Search

This study compares the two most recent versions of the California Water Plan and the two respective planning processes. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) completed the earlier plan in 1998 through a relatively traditional process with public input solicited through hearings and an agency-led advisory committee. The 1998 plan was completed on time, satisfied all legal requirements, and quantitatively evaluated several policy options. However, a lack of transparency led many stakeholders to question DWR's analysis, and environmental advocates criticized the plan for relying too heavily on structural solutions rather than conservation. For the subsequent plan completed in 2005, DWR hired professional facilitators who led 350 stakeholders through 200 meetings and workshops over five years in an effort to identify consensus recommendations. The 2005 plan was completed two years late, failed to meet certain legal requirements, and fell short of quantitatively evaluating its policy recommendations. However, the 2005 plan reflects a much more complex (and arguably more accurate) understanding of California's water challenges and opportunities. The 2005 process also appears to have hastened a positive evolution of DWR's institutional culture, opened doors for previously marginalized stakeholder groups, and improved the agency's working relationships with the public. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper seeks to (1) identify the traits of watershed partnerships that increase the odds of achieving and implementing consensus agreements, and (2) test and develop two theoretical frameworks frequently applied to the study of environmental management and policy: the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework and the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). Conceptual models of partnership outputs are derived from each framework, and are tested against data from surveys and interviews of participants in 76 watershed partnerships in California and Washington State. The results support the IAD’s attention to social capital as and important ‘community attribute’ as well as the importance of institutional rules such as sanctions for members who violate partnership agreements. The results also support the ACF’s attention to divergence of policy core beliefs across coalitions of stakeholders, as well as the importance of a neutral individual to facilitate partnership meetings. Interpersonal trust (identified by both frameworks) is the most important predictor of consensus agreements. The relationship is positive among partnerships older than three years but inverse among younger partnerships. This inverse relationship contradicts the predictions of both frameworks, and has apparently never been observed in previous studies of collaborative policymaking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We outline a framework for building assurances and enforcement mechanisms into consensus-based agreements produced by stakeholder partnerships. We then use the framework to examine implementation of the Sacramento Water Forum Agreement of 2000. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]