Laserfiche WebLink
which should be considered an adequate technical basis for the appropriation of instream flows to <br />recover the endangered fish species, while others have asserted that an instream flow appropriation <br />by the CWCB should be based on a more certain and well-defined correlation between the flows to <br />be appropriated and fish recovery. <br />4.2.3. Diverse Jurisdictions and Perspectives. The technical complexity and the <br />methodological disagreements were also played out in an arena of multi jurisdictional and multi- <br />perspective involvement and interplay. Stakeholder jurisdictions brought to the table several <br />federal and state agencies, environmentalists,-and water developers/users and a number of <br />disciplines including lawyers, engineers, and biologists. Accommodating the variety of <br />perspectives represented by the GURU II stakeholders was always a challenge. <br />4.2.4. History of Conflict. The work of GURU II was not made easier because of <br />the long history of conflict and positional warfaze that has characterized exchanges among these <br />perspectives in the past. Most of the participants had significant personal and institutional <br />experience with each other in traditional legal and institutional proceedings. All had become quite <br />skilled and experienced at protecting and promoting a particular point of view, making GURU II <br />participants cautious about collaborative problem solving. <br />4.2.5. Problem Solving Confidence. GURU II's evolution seemed to move from a <br />cautious attitude of "let's see if we can resolve these instream flow issues" to more of a confident <br />attitude of "we can make this work, here are some options." Small successes of achieving <br />consensus (e.g. agreeing on the priority issues) built the group's confidence and trust in solving <br />the more complex and difficult situations. <br />4.2.6. Lack of Skill-Building Module. In terms of process, the absence of an up- <br />42 <br />