S9_11-15-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Section 9 Evaluation Framework A position-based debate is one where stakeholders lay down positions, such as "new reservoirs are absolutely needed" or "water conservation is the only way to solve our water needs." Both of these positions are intractable - often leading to stalemate. Any alternative that has a new reservoir will surely be seen as adversarial to the stakeholder desiring water conservation, for example. An interest-based dialogue, in contrast to position-based debate, is where stakeholders identify their preferences (or interests) for well understood and accepted objectives. For example, the stakeholder whose position was "water conservation is the only way to solve our water needs" may have an interest to protect the environment (which is likely shared by many other stakeholders, but in varying degrees). And the stakeholder whose position was "new reservoirs are absolutely needed" may have the interest in reliably meeting municipal demands during a drought (which is also likely shared by many other stakeholders, but with varying degrees). Moving from positions to interests, and understanding how stakeholders value these interests, allows solutions to be identified that can achieve multiple interests. This is how consensus and common ground can be discovered. This report illustrates how different families of options can address the state's water needs while meeting multiple objectives (Section 8); subsequent SWSI work can continue this process for the development and assessment of portfolios of options, described in this process as "alternatives." Over the last 18 months, the SWSI team met with the Basin Roundtables on four occasions. This was a short timeframe to address all the technical data in the basins, and to have Basin Roundtable members achieve consensus. Developing more trust and further exploration of water resource management solutions that meet multiple interests appears to be warranted. The results of the individuals' objective preferences (weighting) were plotted for each river basin. What is shown on the following graphs is the weight (expressed as a percentage based on Pair-Wise Comparison results) that Basin Roundtable members gave to each of the objectives shown in Figure 9-4. By design, the maximum weight that any Basin Roundtable member could give an objective is 25 percent. For each individual, the total of the weights for all objectives adds up to 100 percent. The red line indicates the range of weights that the entire group of participants gave to a particular objective. If the red line starts at zero, this means that at least one participant assigned a zero percentage weight to that objective. If the red line goes up to 25, then at least one participant assigned a 25 percentage weight to that objective. The black diamond on each red line indicates the average weight of all the participants within the river basin for that objective. Also plotted on the red line are the average weights for three interests, under which the majority of Basin Roundtable members were grouped: (1) municipal water providers - as indicated by blue circles; (2) agricultural/ ranching - as indicated by yellow triangles; and (3) environmental/recreational - as indicated by green squares. Some members did not fall into any of these groups, but are reflected in the overall group averages. It is important to note that the average weightings for each Basin Roundtable and certain subsets thereof are presented here only to illustrate the overall tenor of each group. However, in no case was the average weight used in evaluating options. Rather, each individual's objective weighting was used to develop and track their individual ranking of options. ~ $~ole'ri~ice Wo~e' $upplY Initia~ive ~~ S:\REPORT\WORD PROCESSING\REPORT\S9 11-10.04.DOC 9-7