the role of citizen advisory groups in water resources planning

WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN VOL. 15, NO. 6 AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION DECEMBER 1979

THE ROLE OF CITIZEN ADVISORY GROUPS IN WATER RESOURCES PLANNING’

Madge 0. Erte(L

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the significant conclusions of research conducted over a four- year period, the purpose of which was to analyze the operation of three citizen advisory groups established in conjunction with Level B Studies of the New England River Basins Commission. The three Studies were the Long Island Sound Study, the Southeastern New England Study, and the Supplemental Flood Management Study of the Connecticut River Basin Program. The research examined the criteria and procedures used for selection of members, the relevant personal characteristics of the members, the procedures employed for carrying out their responsibilities, and the relative importance of group functions as perceived by both citizen advisors and professional study participants. The impact of these factors upon the effectiveness of citizen advisory groups as a strategy of public participation is evaluated. The paper in- cludes recommendations. derived from the research, for the use of planning agencies seeking to maximize the effectiveness of citizen advisory groups. (KEY TERMS: citizen advisory groups; public participation; New England River Basins Com- mission.)

INTRODUCTION Public policy making today is influenced by citizen advisory groups on a vast variety

of topics. In the public sector under consideration here, water resources planning, that type of public participatory activity is particularly evident. Coastal Zone Management programs, “208” planning, and River Basin Commissions, for example, all are utilizing such groups for meeting both citizen and legislatively mandated demands for a meaning ful public voice in water resources planning. The purpose of this paper is to report on a systematic examination of the composition, procedures, and functions of certain identified citizen advisory groups, and to generalize from their experience in a way that will provide guidance for other groups.

In 1970, the New England River Basins Commission (NERBC) convened a Citizens Review Committee (CRC) to aid in its review of the Connecticut River Basin Compre- hensive Water and Related Land Resources Investigation. This document was the result of a three and one-half million dollar, six-year study conducted by a team of public agencies chaired by the Corps of Engineers. By the time the report arrived at the frnal stages of agency and State review, however, opposition to many of its recommendations,

‘Paper No. 79021 of the Water Resources Bulletin. Discussions are open until August 1,1980. 2Water Resources Research Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003.

1515

Ertel

particularly those for construction of several major dams, had reached such a level of intensity that there was a possibility that the entire study might be rejected.

The CRC, then, faced the task of reviewing, and making substantive comment within 90 days, upon a highly technical report that had taken specialists in many fields six years to prepare. Although the CRC, for the most part, was composed of citizens highly knowledgeable in resource planning, few of them had the technical background that might have seemed essential to this task. Nevertheless, they produced a report having substance, balance, and insight, with recommendations that were a guiding force in bringing about more serious consideration of nonstructural flood management alternatives and environmental impacts. This result so impressed the Commission that it used the CRC experience as a model in establishing boards of citizen advisors in conjunction with three Level B Studies that were then beginning. These three, the Long Island Sound Study (LISS), the Southeastern New England Study (SENE), and the Connecticut River Basin Program’s (CRBP) Supplemental Flood Management Study (the organization of which came about largely as a result of the CRC recommendations), are the focus of this research report.

RESEARCH RESULTS The research process included on-site monitoring of advisory group meetings, review

of all relevant documents, administration of a questionnaire survey to all advisory group members and to all associated planning personnel, and personal interviews with citizen group chairpersons, study managers, and staff members with responsibility for public participation responsibilities. Throughout the research, it was the process, not the substance, of advisory group functions which was analyzed. A further stage of the research examined the extent to which advisory group positions were reflected in the final plans as they emerged (Ertel and Koch, 1974).

Those elements of the process which are discussed here are the method and criteria for membership selection, advisory group membership characteristics, organizational structure, and functional activities. Highlighted here are those research findings which lead to suggestions for maximizing the usefulness of citizen advisory groups.

