Please make your request known at the start of the interview and check the appropriate
box below. You may change your request at any time during or after the interview.
"I wish to be identified by name in the written research report.”
"I request that my name not be disclosed, but consent to being identified as a
representative of the organization I represent. I consent to particular quotes from the
86
interview to be attributed to my organization. I acknowledge that given the small number of
people being interviewed, it may be possible for readers of the thesis to infer my identity
even if I am not identified by name."
"I request that nothing I say be publicly attributed to me, my employer, or clients I
represent. However, I acknowledge that given the small number of people being
interviewed, it may be possible for readers of the thesis to infer my identity even if I am not
identified by name."
Privacy and Conflicts of Interest: I am currently employed as Legislative Director for
Assemblymember Nora Campos, who represents the 23rd Assembly District and was
previously employed by Assemblymember Caballero who did extensive work on water
policy issues over the course of her legislative career. However, I am conducting this
research purely in my capacity as a master's degree candidate. All notes and/or transcripts
of the interview will not be shared with anyone, including my current and former
employers. Additionally, I will not share interview notes or transcripts with my academic
advisors, listed below.
Contact Information: If you have any questions about this research, you may contact me
at (916) 508-7115 or Aracely.Campa@yahoo.com or you may contact my primary
academic advisors in the Department of Public Policy and Administration at California
State University, Sacramento.
William Leach, Assistant Professor, (310) 270-8202, wdleach@csus.edu
David Booher, Adjunct Professor, dbooher@ucberkeley.edu
Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary and you may withdraw from
participation at any time. Your signature below indicates that you have read this consent
form and agree to participate in the research.
_____________________________________
Signature of Participant
______________________
Date
87
APPENDIX C
Draft Agreement Key Findings
In 2006, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed by key agencies
including the Department of Water Resources, Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service amongst others. When
the agreement was compiled, the purpose was derived from the recent funding decreases
that took place in the CALFED Bay-Delta program. The BDCP, at the time, was viewed
as the new and improved version of CALFED. The MOA was intended to pursue several
actions including: the development of a conservation plan for the Delta and its upstream
basins. The plan would seek to accomplish this while complying with the California
Endangered Species Act and the Federal Endangered Species Act in California for the
next 50 years. Moreover, the plan would also seek to implement key projects relating to
water supply, water quality, ecosystem, and levee repair which would also be held under
compliance with State and Federal environmental laws (MOA, June 2006).
Prior to the signing off on the MOA, a preliminary document, known as the
statement of principles was founded. This document laid the groundwork for an
agreement amongst the stakeholders as stated in the MOA. The negotiators to the
agreement proposed two main things: first, to ensure implementation of actions that will
adequately conserve and assist in the recovery of fish and wildlife affected by covered
activities as outlined previously through CALFED’s conservation strategies. The second
intention was to provide long-term assurances regarding the operation of existing and
88
future water related facilities associated with the State Water Project and Central Valley
Project (Statement of Principles, 2005). However, the key principle in the document lays
out the need to implement important elements of the program such as ecosystem
restoration, water quality and water supply, and the need to move forward while taking
into consideration appropriate costs and benefits. Moreover, the document acknowledges
the need for a long-term water supply, and water quality framework and a funding source
to be developed in a timely and efficient manner.
The BDCP Steering Committee consists of parties who have signed off on both
the statement of Principles and the MOA. These groups indicated their commitment to
engage and participate in the process to advance the co-equal goals of water supply
reliability and ecosystem restoration. These goals were supplemented by additional and
broader BDCP goals (see Table A1). These planning goals helped set the initial direction
for the BDCP planning process. As the process moved forward, the committee members
began the process of identifying specific goals and objectives that would guide the BDCP
and be ultimately implemented.
89
Table A1 BDCP Goals Outlined in the Planning Agreement
Covered Species
Preservation of ecosystems
Restoration and protection of water supplies
CEQA/NEPA Compliance
Take Permits
Mitigation Requirements
Project Review Efficiency
Transparency in assurances
Provide for the conservation and management of
covered species within the plan area
Preserve, restore, enhance ecosystems that support
covered species through conservation partnerships
Allow for projects to proceed that restore and
protect water supply, and water quality
Implement covered activities in a manner that
complies with CEQA and NEPA
Provide for issuance of permits for lawful take of
covered species.
Coordinate mitigation and compensation
requirements for covered activities.
