The
danger in not formalizing the plan is that a change in political or
administrative leadership may lead to decay of the plan’s
infrastructure. It must be
emphasized that political interest in drought quickly wanes when the
crisis is over.
— Donald A. Wilhite (Drought Assessment, 1993)
The
Drought Preparedness Study (DPS) team constitutes a new,
integrated community that more closely mirrors
the integrated nature of the problem shed. But as the team’s
planning work nears completion, it must find a
way to institutionalize the integrated problem solving approach
so that it
can outlive the DPS for use in the next drought, for example.
To do that, decision makers must approve the recommendations of the
DPS team and agree to change the institutions of the entities
they manage
to reflect that agreement.
The final selection process of the recommended plan must include negotiations,
bearing in mind that what is most important is not the personal opinion of
the individuals around the table but general public opinion and the
political influence of the organizations that these individuals represent.
A process that was used in the plan selection workshop in the Kanawha River
DPS proved to be very useful for building confidence in the selection
process. As part of the workshop, a “Decision Matrix” was prepared,
shown in Table 9, which illustrated comparison of impacts, including both
economic and non-economic. First,
the distinct features of each plan were reviewed and their shared vision
model was used to estimate how each alternative would affect the interests
of stakeholders. Next, the workshop facilitator, using a table showing
each of the planning objectives as column headings and each of the
alternatives as rows, scored each alternative from “---” (very
negative impact) to “+++” (very positive) for each objective. As he did so, workshop participants were
encouraged to debate the rating based on the model outputs and to assign
their own ratings on a similar blank score sheet each had received. These
simplified ratings merged the performance of the plan on the two design
droughts that had been considered and took account of all the measures
for each objective.
Table 9: Decision Matrix to Illustrate Benefits and Tradeoffs of the Recommended Plan in the Kanawha River Basin DPS
Objective
|
Increase the quality of river water in the Kanawha River basin during drought
|
Increase the reliability and value of the Gauley River whitewater rafting experience during drought
|
Increase the reliability of lake recreation in the Kanawha River basin during drought
|
Increase the reliability of hydropower generation in the Kanawha River basin during drought
|
Increase the reliability of navigation on the Kanawha River during drought
|
Alternative
|
Status Quo
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Increase Summer Pool by 17 feet
|
0
|
+
|
+
|
0
|
+
|
Reduce target flows
|
0
|
+++
|
--
|
0
|
0
|
Override rule to conserve water in Summersville
|
0
|
-
|
+
|
0
|
0
|
Delay start of WQ releases
|
+
|
++
|
++
|
0
|
0
|
Vary the amount of WQ releases
|
+
|
++
|
+
|
0
|
0
|
The scoring in Table 9 shows that two alternatives improved the performance of
the system in several objective categories and matched the performance of
the status quo in all other objectives. The analysis showed that Plans 4
and 5 helped water quality, rafting and lake recreation, and they did not
affect hydropower or navigation. Plan 2 helped rafters but hurt lake
recreation; Plan 3 did just the opposite. Because plans 4 and 5 were not
mutually exclusive, the workshop participants agreed that a plan that
combined the advantages of both should be used during the next drought.
In cases where stakeholders believe that no alternative reduces impacts
enough, the options that remain are:
- To accept the fact
that, even with the best plan, impacts of a severe drought will be very
damaging;
- To decide that the
interests of the region would be best protected by pushing for a
long-range solution;
- To agree to pursue
the plan that helps most stakeholders;
- To agree to pursue
the plan that helps most stakeholders, but with payments to those who are
hurt;
- To accept a plan in
principle, but agree to proceed with it during a drought only if possible
losses by some stakeholders do not materialize (because of changed
conditions or uncertainties about the structural long-range alternatives;
estimates of harm).
If the recommended plan includes changes in existing laws,
regulations or
structures, then the team should develop a plan to effect those
changes. If the recommended plan involves changes in the operation of
federal water projects, the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
requires an environmental review.
In negotiating closure, the connections from Circle A, B and C to Circle D
must be exercised. The decision makers who will sign the agreement to
institutionalize the recommended plan must be approached and any remaining
conditions for their signing negotiated.
Institutionalization requires written agreement to act according to the findings of the DPS.
Operating policies (reservoir or pump station operating plans, or
individual drought contingency plans) may have to be revised within the
collaborating agencies near or after the completion of the DPS.