7955 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Technical Clarity in Inter-Agency Negotiations: LesBOns From Four Hydropower Projects necessary to ensure adequate flows for waste assimi- lation below the dam, the applicant's position was that introducing the 401 issue at such a late stage in the process was unreasonable. In any event, the applicant had signed an agreement with the waste dischargers to provide adequate flows for assimila- tion. Coupled with the applicant's unwillingness to consider comprehensive river planning, this episode intensified feelings of mutual distrust and led all par- ties to question the good faith of other participants. The Ashton-St. Anthony consultations were also marked by perceptions of lack of good faith. Much of this was caused by a failure to agree on the scope and implications of technical issues. The Ashton Reservoir study was a prime example of this. Problems arose because the resource agencies and the applicant agreed to study the reservoir but did not discuss implications of the study. One respondent stated: As far as you now have a reservoir fishery instead of a riverine fishery, that's an issue. That's defined. That's agreed to. What the signif- icance of that, or what the appropriate mitiga- tion is for that action, was never defined nor clearly identified. Because of the lack of clear study goals, the resource agencies and the applicant were unable to arrive at a common interpretation of the study. The state resource agency submitted its interpretation to FERC, and the applicant felt this violated a previous agreement to present FERC with a jointly-prepared document. For the remaining years of the consulta- tion, the applicant routinely questioned the validity of all studies performed by the resource agencies. Per- haps the initial breakdown in trust produced a situa- tion in which parties were unwilling to accept anything at face value. Therefore, all studies were suspect, and technical clarity became ever more elu- sive. The Effect of Personnel Thrnover The FERC licensing consultations that we studied spanned fairly long periods of time - nine years, on average. Typically, the players changed through the course of the negotiations. The negative effects of these changes were clear: agreements changed when personnel changed; the process was slowed because new players had to be brought up to speed; no parties felt "ownership" in the process. As negotiations dragged on for several years, the sense of urgency to complete the process disappeared. Some projects became very low priorities. Changes in personnel did not always produce nega- tive effects. In some cases, the changes were fortu- itous in that personality conflicts were eliminated or that a new participant brought essential skills or expertise. In Ashton-St. Anthony, organizational changes in the state resource agency and the power company resulted in increased willingness to renew earnest negotiations. One manifestation of this was a determined effort to sort out and agree on the techni- cal aspects ofthe remaining problems. CONCLUSIONS Our investigation of factors affecting success in FERC licensing consultations leads to the observation that technical clarity is critical for successful negotia- tions. In each case, the degree of clarity of the techni- cal issues seemed directly related to the level of success of the negotiation. In many ways this is not surprising. The consultations on FERC projects revolve around reaching agreement on project opera- tions and mitigation for wildlife resources. These are technical issues. If they are intractable, the level of conflict is likely to increase, and the likelihood of suc- cess decreases. Technical issues may be intractable because of fundamental, rather than technical, differ- ences between parties. The research design for this project required that respondents be queried about whether technical issues were clearly defined. In analyzing their responses, it became obvious that these questions were answered on more than one level. On one level, interviewers were told whether or not parties had actually agreed on the scope and definition of issues. Typically, respondents answered the question by nam- ing issues and discussing the general level of agree- ment on whether the issues were considered legitimate. The next level was that of agreement on how to study the problem, how to interpret study results, and what actions to take based on those results. In many instances, parties found it fairly straightforward to name the issues. When it became necessary to move to the next level- study, analysis and interpretation, and decision making - differences in goals became apparent. In some cases, parties agreed on what stud- ies to perform but failed to discuss interpretation and implications of the studies. Because negotiations are often stalled by an inability to reach agreement on questions of ''how," close attention should be paid to avoiding these pitfalls when planning a negotiation. One strategy which could contribute to more effec- tive negotiations is joint fact-finding before negotia- tions begin (Ozawa and Susskind, 1985; Susskind 197 WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN