Laserfiche WebLink
Mapping the Colorado Basin Rou ndtable’s Water Policy Networks <br />For other stakeholders on the Colorado Basin Roundtable, while they may have a consumptive <br />or non-consumptive need that they want to see met, ultimately, they are approaching water <br />policy and management issues with an eye toward balancing needs . These pragmatic <br />stakeholders are communicating with and trusting of many different stakeholders, across many <br />different interests. Their commitment to seeing all needs met may be part of why they are <br />engaged in the roundtable process, which is a unique opportunity to bring all the interests <br />together. <br />Finally, one group of stakeholders on the Colorado Basin Roundtable is perhaps the most <br />connected to the roundtable process – those who prioritize protecting non-consumptive needs <br />over all others. They are a densely connected group of stakeholders who frequently exchange <br />information, trust each other, and see each other as influential in statewide water policy and <br />management issues. They see success in the roundt able process and they are very actively <br />connected to it via their strong networks with stakeholders inside the Colorado Basin <br />Roundtable and stakeholders in other roundtables. With the historical water management <br />system not prioritizing non-consumptive needs, t he roundtables are a new venue for their voices <br />to be heard. Perhaps for this reason, they are more fully engaged than many of the <br />stakeholders who prioritize consumptive needs. <br />What does this all mean for the Colorado Basin Roundtable and its future? <br />First, if some of the individuals who prioritize consumptive needs are not viewing the Colorado <br />Basin Roundtable as successful or its members as influential, they have no reason to consider <br />the roundtable a mechanism for meeting their needs. They are similar to the “veto” power of a <br />single individual in a consensus process. If the pr ocess fails to bring everyone into the decision, <br />the “veto” can prevent the decision from ever being adopted and implemented. In this case, if <br />these stakeholders believe their needs will be met outside the roundtable, they have no need to <br />negotiate with other members on the roundtable, and thus no reason to help ensure the <br />implementation of the roundtable’s objectives. <br />One way to look at the findings is to think about the need for balance at the Colorado Basin <br />Roundtable. Some stakeholders have little reason to be in the process, while for others, the <br />process is a unique opportunity to be more involv ed. The “balance” of their personal investment <br />in the process is uneven. It’s not just about power – it’s about willingness to engage in a <br />process that is ultimately about collaboration to reach shared decisions. <br />Engaged <br />Protecting <br />Non- <br />Consum p tive <br />Agriculture Balancing <br />Needs <br />Protecting Current <br />Consumptive System <br />Needs Broken <br />Disengaged <br />As long as the disconnect between reasons for involvement remains so high in the Colorado <br />Basin Roundtable, the process will be out of balance. If reasons can be found to engage some <br />of the most disconnected stakeholders, including those whose consumptive needs are met by <br />Colorado Institute of Public Policy 5 of 64 <br />