A planning objective is a concise, formally structured statement which explains how and when a study will try to affect a specific water use in a specific place.

Developing good planning objectives early is paradoxically the most important and most often ignored step in the planning process. How can a team manage to achieve objectives if they have not agreed on what those objectives are?

The best way to describe planning objectives is to provide examples. Table 2 walks the reader through developing a planning objective, and Table 3 provides examples of planning objectives for a typical Drought Preparedness Study (DPS) encountered in the National Drought Study

Verbs commonly used in the action phrase include:  advance, compensate for, conserve, contribute to, control, create, destroy, develop, eliminate, enforce, enhance, establish, exchange, improve, maintain, manage, minimize, mitigate, preserve, produce, promote, protect, provide, reclaim, reconstruct, recover, recreate, rectify, reduce, rehabilitate, repair, replace, restore, retire, stabilize, or substitute.

Since the development of planning objectives sets the stage for the entire planning process, it is important that the concept of a "planning objective" is clarified as much as possible. Therefore, the following list identifies things that are not planning objectives, helping planners avoid hindering the planning process by developing false planning objectives.

 Examples of what are not planning objectives

• "To increase economic benefits" —  This is a broad goal at the regional level, and cuts across several objectives.
• "Build a desalinization plant" —  This is a means, not an objective.
• "Eliminate water supply shortfalls" — Measures should be “sized” after consideration of their costs.
• "Assess the impacts of droughts" — This is a study procedure, not an end in itself.
• "Reduce groundings in the channel" — This could be achieved by banning navigation.  An objective along these lines would read:  to improve navigation between (point A and B) during drought.
• "Maintain instream flows between river miles 300 and 305 at 800 cfs or above" — This is a constraint rather than an objective.  An objective might read: to enhance water quality for fish habitat between river miles 300 and 305 during droughts. 

In addition to planning objectives, the study team should also develop statistical measures of the performance of the water system relative to the needs of the user.  The development of these measures is essentially a technical assignment, but the acceptance and relevance of performance measures can be confirmed in workshops and stakeholder interviews.  Examples of performance measures are shown in Table 4.

An alternative may produce economic effects by changing the level of activity in several water purposes. For example, changing the rules for reservoir releases may change the level of hydropower production, navigation and several forms of lake and riverine recreation. The change in each activity will have economic consequences. Establishing an account for these economic effects allows the total economic effect of an alternative to be summed and compared to the total economic effect of other alternatives. Accounts can also be established for environmental quality, social well being and equity, although (unlike the economic account) there is almost certain to be more than one unit of measurement for the effects within any one of these accounts. 

The use of the accounts not only helps organize the effects, it can help planners understand distinctions between the ends of different stakeholders who support the same means. For example, a team may be working under a constraint to provide instream flows for fish. The constraint may be managed by a state fish and game agency and supported by a Native American tribe, an environmental group, and an association of small businesses that outfit tourists who come to fish. The number of days that stream flows fell below the minimum standard would be a simple, useful performance measure, but it would not reflect the complexity of the effects of failing to meet the standard.

The environmental group might support the minimum flow standard because it helps preserve a threatened or endangered species (an environmental effect). The tourists may be concerned about the decreased opportunity to fish, an impact that can be measured in economic terms according to their willingness to pay for that experience. The outfitters would have a special concern for their own viability. If reducing instream flows would bankrupt a class of businesses, that alternative might be judged inequitable. The tribal concern could be for the maintenance of a traditional, formal social activity. Knowing the ultimate objectives of each stakeholder group can help DPS teams develop and estimate the acceptability of alternative management plans.

Table 5 provides a checklist of water uses, problems, planning objectives and performance measures that could be used during this stage in the planning process to ensure that all the stakeholder issues are addressed, objectives are determined, and ways to measure the performance of alternative plans against those objectives is accomplished.