EVALUATIOH OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
DEE
LEVEL
B
RIVER BASIN STUDY
Joan Wright
A s s o c i a t e P r o f e s s o r of Adult and Community C o l l e g e E d u c a t i o n North C a r o l i n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
The r e s e a r c h on which t h i s p u b l i c a t i o n i s based was s u p p o r t e d i n p a r t by funds provided by t h e O f f i c e of Water R e s e a r c h and Technology, U.S. Department of t h e I n t e r i o r , Washington, D.C. t h r o u g h The U n i v e r s i t y of North C a r o l i n a Water Resources Research I n s t i t u t e a s a u t h o r i z e d by t h e Water Research and Development Act of 1978, w i t h matching funds provided by t h e
S t a t e of North C a r o l i n a .
P r o j e c t
No.
B-120-NCPublic participation is a non-formal adult learning activity man-
dated in many government-sponsored planning efforts. Although many
planners firmly believe that public participation is a good thing, few
are skilled in designing and conducting an effort appropriate for achiev-
ing intended outcomes. This is a study of the public participation
effort in a major river basin planning project, the Yadkin-Pee Dee Level
B River Basin Study.
Designed to determine the relative efficacy of particular techniques
of public involvement in promoting anticipated learning outcomes among
planners and publics, the study combined a series of 3 surveys with par-
ticipant dbservation and document analysis. Early in the river basin
study interviews were conducted with a) all planners involved in the
study; b) a sample of Citizen Advisory Committee members; and c) a
matched sample of non-member residents.
A
second wave of interviews was
held midway in the planning project. The final survey included three
samples: a) residents in a typical county (general public)
;b) planning
staff; and c) persons targeted for participation and included on the
study mailing list. The first group was interviewed and the other two
received mailed self-administered questionnaires. Outcomes of interest
were the publics' and planners' understanding of role expectations; the
publics' awareness of the river basin study and the problems/solutions it
addressed; and planners' awareness of publics' concerns, interests, and
preferences.
Results of the study included: 1) Although more involvement was
associated with more learning on the part of the publics, no one tech-
nique was clearly superior to another;
2 )Although the planners did not
develop an explicit rationale (means-ends statement) for the public
participation effort, they considered it successful because no serious
public objections were raised concerning the final plan; 3) The public
participation effort was shaped less by preconceived ideas of representa-
tiveness, desired outcomes, and means-ends relationships than by changing
demands and circumstances imposed by the nature of the planning project,
the sponsoring agency, and, to a lesser extent, the publics. Skills in
identifying, negotiating, and responding flexibly to these demands are
vital for public participation efforts. Illuminative evaluation is more
appropriate than goal-oriented in cases like this where both the ability
to conduct
a
stable program and the understanding of Likely outcomes is
uncertain,
This research could nat have been done without the full cooperation
of John Wray, chief planner in this Level
B Study from the North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development; Tom Nelson,
the Study manager; and their staff who worked on the project. Particular
thanks are due to Reba Gettys Hill, public participation coordinator for
most of the Study, and Rosalyn Snyder, who served as coordinator in the
first phase of the Study and who has provided critical assistance in the
preparation of the final report. Members of the research team were Janis
Franklin, Linda Lange, and Richard Carpenter, with computer work done by
Azimi Hamzah. The staff of the Water Resources Research Institute were
very helpful in expediting the project, with special thanks to James
Stewart, Acting Director of the Institute. For their discussion of
public participation, water resources planning, and related topics in the
hours of driving to and from public meetings as well as in more struc-
tured interview settings, the Study staff have my sincere gratitude.
Finally, appreciation is expressed to each public participant who provid-
ed the data from which much of this report is constructed.
Page
1 . .BSTBBCT...o...~11
Background
Infomation...4
The Development of North Carolina's Public Participation
Effoft...4
Before Study Approval
Early Stages of the Study
The Plan of Study
Public Participation
Events...,...l3
March 1979 CAC Meetings
Public Information Meetings
November 1979 CAC Meetings
Task Group Meetings
August 1980 and January 1981 CAC Meetings
Dissemination of Information to the
Public...19
Apparent Strategy of the Public Participation Effort...22
JUMI4 1979SURVEY
OF CAC MMBBRS,
P
I
Background..
...
26
Methodology
...
26
Findings
...
26
Planners
Responsibilities of Planners and CAC Members
CAC Members and Residents
Conclusions
. . . p . . .
35
IV.
SPRIXG1989 SU
OF PERSONS
DESI6aPATEDAS
TASK GROUP ABVISORS
FOR
YADKIMi-PEEDEE
L B RIVER
W I NS!WDY...,..43
Introduction
...
43
...
Methodology
44
Findings
...
46
Extent of Involvement
Grasp of the Study's Substance
Comments on Public Information Efforts
Readiness for Task Group Advisor Role
Conclusions
...
56
Interest Level
Knowledge Level
TABLg OF COafEATS
(continued)
Page
V.
-I!.&
GUBV$Y
OF RESIUEIOTS,TARGET POPULATIOl9,
A1IIDFLAHHERS--WI#TISR
1980-'81.
...
.58
Backgrou I I C I . . . , . . . 5 8S t u d y of S t a n l y County R e s i d e n t s . . . , . . . , . . . , . . . 5 9
Met hod0
1
ogy F i n d i n g sSummary Conclusions
Survey of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n T a r g e t P o p u l a t i o n . .
...
.67
Met hod01
ogyRespondent C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
Nature and E x t e n t of Involvement Respondents' S a t i s f a c t i o n s
Respondents' C o s t s
D i f f i c u l t i e s A s s o c i a t e d w i t h P a r t i c i p a t i o n
~ e s p o n d e n t
s '
Comments Regarding C i t i z e n Advisory Committees P u b l i c F a m i l i a r i t y w i t h t h e L e v e l B StudySummary
R e l a t i o n s h i p s Among V a r i a b l e s Summary
Conclusions
Survey of P l a n n e r s i n Yadkin-Pee Dee Study..
...
,88
Method01 ogyP l a n n e r s
'
Involvement i n P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n P l a n n e r s ' S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n A t t i t u d e s Toward F u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o nOpinions Regarding t h e Yad kin-Pee Dee Study L e a r n i n g f r m t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee S t u d y
C o n s t r a i n t s and Resources P e r c e i v e d by P l a n n e r s Summary
S u g g e s t i o n s f o r P u b l i c Involvement i n F u t u r e L e v e l B S t u d i e s i n North C a r o l i n a
Summary Conc l u s i o n s
VI.
COICLUBIOHS A1PI) lZgCO IONS . . . l o 3P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t ion a s a n E d u c a t i o n a l P r o c e s s . .
...
.I03
P l a n n e r s a s E d u c a t o r sP l a n n e r s ' Involvement The C o o r d i n a t o r ' s Role E x t e n t o f L e a r n i n g
Role L e a r n i n g S k i 1
1
L e a r n i n gVI
.
Continued
...
Page
...