Provide low cost/highly efficient project review
process
Provide transparent assurances and expectations
regarding covered activities
Retrieved from http://bdcpweb.com
BDCP Steering Committee Draft Plan
On November 18, 2010 the members of the BDCP Steering Committee published
a report on their progress in developing a plan. This “work in progress” was the first time
a draft plan had been compiled and made available to the public for their review. The
report mentions, “the draft plan includes chapters and sub-chapters that have undergone
varying levels of input and review by the Steering Committee” (Draft Plan BDCP 2010,
p. 8). The report indicates that this includes portions that have been extensively reviewed
as well as portions that are new and have not been reviewed. An important note is made
in the draft indicating that while much progress has been made on the concepts in the
draft plan, many issues remain in dispute or underdeveloped. In addition, not all
stakeholders had signed off on the draft agreement.
Thus, rather than thoroughly discuss each chapter in the draft plan; I have opted to
90
instead make reference to several key concepts that are discussed in the draft. These are
major elements of the plan currently undergoing discussion, which have also been
mentioned during the interview process by the stakeholders as major issues and critical
components of the plan. I have also chosen to do this because there is not consensus on
many of the ideas outlined in the draft plan. In fact, since many of the stakeholders did
not sign off on the draft agreement, going into detail on what is in print does not satisfy
the purpose of this study, rather the underlying issues that are not in print is the objective
here.
Biological Goals and Objectives
One of the goals of the BDCP is to contribute to the recovery of at-risk species in
the Delta. In order to allow for conservation of these species, the plan calls for certain
biological goals and objectives that contribute to these conservation strategies. This
strategy is based off of best available scientific information. These goals and objectives
are designed to serve three main functions. First, to articulate the desired biological
outcomes of the conservation strategy. Second, to describe how those outcomes will
contribute to the long tem conservation of covered species and their habitats. Third, to
provide metrics to measure progress in achieving the desired biological outcomes.
As outlined in the draft agreement, some ecosystem goals and objectives include
focus on improvements to the hydrodynamic, chemical, and biological processes of the
Delta including more natural flow patterns increased food production, reductions in the
effects of nonnative species, among others. Nonetheless, to ensure that these objectives
91
are meaningful, the Natural Resources Agency supports an approach in which in some
instances, the goals would be specific, and in other instances the goals would be very
general or broad. The proposal of the agency is that through a monitoring program, these
strategies would be evaluated on an ongoing basis to assess their effectiveness and
changes would be made to these strategies as necessary.
However, this has become an issue of contention for many stakeholders. For
instance, several have stated that there is disagreement on what the biological goals or
objectives should look like. For instance, one interviewee stated “we want to ensure that
we have biological goals in place, but they should be fair and take into account the things
that we cannot control for” (interview #3). This refers to outside factors such as ocean
temperature and levels, for instance, and its interactions with the Delta and the take
impact. Another interviewee discussed the concerns with ensuring the goals are
measurable. For instance, the participant stated, “objectives and goals are necessary;
however, we also need to have verifiable information that demonstrates that a given
objective is actually working – set performance measures need to be put in place”
(interview #15). Indeed, performance measures were an issue that was echoed by other
stakeholders as well. This was an issue of interest especially for the Potentially Regulated
Entities (PRE’s) who had a keen interest for ensuring that a type of measurable progress
could be identified. In addition to performance measures, it was mentioned that special
consideration should be given to finding goals and objectives that are reasonable for the
BDCP, as opposed to attempting to find the “perfect” solution and letting it be the enemy
92
of the good, which may not be amenable by all. For instance, “some of the goals we
would come up with took a big step for us to get to, but because for some it wasn’t far
enough the suggestion would get turned down without that person realizing how much it
took to get us there” (interview #9).
Scientific Process
The integration of science is a key component of the BDCP process. According to
the November draft plan, “The BDCP is built upon and reflects the extensive body of
scientific investigation, study, and analysis of the Delta compiled over several decades”
(draft plan, p. 57). Such studies, the report claims, includes the results and findings of
studies conducted by interagencies, the Public Policy Institute of California, reports
conducted by the Governor’s Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force, among other
scientific data. Moreover, the agreement claims that the steering committee has also
sought an independent science advisory process to ensure that the BDCP would be based
on the “best scientific and commercial data available” (Draft agreement, 2010, P. 57).
On this same note, the committee members decided to establish a group of
“science liaisons” whose purpose was to provide recommendations to ensure
“appropriate” levels of independent scientific input was placed into the process. The
committee Members directed these liaisons to bring independent scientists to the table
during key stages of the BDCP planning process. They were instructed to provide
recommendations and guidance on the subject matter outlined in Table A2.
93
Table A2 Scientist Liaison Goals
Scientifically sound conservation strategies for
species and natural communities.
A set of reserve design principles that addresses
Design Principles
the needs of species, landscapes, ecosystems, and
ecological processes in the proposed area
Management Principles and Conservation
To be used in developing a framework for
Goals
monitoring and adaptive management.
