CIPP Network Analysis Proposal_DNR

• Title: Concept Paper: Mapping Colorado’s Water Policy Networks: A Pilot Project with one Roundtable
• IBCC - Doc Type: Program Planning, Budget & Contracts

Concept Paper: Mapping Colorado’s Water Policy Networks :

A Pilot Project with one Roundtable

Colo rado Institute of Public Policy at Colorado State University

I
NTRODUCTION

With the establishment of nine water basin roundtables as a result of HB05 - 1177 , a new mechanism
exists to address long - term conflicts in water policy and plan for the fu ture. Given the diversity of
participants – some of wh om have long been actively involved in water issues and others who have
b een more peripheral players – the roundtables serve as an important venue for addressing both
intra and interbasin issues. Coll aborative decis ion - making structures like the r oundtables have
tremendous potential, but they also suffer from the complexity of interpersonal and interest - based
stakeholder interactions. One way to address these complexities is to understand them through an
analysis of the networks of actors directly and indirectly involved in the roundtable process. A
“network analysis” has the potential to help understand a variety of issues in any collaborative
process including:

1. Trust. What organizations are trusted by which actors to provide information on water
quality, quantity, and habitats? This would help water roundtables and cross - basin dialogues
to understand and address different ways of understanding the “facts” of water issues.

2. Partnerships. What organiz ations are partnering to address water management issues?
Knowing existing partnerships, including those external to the roundtables, may help in
finding strengths to build upon as new strategies are developed.

3. Activities. What org anizations are engaged i n compli mentary or shared strategies to address
similar goals in the water policy arena? U nderstanding alliances and key organizations that
bridge alliances may clarify barriers to consensus and opportunities to overcome them.
Finding new partners can in crease the effectiveness of organizational activities.

4. Dependency. What organizations are dependent on other stakeholders in the water
networks in Colorado? While some of this is known, understanding the dependencies of
water organizations may identify l evers for increasing collaboration and engaging
stakeholders in dialogues. Additionally, understanding the beliefs that bring organizations
together in alliances creates an opportunity to find common and uncommon ground.

5. Leadership. What holes exist or w ill exist in the coming years in the leadership of the water
community across different sectors and basins? This will help roundtables identify vacuums
of leadership that may inhibit their ability to engage key interests in the water policy process.

6. Expec tations. What expectations do water stakeholders have of the roundtable process? A
network analysis can go beyond asking about relationships to explore the insights of
individual members and connect their expectations back to how they trust and partner w ith
others in the network.

7. Stakeholder Engagement. Which stakeholders are connecting back to the interest groups
they represent to ensure the roundtable process engages stakeholders on the periphery?
Understanding the extent to which each representative on the roundtable is connecting to
the interest group they represent will help the roundtable to better understand its sphere of
influence and enable the roundtable to implement effective methods to share information.
1