Components of t h e P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Program. 105 D i r e c t P u b l i c Involvement
Informat ion v s . Involvement Cost of D i r e c t Involvement I n d i r e c t P u b l i c Informat ion
Cost E f f e c t i v e n e s s
R e l a t i o n s h i p t o Pub1 i c Involvement S p e c i f i c Techniques
C i t i z e n Advisory Committees Task Group Advisors
The Study N e w s l e t t e r
Involvement of Local Government Of i c i a l s Recommendat ions
...
The U n c e r t a i n Nature of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n . .,109
S t r a t e g y f o r P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n C l e a r Sense of Purpose
Need f o r F l e x i b i l i t y
I n f l u e n c e s on P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n The P r o j e c t
The Agency The P u b l i c ( s ) Recanmendat ions
APPENDIX
A--Interview Schedules for June
1979
Survey of
CAC
Members, Planners,
a d
Basin
Residents...113
APPENDPII
B--Interview Schedules
for
Spring
1980
Survey
of Persons Deei ated
asTask Group
Advisors...,,...,..,126
APPE1PI)XXC--Instruments
for Final
Surveyof Residents,
T a q e t Popdatiarn, a d
Planners,
and Measurementof
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
C C < C C C d H H H H H H H H
H H H H H H H H H H H H
I I I I
V,
4 m C n
I - m v . ' d . 'd
0 0 . 0 .
g
= $ . w - ( - I .
- ' a m * 0 . 0
O m :
e m m - rc
- R . m - u
v - 0 c
o m . 0 9 r(
I-'.
.
m . a- ' d i 7 - m
:
z O :
-g:
g
v . * u.0 3 :
r.:
3 6
t
R - 0 - m v . 3 : 0
Elm 0
r c * P-
1 s
:
* Dl R' r t
.
' m- m a
' Y
N h) N
LIST
OF TABLES
(comt
Page
P l a c e s of employment of r e s p o n d e n t s and t h e i r s p o u s e s
( ~ ~ 2 0 2 )
...
60...
Occupat i o n s of r e s p o n d e n t s and t h e i r s p o u s e s ( ~ ~ 2 0 2 ) 60...
Respondents' r e s i d e n c e and f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h s t u d y . . 61Source of i n f o r m a t i o n f o r r e s p o n d e n t s f a m i l i a r w i t h
...
s t u d y . by r e s i d e n c e 61 F a m i l i a r i t y w i t h s t u d y and o c c u p a t i o n s of r e s p o n d e n t s...
( R ) and t h e i r spouses ( s ) 62 Sources of i n f o r m e t i o n f o r r e s p o n d e n t s f a m i l i a r w i t h...
s t u d y . by o c c u p a t i o n 63 Respondents' d i s c u s s i o n of s t u d y . by p l a c e of...
r e s i d e n c e 64 Respondents' d i s c u s s i o n of s t u d y . by employment s t a t u s...
64Respondents' d i s c u s s i o n of t h e s t u d y and o p i n i o n s a s
...
t o need f o r s t u d y 64 Respondents' d i s c u s s i o n of t h e s t u d y and t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of consequences i f t h e s t u d y had n o t been c o d u c t e d...
65
~ e s p o n d e n t s ' d i s c u s s i o n of t h e s t u d y and t h e i r awareness of problems t h e s t u d y a d d r e s s e d
...
65Sub-basin l o c a t i o n of r e s p o n d e n t s ' r e s i d e n c e . .
...
69~ e s p o n d e n t s ' o c c u p a t i o n s
...
.
.
.
.
...
70Respondent a ' e d u c a t i o n a l background
...
7 0 Respondents' age...**...
71Respondents' family income l e v e l (1979)
...
71Respondents' involvement i n t h e L e v e l B Study
...
71Respondents' a t t e n d a n c e a t Yadkin-Pee Dee Study m e e t i = s
...
73Respondents' i d e n t i f i c a t ion w i t h s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s
...
74Respondents' s e l £-reported a c t i v i t y l e v e l i n a s p e c t s o f Yadkin-Pee Dee S t u d y
...
74Respondents' s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h s e l e c t e d a s p e c t s of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Yadkin-Pee Dee Study.
...
76C o s t s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Yadkin-Pee Dee S t u d y
...
77D i f f i c u l t i e s i n p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee S t u d y
...
77Things p l a n n e r s can do t o h e l p c i t i z e n s p a r t i c i p a t e
...
78Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s CAC members s h o u l d have
...
79A p p r o p r i a t e a c t i v i t i e s f o r CAC members
...
79Respondents' p r e f e r e n c e f o r f r e q u e n c y of p u b l i c m e t i n g s
...
80Respondents' o p i n i o n s a s t o most i m p o r t a n t problems addressed by t h e Level B S t u d y
...
81Respondents' f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h a l t e r n a t i v e s o l u t i o n s
...
81E x t e n t t o which s o l u t i o n s a r e l i k e l y t o cause problems
...
82LIST OF
TABLES
(wtl"
Page
S i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s among a s p e c t s of...
p a r t i c i p a t i o n
84
S i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between a s p e c t s of
p a r t i c i p a t i o n and o p i n i o n l l e a r n i n g v a r i a b l e s . .
...
.84
S i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s among o p i n i o n l l e a r n i n gvariables...,...,...85
Number of planners involved i n v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee Level B
S t u d y
...
89
Number of planners who had e x p e r i e n c e i n v a r i o u sa s p e c t s of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . .
...
.90
Extent of p l a n n e r s ' involvement i n t h e Yadkin-Pee Deepub l i c p a r t i c i p a t ion ef f o r t and number of a c t i v i t i e s
i n which they p a r t i c i p a t e . .
...
.90
Extent of p l a n n e r s ' experience i n o t h e r p u b l i cp a r t i c i p a t i o n e f f o r t s and number of o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s
i n which t h e y had p a r t i c i p a t e d . .
...
.91
S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h Yadkin-Pee Dee p u b l i c involvement
efforts,...,...,.,....,...91
P e r c e p t i o n s of water r e s o u r c e p l a n n e r s ' a t t i t u d e s r e p u b l i c
involvement....,...,...93
planners
'
o p i n i o n s about t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee Study,...
- 9 6P r o p o r t i o n of t o t a l Level B r e s o u r c e s t h a t should be
...
a1 l o c a t e d t o p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . ..97
Maximum proport ion of t o t a l s t a f f time t h a t should be...
devoted t o p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . ..97
Most important opinion sources d i r e c t l y involved i n aLevel
B
Study...
98
Most important opinion sources i n d i r e c t l y involved i n...
a Level
B
Study98
Whose s k i l l i s most important t o p u b l i c involvement
effectiveness?...,...,...99
Page
1
.
Map of t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee R i v e r Basin...
5
2.
O r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Study....
6
3
.
Task Groups i n t h e Yadkim-Pee Dee Study...
7
...
4
.
Study Phases and t h e Schedule of P u b l i c Meetings 1 25
.
Chronology of Events i n t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee Level B Study...
146
.