Data Gap and Uncertainty Identification
To adequately evaluate risk factors.
Retrieved using information from http://bdcpweb.com
Conservation Strategies
The integration of science is undoubtedly a key component of the BDCP process.
Although it has been recognized as such by the Committee Members and has been
incorporated into the draft agreement, it is still a cause for much disagreement amongst
the stakeholders. The independent scientific reviews have been essential in the planning
process; however, there is substantial disagreement among the stakeholders as to what the
science really means. For instance, interviewee number nine stated: “one of the greatest
challenges we are facing is the lack of science. We have spent millions on data gathering
but there are huge disagreements on what it says…many believe that the pumps are the
biggest problem for fish, but some of the studies, can’t correlate the decrease in fish with
the pumps.”
Indeed, this concern was raised by several of the participants interviewed. On the
other hand, I had other interviewee’s state just the opposite - that indeed the science
clearly demonstrated a correlation between a decrease in fish population and the danger
the pumps indicate. This “scientific uncertainty” as stated by several stakeholders makes
the process “difficult to trust.” As one interviewee put it, “we can spend $100M and
invest it in science but we will still be left with scientific uncertainty…how can I
94
recommend to my boss that he sign a 5,000 page document when we don’t know the
implications it will have” (interview #11).
Conveyance
Perhaps the most controversial issue of all is without a doubt conveyance, also
known as a peripheral canal in the Delta to help improve water quality and to serve as a
potential conservation measure. The Natural Resources Agency anticipates; according to
the November draft plan that, that a conveyance facility that ranges in size between
12,000 to 15,000 cfs would best accomplish these goals. The idea behind this project is
that a facility of this size would allow for delivery of water supplies in the face of
potential seismic events, impacts associated with climate change and address potential
future pumping restrictions in the Delta. Moreover, the November draft agreement states
that this option would provide the most flexibility in reducing system stressors and would
provide the ability to move water as needed and when it is least harmful to Delta species.
This issue has generated huge differences of opinion amongst the stakeholders on
both sides of the issue. Some stakeholders believe that the large size of the proposed
facility would invite future pressure to maximize water supplies at the expense of the
environment (Draft Agreement, 2010). In fact, one interviewee spoke of an account in
which discussion of building such a canal led to interested persons participating in the
meeting, “to storm out in anger over the decision to consider such a proposal.” Some
participants questioned whether a conveyance measure is a conservation method at all.
One interviewee stated, “When thinking of whether to build new conveyance we had to
95
ask whether this was even a conservation measure. They say yes, we say no. it may be
better for the smelt but its worse for the salmon” (Interview #10).
Indeed, this issue has been and continues to be as contentious as it was when the
idea was first floated out in the 1980’s, during the Governor Brown’s first term - and, it
continues to make headlines. For instance, this issue was the topic of a recent news story
posted in the Sacramento Bee in which the Department of Water Resources was seeking
to obtain soil samples by drilling in selected locations to determine which sites may be
most qualified for a peripheral canal location. However, their access was denied by a
Stockton judge who sided with a group of farmers who were the owners of the Delta
lands where the drilling were to take place. According to the attorney who represented
the farmers in the case, “this is the latest obstacle to the state’s grand plan to build a canal
or tunnel around the Delta. It’s also a major victory for opponents, who view the project
as a modern day water grab” (Sacbee, April 2011).
Although clearly, a laundry list of issues has been discussed at length in the draft
plan, there are still many unanswered questions, differences on specific stances, and of
opinion on how to proceed forward. Nonetheless, the issues at hand are not simple issues;
however, it is promising that the agency has recognized the importance of resolving the
remaining concerns. Currently, the completion of a draft plan and the corresponding
environmental impact studies are due out in Fall 2011.
96
REFERENCES
Bacher, D. (2010, November 23). Westlands Water District withdraws from BDCP
process. Retrieved from
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/11/23/18664901.php
Booher, D., & Innes, J. (2006). Complexity and adaptive policy systems: CALFED as an
emergent form of governance for sustainable management of contested resources.
California.
Brandt, A. W. (2002). An environmental water account: The California experience.
University of Denver Water Law Review, 5, Spring, 426-456.
