FLOOD09697 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

od will be applied or not, bul another agency that has either teclmicaI or financial resources necessary to the projecl may be able to affecl a decision made by ils power to control or wilhhold its resources. This abil- ity to affect a decision indirectly is as important a type of power as authority. Agency actions also are influenced by agency administraloTS who may view exactly the same situa- tion in different ways. For this reason an effort was made to obtain information on both the perceptions held by Ihe various agency administraloTS and the stated policies of the agency. Characteristics of planning agencies Planning agencies al the federal, state, and locai leveis also influence decisions made wilhin the counly. These agencies act primarily in a planning capacily while the counly has the major decision-making power on what policies are implemented. This view is simp- lified but was adequale in developing the model. Several agencies can act in a planning capacity. On the federal level, the Army Corps of Engineers plans for flood control. Provision has aiso been made in the model 10 consider inputs from private groups and consultants. The master storm drainage pian for the Salt Lake County area was designed by a private engineering firm engaged by the County Flood Con. trol Department. The influence of various private citizen groups on the planning function can also be included in this section of the model. Planning and decision [unctions The planning and decision functions are per- formed by the model, Figure 4.1 within Sections Two and Three, respectively. Planning and decisions may be made by the same or by separate agencies, or sev- eral agencies may share responsibility for a single func- tion and these functions may be conducted either se- quentially or simultaneously or both. fu the current version of the model, only one decision agency is iden- tified,lhe County Flood Control Agency. The impact of Section Three is decisions that are based on Ihe evaluations made of the planning actions in Section Two. AI this point, potential ac- tions which mighl be supplied by the planning agen- cies are screened in order to reduce the number to be evaluated in Section Three. After screening, the de- cision agency evaluates each potential action by much the same procedure followed in the planning agency evaluation. The second or planning section and the third or decision section of the model are designed to function in much the same way. As indicated by Figure 4.1, feedback from Section Three is sent 10 prior sections of the model. Output is the "preferred solution or soiutions" 10 flooding and water conlroi problems as determined by decision agency evaluations. In the case of favorable solutions mutually exclusive, the one with Ihe largest positive evaluation is assumed to be chosen by the decision agency. Identifying flooding problems In Ihe model represenled by Figure 4.1, the sec- tion titled, "Planning Agencies" represents function- ing bureaucracies whose missions are to define and solve urban flooding problems. These functions are performed within the limits of their organizational characteristics and responsibilities. An agency may be aierted 10 a flooding problem by either hydrologic in- formation from Ihat componenl of the model or by public perception of flood probabilities. Under nor- mal conditions, a planning agency will continue to search for flooding problems by sludying the hydro- logic system. This is because it is characteristic of any bureaucracy to develop work in its area of responsi- bility and thereby maintain itself or grow in fulfilling its mission (Selznick: 25); this work must be within the prescribed legai and social limits of the bureau- cracy. The pressure exerted through public opinion may be varied. When the public concern about flood. ing is high, Ihe agency will seek changes 10 the hydro- logic system which would reduce public concern. Pub. lic concern may be lowered through I) feedback of "expert knowledge and opinion" which indicates a less serious flooding condition than originally supposed or, 2) through action to alleviate flooding conditions and by the subsequent feedback of this information from the hydroiogic system (present condilion of the physical syslem) to the Public Opinion section of the sociological model. The Planning Agency section of the model is connected to the first part through the "pressure" described above. Even though the pressure or public perception of need for flood control is general, agen- cies may behave in different ways because some agen- cies are more sensitive to public pressure than others. This varying sensitivity and other differences are noted through differences in the characleristics of Ihe par- ticular agencies simulated in the model. After a flooding problem is recognized, the agencies involved must decide whether or not action is needed to prolect endangered properly or persons. The decision depends upon 1) an evaluation of the conditions and factors in the hydrologic syslem, 2) the degree of development within the endangered area, and 3) the llpressure" coming from the fIrst, or public, section of the model. If flooding occurs, an agency may feel pressured 10 get on an emergency basis, and an emergency decision process would be 46