S c a t t e r Diagram of P l a n n e r s'
S a ti s
f a c t i o n and InvolvementL e g i s l a t i o n t h a t c a l l s f o r v a r i o u s l e v e l s of government t o conduct w a t e r r e s o u r c e s planning g e n e r a l l y r e q u i r e s t h a t such planning i n c l u d e a p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n component. Presumably, a f f o r d i n g t h e p u b l i c an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r o v e r s i g h t of planning a c t i v i t i e s i s a means of e n s u r i n g t h a t p l a n n e r s do indeed determine and p r o t e c t t h e p u b l i c s ' i n t e r e s t s .
P u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n , however, need not be c o n s i d e r e d as
a
quasi- a d v e r s a r i a l a c t i v i t y i n which p u b l i c s ( r e l a t i v e l y powerless, i n e x p e r t , and unorganized) attempt t o keep t h e p l a n n e r s ( i n f u l l a u t h o r i t y by d i n t of o f f i c e , e x p e r t i s e , and c o n t r o l of r e s o u r c e s ) h o n e s t . An a l t e r n a t i v e view, and one t h a t i s consonant with much of t h e language of p l a n n i n gl e g i s l a t i o n , i s of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n a s an e d u c a t i v e a c t i v i t y . From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e t h e f u n c t i o n of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s t o ensure t h a t p l a n n e r s l e a r n which p u b l i c s have i n t e r e s t s i n water r e s o u r c e s , what t h o s e i n t e r e s t s a r e , how t h o s s i n t e r e s t s a r e perceived t o be jeopardized o r p r o t e c t e d , and what c h o i c e s t h e p u b l i c s p r e f e r when i n t e r e s t s con-
f l i c t . A t t h e same time t h e p u b l i c s l e a r n ( i f they a r e not a l r e a d y aware) t h a t t h e i r i n t e r e s t s a r e a t s t a k e i n d e c i s i o n s about water
r e s o u r c e s . They must l e a r n , i f they a r e t o express informed p r e f e r e n c e s , what t h o s e i n t e r e s t s a r e and how they c o n f l i c t . Furthermore, t h e y must
l e a r n how t h e planning process i s organized and how t h e y may p a r t i c i p a t e e f f e c t i v e l y .
The r e s e a r c h d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s r e p o r t was undertaken from t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e . It was a c a s e s t u d y of t h e North C a r o l i n a p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a - t i o n e f f o r t i n t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee Level B R i v e r Basin Study, Using
o b s e r v a t i o n , document a n a l y s i s , and a s e r i e s of surveys of v a r i o u s groups of p u b l i c s and p l a n n e r s , t h e r e s e a r c h addressed t h e following q u e s t ions:
Is i t a p p r o p r i a t e and u s e f u l t o view public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n planning a s an e d u c a t i o n a l p r o c e s s ?
What were t h e components of t h e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n e f f o r t , and what r e l a t i o n s h i p s were found between them and evidences of
l e a r n i n g ?
What shaped t h e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n e f f o r t i n t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee Study?
What problems and i s s u e s were encountered i n t h i s p u b l i c p a r t i c i - p a t i o n e f f o r t ?
Pub1 i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n a s an E d u c a t i o n a l Process
Public participation i n planning is seen
by both planners and parti-
cipanta a s
an
educational experience for
the
public.
P e r s o n s who had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee Study had been more involved i n l e a r n i n g about t h e Study ( e . g . t h r o u g h r e a d i n g Study m a t e r i a l s ) t h a n i n informing p l a n n e r s of p u b l i c p r e f e r e n c e s . The s i n g l e most i m p o r t a n t t h i n g t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s f e l t p l a n n e r s could do t o h e l p
c i t i z e n s p a r t i c i p a t e i n f u t u r e w a t e r r e s o u r c e p l a n n i n g was t o b e t t e r e d u c a t e t h e p u b l i c .
P l a n n e r s c l e a r l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e m s e l v e s a s e d u c a t o r s of t h e p u b l i c , and b e l i e v e d t h e y should make t h e i r work u n d e r s t a n d a b l e and i n t e r e s t i n g
t o t h e p u b l i c . Almost a l l b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n compo- n e n t was s u f f i c i e n t l y i m p o r t a n t t h a t i t should and would be i n c l u d e d i n p l a n n i n g s t u d i e s even i f not r e q u i r e d . Most were w i l l i n g t o i n v e s t a t l e a s t 10 p e r c e n t of t h e i r time t o c o n t a c t w i t h t h e p u b l i c which, t h e y b e l i e v e d , should be f r e q u e n t enough so t h a t t h e p u b l i c could become w e l l -
informed and c a p a b l e of p r o v i d i n g u s e f u l o p i n i o n s about s t u d y i s s u e s . Without b e i n g educated about t h e c o n t e n t o f p l a n n i n g , t h e p u b l i c s ' i d e a s were n o t , a p p a r e n t l y , c o n s i d e r e d t o be v a l i d . Becoming e d u c a t e d about w a t e r r e s o u r c e s p l a n n i n g was seen t o be l a r g e l y t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e p u b l i c s , w i t h t h e p l a n n e r s p l a y i n g a f a c i l i t a t i v e r o l e .
Although p l a n n e r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t was d e s i r a b l e t o have p u b l i c o p i n i o n t o inform t h e i r work a t v a r i o u s p o i n t s i n t h e S t u d y , t h e y d i d n o t
appear t o have a c l e a r i d e a of what t h e y wanted t o l e a r n from t h e p u b l i c s o r how b e s t t o go about i t . The e d u c a t i v e n a t u r e of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n was s e e n p r i m a r i l y a s a m a t t e r of t h e p u b l i c s l e a r n i n g what p l a n n e r s f e l t t h e y should know.
T e c h n i c a l a s p e c t s of w a t e r r e s o u r c e p l a n n i n g ( i n c l u d i n g problems, s o l u t i o n s , and t r a d e o f f s i n v o l v e d ) were s e e n a s t h e major c o n t e n t of l e a r n i n g f o r t h e p u b l i c . Both t h e p u b l i c s and p l a n n e r s needed t o l e a r n what was expected of them i n t h e v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and how t o f u l f i l l t h o s e e x p e c t a t i o n s e f f e c t i v e l y . P l a n n e r s i n f a c t g a i n e d s k i l l i n communicating w i t h t h e p u b l i c and h a n d l i n g o t h e r a s p e c t s of i n t e r a c t ion i n t h e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n e f f o r t . There was room f o r improvement of b o t h t e c h n i c a l l e a r n i n g and r o l e l e a r n i n g 2n t h e Yadkin- Pee Dee Study.
Recommend a t io n s
1. A c a r e f u l d e f i n i t i o n of t h e p u b l i c i n p u t s t h a t a r e needed and u s e f u l a t each s t a g e of a p l a n n i n g s t u d y would be d e s i r a b l e . T h i s would g u i d e t h e p l a n n e r s ' e f f o r t s b o t h a s e d u c a t o r s and a s l e a r n e r s . It would a l s o p r o v i d e c l e a r e r d i r e c t i o n t o t h e p u b l i c f o r t h e i r involvement.
2.
