Genius
is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.
— Thomas
Alva Edison, 1932
Edison’s
light bulb, shining in a thought balloon, has become the image
associated
with the discovery of better ideas. But,
as Edison’s famous quotation suggests, this is not how invention
works
and certainly not how new water management ideas are developed.
What will prevent a Drought Preparedness Study (DPS) team from
overlooking the good alternative? In what detail should an alternative
be formulated before it is
evaluated? And how do group
dynamics influence the formulation of alternatives? This section
provides a framework for classifying and understanding
alternatives.
There
are three types of alternatives: strategic,
tactical and emergency.
Strategic measures are long-term responses, such as the provision of water
supply storage or codes requiring the installation of drought-resistant
landscaping in new homes. They are usually established in law and
supported by considerable investment.
Drought responses (often called
drought contingency plans) are tactical measures. Tactical measures
are short-term and deal with problems within the framework set by
strategic measures.
Emergency measures are responses to
circumstances that exceeded
expectations (such as droughts more intense or prolonged than any on
record) or events with a very rapid onset (such as pollution of water
supply or disruption of water delivery by floods, earthquakes and cold).
Some alternatives are on the border of two categories. While it is not important for a study team to label an alternative
as being exclusively in one of these three categories, it is necessary for
a team to consciously consider the relationships between the three types
of measures. For example, emergency responses can be much more effective
if the coordination mechanism is exercised along with the tactical drought
response, and the effectiveness of some drought contingency measures may
be helped or hurt by the implementation of strategic measures.
An
initial list of alternatives should be developed by brainstorming early in
the DPS, but after the first statements problems and planning objectives
have been developed. Brainstorming
can be supplemented with the generic alternatives listed in Table 6.
Brainstorming is apt to include a number of preconceived alternatives to
the status quo, some advanced by the stakeholders it will benefit. DPS
teams should focus on the ends, not the means, and should avoid using the
DPS to justify any group’s idea. The
next section on evaluating alternatives (Step 5) describes how these
initial ideas can be evaluated quickly so that only the most promising
alternatives are developed in detail.
Table 6: A List of Typical Strategic and Tactical measures
|
STRATEGIC
|
TACTICAL
|
Supply
Alternatives
|
|
|
New storage
|
|
|
Reallocation of supplies
|
√
|
|
New system interconnections
|
√
|
|
Desalinization, importation by barge, reuse
|
√
|
√
|
Operational
Changes
|
|
|
Conjunctive use management
|
√
|
√
|
Water banking
|
√
|
|
Long-term changes in reservoir release rules
|
√
|
|
Conditional reservoir operation and in-stream flows
|
|
√
|
Water marketing
|
√
|
√
|
Institutional changes
|
√
|
|
Legal changes
|
√
|
|
Operational coordination between systems
|
√
|
√
|
Demand
Modification
|
|
|
Voluntary and mandatory use restrictions
|
√
|
√
|
Pricing changes
|
√
|
√
|
Public awareness
|
√
|
√
|
Changes in plumbing codes
|
√
|
|
Conservation credits
|
√
|
√
|
Changes in irrigation methods
|
√
|
|
Industrial conservation techniques
|
√
|
√
|
Alternatives to water consuming activities
|
|
√
|
Environmental
and Water Quality Changes
|
|
|
Reductions in required low flows
|
|
√
|
Alternative means of achieving water quality
|
|
√
|
Since
brainstorming is a crucial process in developing alternatives, it is
worthy of some attention here.
Brainstorming is a process which has
been used extensively in value engineering and other areas where
innovative alternatives must be found. It is best done in small groups led
by a recorder who simply lists every idea that is offered by any member of
the group.
The
key to successful brainstorming is to withhold criticism until
the group
has exhausted its creativity. This can be very difficult,
especially when
water experts brainstorm with stakeholders, because many of the
ideas will
have technical flaws or will be unresponsive to the planning
objectives. Encouraging all participants to freely offer solutions
achieves
many ends: it can allay fears that possible solutions have been
overlooked; provide the insight of a fresh perspective to an
expert; force
the examination of good ideas that experts know have powerful
foes; or
allow interesting, but ultimately unsuitable ideas to be raised
and
rejected in an equitable and public manner.
After
the uncritical brainstorming, participants should eliminate
redundant
ideas and then use preliminary screening criteria to reduce the
number of
alternatives. Brainstorming
can be used to assemble a collective response better than the
best ideas
of any participant. But if none of the participants know much
about a
subject, the collective answer will also be uninformed.
Unfortunately, it has become much more common to see brainstorming
used in this way. Brainstorming with agency staff alone is not
sufficient
to identify stakeholders’ needs. Especially during the first
step of the
DPS process, brainstorming with stakeholders is a valuable
supplement to a
review of previous reports on water resources problems in the
basin. Brainstorming with stakeholders alone will not produce solutions
that are technically adequate. During this step in the DPS
process,
stakeholders should be encouraged to express their ideas for
alternatives,
but the preliminary screening process should allow experts to
use their
knowledge to explain why some ideas should not be studied
further.