CALFED Bay-Delta Program. (2000, August 28). Programmatic record of decision
(ROD). Retrieved from http://calwater.ca.gov/content/Documents/ROD.pdf
CALFED Bay-Delta Program. (2007). History.
http://www.calwater.ca.gov/calfed/about/History/
California Codes. Public resources code section 29702 (section a). Retrieved from
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov
California Codes. Water code section 850000. Retrieved from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov
California Codes. Water code section 85086 (c)(2). Retrieved from
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov
California Codes. Water code section 85320 (a). Retrieved from
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov
97
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The state water project. Retrieved
from http://www.dwr.water.ca.gov
California Natural Resources Agency. (2007). Restoring the Delta and creating a clean,
reliable water supply. Retrieved from
http://www.resources.ca.gov/restoring_the_delta
Campana, M. (2010, November 26). BDCP: Are the wheels falling off? Water Wired.
Retrieved from http://aquadoc.typepad.com
Connick, S., & Innes, J. (2001). Outcomes of collaborative water policy making:
Applying complexity thinking to evaluation. IURD Working Paper Series.
Berkeley, CA: UC Berkeley.
Dennis, H. (1981). Water and power. The peripheral canal and its alternatives. San
Francisco: Friends of the Earth Books.
Engelbert, E. A., & Scheuring, A. F. (1982). The problem, the resource, the competition.
In R. H. Coppock, R. M. Hagan, & W. W. Wood, Jr. (Eds.), Competition for
California water: Alternative resolutions (pp. 1-10). Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd
ed.). London: Penguin Books.
Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization
of society (Vol. 1, T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon.
98
Hanemann, D. (2009). The San Francisco Bay-Delta: A failure of decision-making
capacity. Journal of Environmental Science and Policy. doi:
10.1016/j.envsci.2009.07.004
Innes, J. (2004). Consensus building – Clarifications for the critics. Planning Theory,
3(1), 5-20.
Innes, J. E. (1999). Evaluating consensus building. In L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, & J.
Thomas-Larmer (Eds.), The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive
guide to reaching agreement (pp. 631-675). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building as role playing and bricolage:
Toward a theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 65(1), 9-26.
Innes, J. E., & Connick, S. (2001). Consensus building as a policy making strategy for
water resources management. Berkeley: Technical Completion Reports,
University of California Water Resources Center, UC Berkeley.
Innes, J. E., Gruber, J., Neuman, M., & Thompson, R. (1994). Coordinating growth and
environmental management through consensus building. CPS report: A policy
research program report. Berkeley: California Policy Seminar, University of
California, Berkeley.
99
Innes, J., Connick, S., Kaplan, L., & Booher, D. E. (2006). Collaborative governance in
the CALFED program: Adaptive policy making for California water. IURD
Working Paper Series. Sacramento: Center for Collaborative Policy, California
State University, Sacramento.
Lauer, S. (2009, February). A briefing on California water issues. Water Education
Foundation.
Lee, T. W. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). (2006). Reforming the CALFED Bay-Delta
program. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Little Hoover Commission. (2005). Still imperiled still important: The Little Hoover
Commission’s review of the CALFED Bay-Delta program. Sacramento, CA: The
Commission.
Lund, J., Hanak, E., Fleenor, W. Bennett, W., Howitt, R., Mount, J., & Moyle, P. (2008,
July). Comparing futures for the Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta. Sacramento:
Public Policy Institute of California.
Memorandum of Agreement. (2006). Retrieved from
http://www.baydeltaconservationplan.com
Meral, J. (2011, March 23). The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. California Natural
Resources Agency. Remarks made at Wilshire Grand Hotel, Los Angeles.
100
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Nawi, D., & Brandt, A. (2008). The California Bay-Delta: The challenges of
collaboration. In M. Doyle & C. Drew. A large-scale ecosystem restoration: Five
case studies from the Unites States (pp. 113-227). Washington, DC: Island Pres.
Potapchuk, W. R., & Crocker, J. (1999). Implementing consensus-based agreements. In
L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer (Eds.), The consensus building
handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement (pp. 527-555).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stegner, W. (1980). The sound of mountain water. New York: Lincoln University of
Nebraska Press.
Straus, D. A. (1999). Designing a consensus building process using a graphic road map.
In L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer (Eds.), The consensus
building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement (pp. 137-168).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Susskind, L. (1999). The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to
reaching agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to
resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.
Taugher, M. (2010, November 23). Big player in California water plan pulls out. The
Contra Costa Times. Retrieved from http://contracostatimes.com
101
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). The Central Valley project. Retrieved from
http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvp/index.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011). Pacific Southwest region. Retrieved from
http://www.fws.gov
Weiss, C. H. (1972). Evaluation research: Methods of assessing program effectiveness.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Zito, K. (2010, November 16). Water plan or water grab? The San Francisco Chronicle.
Retrieved from http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-11-16/news/24833822_1_wateragencies-bay-delta-conservation-plan-randy-kanouse