Another k i n d of l e a r n i n g c o n t e n t t h a t should be c a r e f u l l y d e f i n e d i s t h a t people a r e expected t o do a s p l a n n e r s , a s p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a meeting, a s CAC members, and i n any o t h e r r o l e s t h a t a r e a p a r t o f t h e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n e f f o r t .3. Once defined, attention should be given to educating people to
what these expectations are and how to carry them out well.
4.
Skills training should be provided for the planning staff in
making presentations, handling discussion, working with groups,
designing a variety of ways for gathering information, and other
aspects of public participation.
5 .
The public participation coordinator should be selected in large
part on the basis of ability in these skill areas; continuing
opportunity for skill development is also important.
The Effect of Public Participation Components on Learning
The greater the direct involvement of participant@, the aore
ratirfied they were with the public participation effort and the mere
knoaledgeable about the Study itself. The type of invdlvemnt (attending
Citizen Advisery C d t t e e meetings, reviewing planning dcd~mEent8,
attending
Tark Gioap meetings, etc.) did net seem t~ makc much difference
to learning or eatisfattion,
but
the acclmatlation sf involvclssnt did.
The indirect pmblic iaformatioa
program
is a relatively effective
way
of creating awareness ~f a water rerourcer plaaning project if it ie
conducted ar an wtenrisn of and complement to a direct public
involvement effart.
The direct involvement events were much more expensive than the
indirect public information effort due in large part to the time of
planners spent in attending public meetings. Without the events,
however, it is doubtful that press coverage would have been so extensive,
or that issues would have been raised to spark citizen interest in the
Study. The two components are complementary, with awareness generated by
the news media (mostly newspapers) and knowledge advanced by the direct
involvement of publics.
In the Yadkin-Pee Dee Study Citizen Advisory Committees were not
involved in a way that justified the extra expense their designation
entailed. Any interested citizen could attend meetings, offer advice,
receive materials, and discuss the Study with planners. Similarly, many
persons with interest and expertise in a particular Study focus made
their ideas known to Task Group leaders without being formally designated
as Task Group Advisors,
Recommendations
1. It is recommended that the public participation effort in future
planning projects provide more frequent but less expensive
opportunities for involvement. Instead of having one relatively
formal meeting during each phase of a s t u d y , more informal commu- n i c a t i o n between i n d i v i d u a l p l a n n e r s and p u b l i c s should be
arranged throughout t h e p r o j e c t . It would r e q u i r e l e s s s t a f f time (and l e s s expense) and provide more o p p o r t u n i t y f o r informa- t i o n s h a r i n g i n both d i r e c t i o n s t o hold more f r e q u e n t and more focused meetings with l o c a l government o f f i c i a l s and r e p r e s e n t a - t i v e s of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t groups.
The p r e s s u r e on p l a n n e r s t o be prepared f o r i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e p u b l i c i s probably u s e f u l t o t h e p r o j e c t i n t h a t it emphasizes t h e importance of c l a r i t y , focus, and t i m e l i n e s s . Few of t h e p l a n n e r s i n t h i s Study demonstrated an e l i t i s t a t t i t u d e toward t h e p u b l i c . T h e i r work was undoubtedly slowed by t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t each p u b l i c event was a major production i n s t e a d of an on- going kind of i n t e r a c t i o n , y e t few f e l t t h a t t h e p u b l i c p a r t i c i - p a t i o n e f f o r t was a waste of time. With g r e a t e r i n t e g r a t i o n of p u b l i c involvement i n t o t h e a c t i v i t i e s of each Task Group, t h e r e might be l e s s p e r c e p t i o n of work stoppage f o r an event and more
of b u s i n e s s as u s u a l .
P r e s e n t i n g t h e r e s u l t s of planning d e l i b e r a t i o n s a t t h e end o f each planning phase may h e l p t o c a p t u r e t h e a t t e n t i o n of t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c . These r e p o r t s e s s i o n s would not r e q u i r e an
e x t e n s i v e (and expensive) s t a f f presence i f adequate a t t e n t i o n is given i n advance t o p r e p a r i n g c l e a r and b r i e f s u m a r i e s i n p r i n t and audio-visual media.
C a r e f u l a t t e n t i o n should be given t o i n t e g r a t i o n of i n d i r e c t e f f o r t s a t informing t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c ( e . g . news r e l e a s e s , b r o c h u r e s , and f e a t u r e b r o a d c a s t s ) w i t h d i r e c t e f f o r t s t o i n v o l v e s p e c i f i c and g e n e r a l p u b l i c s ( e . g . committee meetings, workshops, p u b l i c i t y - g a i n i n g e v e n t s ) . This o r c h e s t r a t i o n should enhance t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of both e f f o r t s , and i n c r e a s e t h e k n o w l e d g e a b i l i t y of t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c a s w e l l as t h e i r awareness.
I n s t e a d of a v o i d i n g o v e r t c o n t r o v e r s y by o b s c u r i n g m a t t e r s a t i s s u e i n t h e t e c h n i c a l terminology of l e n g t h y w r i t t e n r e p o r t s , i s s u e s should c o n s c i o u s l y be used t o g e n e r a t e i n t e r e s t , inform t h e p u b l i c of t h e i n e v i t a b l e t r a d e o f f s involved i n water
r e s o u r c e s p l a n n i n g , and focus p u b l i c i n p u t t o f i t p l a n n e r s ' "need t o know". The acknowledgement of c o n f l i c t i n g p o i n t s of view does not n e c e s s a r i l y lead t o unwanted and premature p o l a r i z a t i o n of o p i n i o n . Openness i n i d e n t i f y i n g and d i s c u s s i n g i s s u e s may, i n
f a c t , prevent t h e development of o p i n i o n s based on mis i n f o r m a t i o n o r l a c k of u n d e r s t a n d i n g .
a s s i s t a n c e t o l o c a l r e s i d e n t s i n e s t a b l i s h i n g such groups where t h e r e i s i n t e r e s t , t h e t a s k of m a i n t a i n i n g t h e groups would remain w i t h t h e i r members. The c o o r d i n a t o r might be involved i n a r r a n g i n g t o have planning s t a f f speak t o t h e groups when i n v i t e d and suggesting o t h e r r e s o u r c e people.
5.
I f an appointed a d v i s o r y committee is considered t o be p o l i t i - c a l l y d e s i r a b l e by t h e planning agency, t h e f u n c t i o n of t h a t committee should be t o o f f e r advice and a s s i s t a n c e on t h e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n e f f o r t , and not t o attempt t o speak f o r a l l p u b l i c s i n r e g a r d to t h e planning p r o j e c t . P u b l i c i z i n g and a r r a n g i n g f o r e v e n t s , c o n t a c t i n g i n t e r e s t groups and l o c a l o f f i c i a l s , d i s t r i b - u t i n g m a t e r i a l s about t h e p r o j e c t , and s u g g e s t i n g ways i n which t o e d u c a t e and be educated by t h e p u b l i c a r e some of t h e t a s k s t h a t an advisory committee t o t h e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n coordina- t o r might perform. This does not preclude t h e involvement of committee members i n t h e planning p r o j e c t ; i t may, i n f a c t , i n c r e a s e t h e i r i n t e r e s t and k n o w l e d g e a b i l i t y about t h e p r o j e c t,
g i v i n g them purpose as w e l l as s t a t u s .I n f l u e n c e s on t h e P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n E f f o r t
In
the Yaden-Pee Dee River Basin Study the two most potent inflaz-
ences
on
the lehape of the public participation effort appeared to be
1)
the nature of the planning project i t s e l f , and
2)the s t a f f
a d
direc-
t i v e s of the l e
elnssy.
