|
<br />Editor's Note: This column shares the diverse, and often controversial, views and perspectives of (he many people and organizations
<br />involved in shaping future operations of Glen Canyon Dam. The CRSO newsletter welcomes contributions from across the spectrum
<br />of those involved with this EIS process. The views expressed in this column do not necessarily refled the opinions or positions of
<br />Reclamation or the cooperating agencies.
<br />
<br />Public Forum
<br />
<br />By: Tom Moody
<br />
<br />Consensus and the end of gridlock. We hear these phrases so
<br />often these days they seem almost meaningless. But behind
<br />these buzzwords is a sincere and widespread effort to find new
<br />and more efficient ways of solving the moral and cultural
<br />issues confronting us today. Not that we are all of a like mind
<br />now, that our values and ideas are completely converging, It's
<br />simpler than that. It's the realization that many of the
<br />decisionmaking processes we've evolved no longer serve their
<br />purposes, no longer provide us with solutions in a timely and
<br />effective manner. And nowhere is that more evident than in
<br />issues of our Nation's economy and environment.
<br />
<br />Thirty years ago, a new awareness of the environment sprang
<br />on the scene and a new consciousness was born. No one thing
<br />symbolized this shift better than the battle over the construc-
<br />tion of Glen Canyon Dam. From that battle, too, sprang
<br />methods for focusing public opinion on threats to our earth,
<br />air, and water. Since then many of these issues have been
<br />waged directly in front of the public, with letter campaigns,
<br />national advertising, marches, protests, and media events.
<br />Techniques were refined, mailing lists honed, and all sides
<br />learned to effectively focus and motivate public response.
<br />Today these strategies are no longer the domain of a single,
<br />dedicated crusader with a typewriter. They are big, sophisti-
<br />cated, and, as often as not, effected by trumpeting our
<br />differences. There are few real benefits to showing where we
<br />agree.
<br />
<br />The dictionary has two very different definitions for consensus.
<br />The first, "a majority of opinion," is well established, Our
<br />present system is based on majority rules. But often the
<br />process of establishing a majority entails stressing our
<br />differences more than our commonalities, The end justifies
<br />the means, triumphing is more important than agreeing. The
<br />second definition, "general agreement or concord; harmony,"
<br />is very different and desperately under used. We need to
<br />resurrect real consensus, to focus on agreement first, and let
<br />resolution follow.
<br />
<br />The time has come for a new process, We can no longer
<br />afford the time, money, and energy to wage the simple
<br />"majority rules" battles, Change will be slow because the
<br />process is a departure from the present. But it won't replace
<br />our present system, First of all, consensus cannot be used to
<br />impose an unwanted action on any member of the process.
<br />
<br />Any effort to do so forces that member to withdraw and
<br />consensus defaults to simple majority rule. The process is
<br />therefore essentially advisory in nature and will not replace
<br />the decisionmaker. It is invaluable, however, in helping the
<br />decisionmaker ensure that the [mal decision is responsible and
<br />less divisive. The advisory nature in no way diminishes the
<br />power of agreement. On the contrary, the strength of
<br />consensus comes from the number and diversity of viewpoints
<br />that agree, It is more important that a wide variety of
<br />stakeholders agree on a few subjects rather than few
<br />stakeholders agree on all subjects,
<br />
<br />Is it possible? Yes, there are many examples of effective
<br />consensus processes today. The nearest involves the
<br />cooperating agencies for the Glen Canyon EIS. As little as 2
<br />years ago, there were wide differences of opinion over many
<br />aspects of the EIS, Today instead of two decidedly armed
<br />camps, these agencies are focusing on a single alternative. Is
<br />their agreement binding on the Secretary? No. But the fact
<br />that a wide and diverse consensus has emerged will make his
<br />decision much easier and will allow all at the table to go
<br />home with less animosity.
<br />
<br />There are other opportunities for agreement. The consensus
<br />now present in this EIS is an opportunity to generate more.
<br />There will be more meetings by all the various stakeholders--
<br />perhaps to determine a philosophy for maintaining the
<br />Colorado's downstream environment, the objectives of dam
<br />management, or the role of science in the Canyon's future.
<br />Adaptive management and long-term monitoring will benefit
<br />from the participation and collaboration of many viewpoints.
<br />
<br />We will not always have a consensus, But we can agree on as
<br />many points as possible; and we should be judged by the
<br />amount that we agree. Each agreement represents something
<br />we don't have to spend precious time, energy, and money
<br />fighting over. And we should encourage others to join us.
<br />The strength of consensus comes from the number and
<br />diversity of viewpoints that agree.
<br />
<br />Tom Moody, an Arizona native, has worked as a river
<br />guide in the Grand Canyon the past 25 years. He is past-
<br />President of Grand Canyon River Guides and is presently
<br />completing a degree in Civil Engineering at Northem
<br />Arizona University in Flagstaff, Arizona.
<br />
<br />11
<br />
|