Laserfiche WebLink
CRDSS <br />TASK MEMORANDUM 1.19-2 <br />User Involvement <br />The Process of Reaching Consensus in California Water Management <br />1.0 ISSUE <br />This memorandum and the Consensus Project: Performance Measures Report (WRMI 1994) and the <br />South Florida Water District Technical Integration: Regulation, Permitting, Planning and Operations <br />Report (WRMI 1993) are designed to introduce the participants in the CRDSS development process to <br />similar efforts underway in California and Florida. Both efforts are attempting to develop high quality, <br />widely accepted, logically consistent data sets and analytical tools for use in managing water resources. <br />The major differences between the efforts relate to the differences between the tools and data sets already <br />available. <br />2.0 DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS <br />In California, a wide array of competing tools are currently in use, all with advantages and <br />disadvantages. Both the data and underlying logic used by the differing models are in dispute. <br />Therefore, the focus of the initial efforts in California is not on data collection, but on developing <br />consensus on the methods and data to be used for analysis. The overall objective of the process is very <br />similar to that of the CRDSS, however?to build credible, flexible, decision support tools for use in <br />managing the water resources of the State. <br />The process underway in California uses a decision support system (DSS) design to build a common <br />understanding of the water problems among all parties to the management process (state and federal <br />agencies, environmentalists, municipal water users, industrial water users, and agricultural water users). <br />This understanding is just as important to resolving disputes as the DSS itself. The process described <br />below begins by identifying the objectives of all of the various parties. Mock-ups of displays that allow <br />the parties to discriminate between ?better? or ?worse? alternatives from their own perspectives are then <br />created. These are called "performance measures" for the management of the water resource system. <br />The process, as described below, proceeds by identifying the data to be used to evaluate the performance <br />measures, the underlying methods to be used, and finally determines functional specifications for the <br />tools. The process ensures a full airing and discussion of the analytical issues on their own merits, rather <br />than being associated with a particular decision. The resulting tools should be more credible and useful <br />in supporting regulatory decisions and in focusing debate about alternatives on the merits of the <br />alternatives and not on the tools used to evaluate them. <br />California water, though complex and contentious, is vital to all social, economic, and environmental <br />interests in the Central Valley. All of those interests have the ability to challenge and substantially delay <br />the implementation of management decisions. Many of those challenges have recently focused on <br />discrediting the tools and techniques used for evaluation. The lack of consensus has left decision- <br />makers, as well as decisions, vulnerable. The result has been deadlock. Moreover, the emphasis on <br />analytical techniques has discouraged efforts to find management strategies that best meet the needs of <br />1 <br />A275 01.09.95 1-19.2 Sheer <br />