Athird potential ssurce of influence-
the p b l i e - w a s very umch interested i n the deaign of the public partici-
pation e f f o r t , bat was c~)nsafted
very l i t t l e regarding the actual shape
of the
program.
The scope of a Level B Study i n c l u d e s a whole r i v e r b a s i n , and i t s f o c u s i s o n l y g e n e r a l l y defined by t h e study proposal. Background i n f o r - mation on t h i s broad and complex a r e a could not be assembled i n d e t a i l u n t i l t h e major focus a r e a s of t h e Study had been s e l e c t e d . The work r e q u i r e d f o r each Task Group focus depended on t h e n a t u r e and complexity of t h a t focus. Uniform o p e r a t i o n s f o r Task Groups were not f e a s i b l e , and r a t e of p r o g r e s s through t h e phases of p l a n n i n g was d i f f i c u l t t o p r e d i c t i n advance. With t h e s e k i n d s of u n c e r t a i n t y a r i s i n g from t h e p r o j e c t i t s e l f , i t was d i f f i c u l t ( i f not i m p o s s i b l e ) t o d e s i g n t h e p u b l i c p a r t i - c i p a t i o n e f f o r t much i n advance of t h e planning e f f o r t and keep i t r e l a t e d t o each planning phase as t h a t phase developed.
The p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n c o o r d i n a t o r was l o c a t e d i n t h e lead s t a t e agency, allowing t h a t person easy a c c e s s t o t h e p l a n n e r s working on t h e Study, and t o d e l i b e r a t i o n s a f f e c t i n g t h e p r o g r e s s of t h e Study. A t t h e same time i t o f f e r e d t h e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n e f f o r t no i n s u l a t i o n from t h e b u r e a u c r a t i c environment. Gaining c r e d i b i l i t y with and support from t h e t e c h n i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d planning s t a f f and p o l i t i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d adminis- t r a t o r s consumed a g r e a t d e a l of t h e c o o r d i n a t o r ' s time.
On
s e v e r a loccasions plans for the public participation effort were changed to
accommodate agency concerns (largely political).
There was little early attempt by the Study staff to seek input from
the public about the public participation effort, although unsolicited
input from the public did influence the shape of the effort. Feedback
was solicited from persons attending public meetings in the latter half
of the Study, and
CAC
members were recruited to assist in hosting some of
the public meetings. The public participation effort, however, was not
conceived as an effort to organize volunteers, or as a conurmnity develop-
ment effort warranting the guidance of an advisory group.
Recommendations
1.
One of the most important tasks of the public participation coor-
dinator is to identify, prior to planning the public participa-
tion effort, the expectations of project, agency, and publics
'regarding that effort. Presumably expectations will vary within
and between these sources of influence. Possibly one or more of
these sources may not have formed expectations for public parti-
cipation at the beginning of the project, but will do so during
the planning effort. The coordinator will need to continue moni-
toring expectations throughout the Study in order to keep the
public participation effort in line with expectations whenever
possible. (1t is also highly desirable to be able to keep the
same coordinator throughout the Study for continuity of effort
and direction.
)2.
A
clear and detailed statement of the purposes of public partici-
pation should be developed as early as possible. This would
necessitate discussion and negotiation of differences in expecta-
tions among significant influence sources. Such negotiation
would not only build support for the resulting program purposes,
but would also set a pattern for constructive discussion when the
substance of planning was being considered.
3.
The importance of political influence on
theplanning study, and
particularly on the public participation effort, should be recog-
nized. If the Study is especially vulnerable to political pres-
sure, the appointment of a formal advisory committee to the
public participation effort which would assume responsibility for
gathering input from the publics may be very useful. This would,
in effect, reduce the agency's liability to charges of inade-
quately or inaccurately identifying interests and concerns of
publics that may be affected by planning recommendations.
4.
Because the focus of the public participation effort can only be
as sharp as that of the planning project, it is essential that
the planning project have a clear and widely accepted purpose.
If it is to merit participation by the public, every planning
project should have a purpose that merits public investment.
Problems and I s s u e s Encountered i n t h e P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n E f f o r t
1.
Unplanned i n f l u e n c e s : A c o n t i n u i n g problem faced by t h e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n c o o r d i n a t o r i n t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee Level B Study was t h e need t o a l t e r p l a n s f o r p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n t o accommodate changes i n p l a n n e r s'
work and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s'
c o n c e r n s . The p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program i n t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee R i v e r B a s i n Study was n o t g u i d e d by a c l e a r c o n s e n s u s a s t o t h e purposes i t should s e r v e o t h e r t h a n t o meet t h er e q u i r e m e n t f o r p u b l i c involvement. While members of t h e p l a n n i n g s t a f f d i d have preconceived i d e a s a s t o t h e n a t u r e and t h r u s t of t h e e f f o r t a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e Study, t h e s e i d e a s v a r i e d from one person t o a n o t h e r and were l i t t l e concerned w i t h t h e f u n c t i o n s t o be performed o r r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e i d e a s . A c l e a r d e f i n i t ion of purpose would have been i n v a l u a b l e t o persons r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n e f f o r t , even though t h a t p u r p o s e might have been c o n s c i o u s l y a l t e r e d d u r i n g t h e p l a n n i n g p r o j e c t . Given t h e ambiguous and f l u i d n a t u r e of t h e Level
B
Study it-s e l f , r i g i d adherence t o a d e t a i l e d p l a n of o p e r a t i o n s would n o t o n l y have been u n r e a l i s t i c , but a l s o i n a p p r o p r i a t e . The a b i l i t y t o a d a p t t e c h n i q u e s was a p o s i t i v e a s p e c t of t h e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n e f f o r t , I n t h e a b s e n c e of a c l e a r and d e t a i l e d s t a t e m e n t of t h e p u r p o s e ( s ) p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n was t o s e r v e i n t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee Study, however, t h e r e were few s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r t h e e f f o r t o t h e r t h a n t h e c o n s t r a i n t s imposed by t h e agency and t h e p r o j e c t . Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e c o o r d i n a t o r was n e c e s s a r i l y concerned more w i t h what was p o s s i b l e t h a n w i t h what might be o p t i m a l l y ef f e c t i v e
.
