Complete Issue - Shippensburg University

Gail Cowie, Leigh Askew and Courtney Tobin: Georgia’s Water Future 21Figure 1. Basin Advisory Committees used indevelopment of Georgia’s 2008 State Water Planprovide structured statewide perspectives on watermanagement policy tools and/or options. SACparticipants were asked to speak for their entireorganization, members of which occasionally haddifferent and/or competing interests in various partsof the state. Membership on the SAC replicatedthe diversity seen in the BAC membership, withleaders from the environmental, business, industry,recreation, and agricultural sectors, and city and countygovernment associations. Again, the intention of theSAC was not to build consensus, but to gather inputfrom a broad range of perspectives to determine thecorrect course for water management in the state.In order to gain as much input as possible in thetime available, advisory committee meetings were led byprofessional, neutral facilitators. Each meeting focusedon specific water management objectives or practices(e.g., meeting instream and offstream needs for water,maintaining water quality). BAC meetings on each setof topics preceded the SAC meetings on those topics.Prior to each meeting, committee members receiveda discussion paper prepared by agency staff. 10 BACmeetings were structured to provide basic informationon the topic and then garner opinions and commentson proposed policy options. Facilitators providedreports summarizing the discussion that occurred at theBAC meetings, which were, in turn, used to revise theproposed policy options for the SAC’s consideration.Input from the BAC often highlighted the topics orpolicy options that were particularly controversial. Thisinput helped shape the agendas for the SAC meetings.In addition, because SAC members were primarilyprofessional staff from statewide organizations, thecommittee could delve into specific proposals in greaterdetail. For example, due to the extensive amount ofcomment and concern over interbasin transfers andsurface storage in the BAC meetings, those topicswere given additional time and addressed at a separateSAC meeting. Similarly, a computer model designed toestimate the amount of water available for use withoutadversely affecting downstream interests, a criticalelement of water planning, received detailed attentionin SAC meetings.Advisory committee outcomesOne of the challenges that faced the advisorycommittees was meetings were not designed to buildconsensus on a given topic. Instead, facilitators soliciteda variety of opinions on each management objective tohelp shape an acceptable management plan. Creationof the management plan reflected Georgia’s need tochange its framework for water management, turningfrom managing under conditions of plenty to managingfinite capacities of water resources. With such broadrepresentation on each committee, a goal of gatheringinformation from divergent perspectives, and givencompeting interests for water resources, the possibilityof reaching consensus on all objectives was low.Despite this challenge, a mail survey sent to basinadvisory committee members indicated a high levelof satisfaction among participants. The survey wasdistributed to all basin advisory committee membersapproximately eight months after the process wascompleted and 35 percent of participants responded. 11Respondents indicated overwhelming satisfactionwith the process itself. Of the survey respondents, 66percent were mostly or very satisfied with the overallprocess. This result indicates BAC members werecomfortable not seeking consensus. Simply havingthe opportunity to express their opinions about themanagement objectives, and exchange views withmembers from other sectors, was satisfactory for themajority of respondents.Respondents overwhelmingly agreed the compositionof their BAC was reflective of their region. Morethan 92 percent reported the membership balance ontheir specific BAC brought together the diverse interestsin their watershed. However, there was frustrationexpressed in the lack of attendance on occasion and thetendency of some members to bring extreme views tothe table.Survey respondents reported the facilitated meetingswere conducive to open and honest communicationswith 88 percent either agreeing or mostly agreeing withthis statement. This statistic reflects an appreciation forthe structure of the meetings and participants’ abilityto express their opinions and to hear those of others.