2 . C o n s t i t u e n c y development: One i s s u e was t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y and f e a s i b i l i t y of developing a formal c i t i z e n ' c o n s t i t u e n c y ' f o r t h e L e v e l
-
-
B
Study. 1 n - t h e e a r l y s t a g e s of Study p l a n n i n g it was decided t o a p p o i n t C i t i z e n Advisory Committees t o t h e S t u d y , one i n each of t h e t h r e e North C a r o l i n a sub-basin a r e a s . Almost a l l m e e t i n g s of t h e C A C ' s , however, were designed and prcmoted a s p u b l i c meetings--events a t which any i n t e r - e s t e d c i t i z e n was welcome t o l i s t e n and comment. Although CAC members r o u t i n e l y r e c e i v e d a1 1 S t u d y m a t e r i a l s g e n e r a t e d f o r p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n and r e v i e w , any person c o u l d r e q u e s t m a t e r i a l s o r ask t o be i n c l u d e d on t h e m a i l i n g l i s t . There was no o t h e r s p e c i a l b r i e f i n g o r o p p o r t u n i t y f o r CAC members t o e x p r e s s o p i n i o n s t h a t was n o t a l s o o f f e r e d t o any i n t e r - e s t e d r e s i d e n t . I n f a c t , a t s e v e r a l m e e t i n g s non-CAC members usurped most of t h e t i m e a v a i l a b l e w i t h s i n g l e - i s s u e monologues and r e q u e s t s f o r e x p l a n a t i o n of e a r l i e r S t u d y p h a s e s .The o f f i c i a l d e s i g n a t i o n of CAC, members d i d o c c a s i o n e x t r a work and some s p e c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r t h e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n e f f o r t . T a r g e t d a t e s were announced f o r subsequent m e e t i n g s a t each p u b l i c m e e t i n g , n e c e s s i t a t i n g e x t r a m a i l i n g s t o announce, c a n c e l , and r e s c h e d u l e t h o s e
d a t e s . I f t h e r e had been $0 cAC'S and a l l e v e n t s were p u b l i c m e e t i n g s ,
as to the intent of the Study in appointing CAC's that had no special
treatment or responsibility.
3.
Representation: Related to pragmatic concerns regarding the
designation of a project constituency is the issue of representation, or
whose interests should be represented in the public's side of the
involvement effort. Much of the concern regarding who should participate
in the Yadkin-Pee Dee Study can be attributed to uncertainty as to whose
interests were or might be at stake.
In the absence
of
a sharply
delineated project or irome a
eobject of planmring,
and given the
crtainty as to
tcte
of a
Level B Study, it
may
indeed be
sonclble to rely
on local elected officials to represent all
petential interest$.
It does not seem necessary, however, to create a
formal advisory committee just to secure a member from each unit of local
government. Invitations to meetings may be sent as a matter of course to
all units of government in the planning area. More important in identi-
fying the concerns of local citizens through their elected and appointed
representatives is holding informal conversations with individual legis-
lators, or securing an invitation to meet with them in informal session
at their convenience.
Potential CAC members for the Yadkin-Pee Dee Study were identified
by asking existing interest groups (e.g. Sierra Club, League of Women
Voters, Community Development and Economic Development Councils, Chamber
of Commerce), industries, and agencies to nominate persons for appoint-
ment. As with local government, there is considerable turnover among
interest group members, and often more than one person was informed and
interested regarding the Study. Continuing information about Study
progress and events to known interest groups, as well as to specific
individuals, might have increased the likelihood that no publics' inter-
ests were overlooked during the Study's conduct.
4.
Evaluation of public participation: Public participation is a
phenomenon in which there are multiple stakeholders. What one stakehold-
er values about public participation may bear little resemblance to what
good public participation looks Pike to another. The search for 'what
good looks like' early in this research revealed little consensus within
the literature, among planners, among participants, or between planners
and publics. At the conclusion of the Yadkin-Pee Dee Study, however,
several important criteria emerged.
One criterion was that of feasibility--and in this Study, feasibili-
ty meant flexibility, ability to adjust to changing rules and resources.
The fact that a visible public information and involvement effort had not
only survived over the life of the Study, but had made obvious attempts
to encourage public inputs, earned positive comment from
10
or more
experienced participants.
In reflecting on the Study after the Recommended Plan had been sent
to the federal government, several Study officials informally declared
One of t h e b a s i c r e s o u r c e s e s s e n t i a l t o mankind i s w a t e r . The na- t u r e and e x t e n t of o u r w a t e r r e s o u r c e s a r e so i m p o r t a n t t o t h e q u a l i t y of l i f e - - i n d e e d , t o t h e s u s t a i n m e n t of l i f e - - t h a t t h e i r p r o t e c t i o n has long s i n c e became a m a t t e r of p u b l i c c o n c e r n . One form of t h i s concern i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i s l e g i s l a t i o n which c a l l s f o r a r a t i o n a l p l a n n i n g approach t o "encourage t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n , development, and u s e of w a t e r and r e l a t e d land r e s o u r c e s . . . o n a comprehensive and c o o r d i n a t e d b a s i s by a l l l e v e l s of government and p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s " ( u n i v e r s i t i e s ' Council on Water R e s o u r c e s , 1976, p. 320).
P l a n n i n g f o r our w a t e r r e s o u r c e s o f f e r s m u l t i p l e o p t i o n s f o r c o n s i d - e r a t i o n . These r e s o u r c e s c a n , f o r example, be p r o t e c t e d o r p o l l u t e d ; d i s t r i b u t e d o r w i t h h e l d ; used o r consumed; developed o r i g n o r e d . While d e c i s i o n s of t h i s s o r t a r e u n q u e s t i o n a b l y a m a t t e r of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , t h e n a t u r e of t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , o r of t h e m u l t i p l e p u b l i c and p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s i n v o l v e d , i s f a r from c l e a r .
The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of p l a n n e r s i n t h i s r e g a r d i s s u b s t a n t i a l . It i s n o t enough t h a t t h e y be t e c h n i c a l l y e x p e r t ; t h e y must a l s o be p o l i t i c a l l y s e n s i t i v e , a l e r t t o t h e i n t e r e s t s and p o t e n t i a l i n t e r e s t s of t h e v a r i o p s p u b l i c s a f f e c t e d by p l a n n i n g recommendat i o n s . P l a n n i n g conducted on b e h a l f of t h e p u b l i c i s u l t i m a t e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r d e t e r m i n i n g and pro- t e c t i n g t h e w a t e r r e s o u r c e s i n t e r e s t s of t h a t p u b l i c .
L e g i s l a t i o n t h a t c a l l s f o r v a r i o u s l e v e l s of government t o conduct w a t e r r e s o u r c e s ~ l a n n i n g g e n e r a l l y r e q u i r e s t h a t such p l a n n i n g i n c l u d e a p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n component. Presumably, a f f o r d i n g t h e p u b l i c an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r o v e r s i g h t of p l a n n i n g a c t i v i t i e s i s a means of e n s u r i n g t h a t p l a n n e r s do indeed d e t e r m i n e and p r o t e c t t h e p u b l i c s ' i n t e r e s t s .
P u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n , however, need not be c o n s i d e r e d a s a q u a s i - a d v e r s a r i a l a c t i v i t y i n which t h e p u b l i c ( r e l a t i v e l y p o w e r l e s s , i n e x p e r t , and u n o r g a n i z e d ) a t t e m p t s t o keep t h e p l a n n e r s ( i n f u l l a u t h o r i t y by d i n t of o f f i c e , e x p e r t i s e , and c o n t r o l of r e s o u r c e s ) h o n e s t . An a l t e r n a t i v e view, and one t h a t i s . c o n s o n a n t w i t h much of t h e language of p l a n n i n g
l e g i s l a t i o n , i s of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n as an e d u c a t i v e a c t i v i t y . From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e t h e f u n c t i o n of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s t o e n s u r e t h a t p l a n n e r s l e a r n which p u b l i c s have i n t e r e s t s i n w a t e r r e s o u r c e s , what t h o s e i n t e r e s t s a r e , how t h o s e i n t e r e s t s a r e p e r c e i v e d t o be j e o p a r d i z e d o r p r o t e c t e d , and what c h o i c e s t h e p u b l i c s p r e f e r when i n t e r e s t s con-
f l i c t . A t t h e same time t h e p u b l i c s l e a r n ( i f t h e y a r e not a l r e a d y aware) t h a t t h e i r i n t e r e s t s a r e a t s t a k e i n d e c i s i o n s about w a t e r
r e s o u r c e s , They must l e a r n , i f t h e y a r e t o e x p r e s s informed p r e f e r e n c e s , what t h o s e i n t e r e s t s a r e and how t h e y c o n f l i c t . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e y must
l e a r n how t h e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s i s organized and how t h e y may p a r t i c i p a t e e f f e c t i v e l y .
p e r s p e c t i v e . It
i s
an e v a l u a t i o n of t h e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n e f f o r t of a major w a t e r r e s o u r c e s p l a n n i n g s t u d y , i n which an e s s e n t i a l outcomei s
presumed t o be l e a r n i n g . It i s d e s c r i p t i v e , c o v e r i n g t h e i n t e n d e d n a t u r e of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n and t h e a c t i v i t i e s a c t u a l l y conducted. It i s e x p l o r a t o r y , l o o k i n g f o r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n e f f o r t and l e a r n i n g r e p o r t e d by t h e a c t o r s i n v o l v e d . It i s a c a s e s t u d y ,
focused on p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e North C a r o l i n a p o r t i o n of t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee L e v e l B R i v e r B a s i n S t u d y u n d e r t a k e n by North and South C a r o l i n a i n c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h t h e U. S. Water Resources C o u n c i l .
I n keeping w i t h t h e n a t u r e of t h e r e s e a r c h , t h e o b j e c t i v e s a r e t h e f o l l o w i n g :
t o d e s c r i b e t h e North C a r o l i n a p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n e f f o r t i n t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee L e v e l B Study a s i t e v o l v e d , i n c l u d i n g t h e n a t u r e of t h e v a r i o u s a c t i v i t i e s i n c l u d e d and t h e r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e i r i n c l u s i o n , t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h i s could be a s c e r t a i n e d ;
t o f i n d o u t a t s e v e r a l p o i n t s d u r i n g t h e l i f e of t h e p l a n n i n g s t u d y whether North C a r o l i n a p a r t i c i p a n t s were aware of l e a r n i n g a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e L e v e l B Study, and i f so, what t h e s e l e a r n -
i n g s were;
t o e x p l i c a t e i s s u e s r e l a t i v e t o p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n e n c o u n t e r e d d u r i n g t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee S t u d y and c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e s e i s s u e s ; and
t o make recommendations based on t h i s Study f o r p u b l i c p a r t i c i - p a t i o n i n o t h e r i n s t a n c e s of w a t e r r e s o u r c e s p l a n n i n g .
Throughout t h e c o u r s e of t h i s e v a l u a t i o n t h e r e s e a r c h team was allowed t o o b s e r v e a l l p u b l i c e v e n t s . They were a b l e t o u s e p a r t i c i p a n t o b s e r v a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s f o r more t h a n a y e a r . During t h a t time members o f t h e team provided a d v i s o r y and s t a f f a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a - t i o n c o o r d i n a t o r , a r r a n g i n g f o r m e e t i n g s , t e l e p h o n i n g commit t e e members, p r e p a r i n g m a t e r i a l s , and s u g g e s t i n g p o s s i b l e meeting f o r m a t s . T h i s per- m i t t e d a c c e s s t o some of t h e d e l i b e r a t ion r e g a r d i n g p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n
i n t h e Study, a s w e l l a s t o t h e w a t e r r e s o u r c e s i s s u e s i n v o l v e d .
A t t h r e e p o i n t s d u r i n g t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee Study, survey r e s e a r c h t e c h n i q u e s were used t o g a t h e r d a t a from s e l e c t e d groups of i n f o r m a n t s . The p a r t i c u l a r t e c h n i q u e s employed w i l l be d e s c r i b e d i n t h e s e c t i o n s t h a t r e p o r t t h e r e s u l t s of t h e s e s u r v e y s .
Documents a v a i l a b l e f o r a n a l y s i s i n c l u d e d Study n e w s l e t t e r s
,
r e p o r t s , i s s u e p a p e r s , m a i l i n g l i s t s , newspaper c l i p p i n g s , and i n t e r n a l communications r e g a r d i n g p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n .of e a c h component of t h a t e f f o r t . A r e p o r t on each of t h e t h r e e d a t a
11.
PUBLIC
PABTICIPAT%OIBIN
THEYADKIW-PEE DEE
LEVEL B
STUDYBackground I n f o r m a t i o n
I n May o f 1978 t h e North C a r o l i n a Department o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s and Community Development (NRCD)
,
t h e s t a t e of South C a r o l i n a , and t h eU.
S. Water Resources Council e n t e r e d i n t o an agreement t o conduct a L e v e l B Study i n t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee R i v e r B a s i n . (A map of t h e r i v e r b a s i n i s shown i n E x h i b i t1.)
With a budget of $1 m i l l i o n , 70 p e r c e n t from t h e f e d e r a l government and 30 p e r c e n t c o n t r i b u t e d i n c a s h and i n kind from t h e two s t a t e s , t h e Study was i n t e n d e d t o e x e m p l i f y a g r e a t e r r o l e of s t a t e and l o c a l government i n comprehensive water r e s o u r c e s p l a n n i n g . The g e n e r a l g o a l s f o r w a t e r r e s o u r c e s development and use i n t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee B a s i n were e s t a b l i s h e d a s :1.
t o m a i n t a i n and improve t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e s o u r c e s of t h e B a s i n ; and2. t o enhance economic development o p p o r t u n i t i e s and l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e r e s i d e n i s of t h e B a s i n and t h e c a r o l i n a s
( P l a n o f Study, p , 1 3 ) .
The Study was o r g a n i z e d under a t r i - p a r t i t e C o n t r o l Board and a S t u d y Management Committee i n which t h e two s t a t e s and e i g h t f e d e r a l and r e g i o n a l a g e n c i e s i n v o l v e d were r e p r e s e n t e d ( E x h i b i t 2 ) . Each of t h e
f i v e f o c u s a r e a s of t h e S t u d y was a s s i g n e d t o a t a s k group, w i t h members of t h e group s e l e c t e d from l e a d s t a t e a g e n c i e s and a p p r o p r i a t e
f e d e r a l / r e g i o n a l a g e n c i e s . Other t a s k groups were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r
s u p p o r t f u n c t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g one t o d e s i g n and conduct t h e c i t i z e n p a r t i - c i p a t i o n component ( ~ x h i b i t 3 ) .
The p l a n n i n g e f f o r t was d i v i d e d i n t o p h a s e s , t h e f i r s t of which was
-
t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of s t u d y f o c u s e s and p r e p a r a t i o n of a P l a n o f Study. Following a p p r o v a l of t h e P l a n o f Study, t h e E x i s t i n g P l a n phase was begun. Phase III was t h e development of A l t e r n a t i v e P l a n s , and Phase I V t h e s e l e c t i o n of a Recommended P l a n . This f i n a l phase i n c l u d e d t h e prep- a r a t i o n of a P r e l i m i n a r y D r a f t Recommended Planand a D r a f t Recommended P l a n a s p r i o r s t e p s .The Development o f North C a r o l i n a ' s P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n E f f o r t
The d e s i g n of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee Study was based i n p a r t on t h e " P r i n c i p l e s and S t a n d a r d s f o r Planning" i s s u e d
by
t h e Water Resources Council (1973). T h i s document i d e n t i f i e s g e n e r a l g u i d e l i n e s i n r e g a r d t o o b t a i n i n g d i r e c t i n p u t s from t h e p u b l i c , b u t does n o t s p e c i f y how t h e g u i d e l i n e s a r e t o be a p p l i e d o r i n t e r p r e t e d i n a p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t . That i s t h e t a s k of t h e p l a n n i n g s t a f f .
Exhibit
2. Organizationof
the Yadkin-Pee DeeRiver
Basin StudyWRC
NC
SC
STUDY
MANAGER
AGRICULTURE
NC
I
NTER
I
OR
SC
ENERGY
ARMY
EPA
FEW
APPALACHIAN REGIONAL
WMc
COASTAL
PLArNS
REGIONAL
CCW
AUTHORITYIRESPONS
I B I L I T Y
L I N K
Exhibit 3 .
Task Groupsin
the
Yadkin-PeeDee
Study
W a t e r R e s o u r c e s T a s k G r o u p s S u p p o r t T a s k G r o u p s
- - - -
I
T a s k G r o u p #3WATER BUDQT
1
LEGAL & INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS
T a s k G r o u p #5
I
WATER SUPPLYI
I
T a s k G r o u p86
WATER QUALITY
i
I
T a s k G r o u p417
nOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT
T a s k G r o u p
#1
DATA/PROJECTIONS
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
T a s k G r o u p f 9
I
PLAN FORMULATIONp o r t i o n of t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee R i v e r B a s i n a s an a d j u n c t t o t h e N. C . Water Resources Framework Study. It met t h r e e times--once each i n 1975,
' 7 6 , and '77. I t s t h i r d meeting i n F e b r u a r y 1977 i n c l u d e d a p r i o r i t i e s workshop s e e n by NRCD s t a f f as a f i r s t s t e p of a p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program f o r t h e then-proposed L e v e l B Study.
One r e s u l t of t h e F e b r u a r y 1977 m e e t i n g was a r e q u e s t t o t h e O f f i c e of t h e S e c r e t a r y of NRCD f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n of t h e r o l e and f u n c t i o n of t h e CAC. A t t h a t time t h e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n c o o r d i n a t o r e x p e c t e d t o s p l i t t h e N . C. Yadkin B a s i n i n t o N o r t h e r n and S o u t h e r n s u b - b a s i n s , w i t h t h e e x i s t i n g C i t i z e n s Advisory Committee s p l i t i n t o two l a r g e r and more w i d e l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sub-basin C A C ' s . A t h i r d CAC was proposed f o r t h e Lumber-Waccamaw sub-basin i n t h e s o u t h e a s t e r n p a r t of t h e s t a t e . Each was t o have about 25 members.
Tent a t i v e p l a n s f o r pub1 i c p a r t i c ip a t i o n b e f o r e t h e Yadkin-Pee Dee Level B Study was approved i n c l u d e d t h r e e a c t i v i t i e s i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e C A C ' S :
1.
Use of s u r v e y r e s e a r c h t e c h n i q u e s t o g e t i n p u t s ( e . g . percep- t i o n s of w a t e r r e s o u r c e s problems) from r e c o g n i z e d i n t e r e s t g r o u p s , l o c a l government, and a sample of t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c . These i n p u t s could t h e n be compared w i t h t h o s e of t h e C A C ' s ;2.
Encouragement of p u b l i c a t t e n d a n c e a t CAC m e e t i n g s ; and3. A p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n e f f o r t i n v o l v i n g news r e l e a s e s , a news- l e t t e r , a n d / o r a newspaper supplement t o i n v i t e p u b l i c r e s p o n s e
ne em
of March, 1977).Documents a v a i l a b l e from t h i s pre-Level B p e r i o d emphasized two f u n c t i o n s of a p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program. One was p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n --to c r e a t e p u b l i c awareness of w a t e r r e s o u r c e s i s s u e s and of t h e S t u d y , i n c l u d i n g what a L e v e l B Study cannot do a s w e l l a s what it c a n d o , and how t h e p u b l i c might become involved i n t h e e f f o r t . No s t a t e m e n t s were found t h a t o f f e r e d a r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e importance of i n c r e a s i n g p u b l i c awareness.* The i m p l i c i t assumption seemed t o be t h a t t h e p u b l i c should b e educated r e g a r d i n g w a t e r r e s o u r c e s i s s u e s so t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s would be w i l l i n g and c a p a b l e of p r o v i d i n g i n p u t s t o t h e Study. Of i n t e r e s t i s t h e e x p l i c i t a t t e n t i o n g i v e n t o i n c l u d i n g i n t h e c o n t e n t of t h e p u b l i c i n f o r - mation e f f o r t t h e l i m i t a t i o n s of a L e v e l B Study. C r e a t i n g u n r e a l i s t i c e x p e c t a t i o n s was c l e a r l y t o be avoided.
The o t h e r f u n c t i o n was e l i c i t i n g p u b l i c i n p u t . Although t h e forma- t i o n of t h e CAC's r e p r e s e n t e d a s u b s t a n t i a l investment i n s e c u r i n g an i n t e r e s t e d s o u r c e of d a t a , t h e i r i n p u t s were t o be c o n t i n u o u s l y v a l i d a t e d and supplemented by s u r v e y s of samples from i n t e r e s t e d and g e n e r a l pub- l i c s . A n t i c i p a t e d
'
i n p u t s ' were not s p e c i f i e d ; presumably t h e s e would*The r e p o r t of a 1974 summer i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e ( P e n d e r g r a f t and ~ u m m i n g s ) i s e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e Department had c o n s i d e r e d t h e r a t i o n a l e s
f o r v a r i o u s and complimentary components of a p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n