The Selection Rocess The selection of members is of course a crucial first step in the advisory group process,

since the criteria used determine the composition and eventual influence of the group. The procedures of appointment also affect composition since different priorities of quali- fication may be considered by different appointing sources. Procedure also affects the time span required to assemble a functional group. Documentation of the selection process for the three NERBC Studies well illustrated the inherent complexities of assemb- ling an advisory group which is interstate and multifaceted in scope.

Selection of membership for all three groups was guided by recommendations from previously functioning bodies; in the case of LISS and SENE, these criteria were suggested by interim advisory groups, and for CRBP, by the report of the Citizens Review Com- mittee. The total impression of all the suggested criteria was a desire for “the best of all possible worlds,” with a maximum of diversity combined with a balance of interests. The task of staff in translating the ideal criteria into the realities of appointments was com- plicated, time-consuming, and, compared to the scope of the ideal, not altogether success- ful. But it can be fairly said that the effort expended in the task was commensurate with the level of expectation expressed by the criteria.

1516

The Role of Citizen Advisory Groups in Water Resources Planning

The actual selection procedure in LISS and CRBP was, by policy determination, shared between the Chairman of NERBC and the Governors of the states involved. The rationale for this arrangement was a desire to affum the important role of the states in the Studies and to stimulate state interest and support. The gubernatorial appointment procedure, however, significantly delayed the process of original group composition and of filling subsequent vacancies. Staff members of LISS and CRBP compiled lists of potential appointees; LISS from their own awareness of interst groups and knowledgeable individuals, and CRBP through a solicitation process addressed to regional planning agencies, conser- vation and development groups, and other organizations interested in basin resource management. The CRBP produced a list of 133 names so suggested. This broad solicitation process would appear as an improvement over the “in-house” recommendations of the LISS. In actual fact, however, it was not as influential in the appointment process as its appearance might indicate. As finally constituted, the total membership of 32 (8 per state) included only 12 names that had appeared on the nomination list. This discrepancy should not necessarily be construed as implying that solicited nominations were ignored. It does, however, imply recognition of two factors operative in the use of such a solicitation as part of the selection process.

1. Certain environmental groups (with overlapping memberships) supplied a large proportion of the nominees. In order to obtain the desired “balance of interests,” the appointing authorities had to provide for a counterbalance to what could have become an “environmental bias” in the group’s composition.

2. The Governors chose to make certain of their appointments on the basis of con- siderations other than those defined by the selection criteria.

The selection procedures used in SENE were quite distinct from those of the two other Studies, because of the “bi-level” advisory structure that was adopted in the Plan of Study. A small regional advisory group was appointed only by the Chairman of the NERBC, with the expectation that its numbers would be augmented by representatives from the Basin Advisory Committees (BAC’s) to be appointed (also by the Chairman) in each of the 14 drainage basins within the Study area. This plan was an admirable attempt to incorporate distinctly local input into the planning process, but was never really implemented. What BAC activity did occur was related to public workshops conducted by staff in three subareas. Although not uniformly well attended, the workshops did result in the identification, primarily by “self-selection,” of persons interested in the Study’s advisory structure. It was unfortunate that the original bi-level plan was not carried out, since one of its key goals was the organization of local groups that would serve as communication links between the Study and their communities, and also provide local initia- tive for the implementation of the Study’s eventual recommendations. As a result of the failure to completely implement this plan, the final SENE advisory structure was much “looser” than those of the other two Studies, including not only formally appointed members, but anyone who expressed a willingness to participate. Except for the fact that the broadened participation occurred at a very late date in the Study, this “looseness” could be considered as a positive value. It allowed for consideration of a necessary selection criterion, that of individuals’ willingness and ability to actively contribute to the advisory process, a criterion that this research concluded was not sufficiently considered in the more structured procedures of the other Studies.

No matter how carefully a selection process is designed and implemented, its results will be meaningful only to the extent that the persons so selected do also possess the

1517

Ertel

necessary time and interest to participate. A determination of t h i s commitment through explanation of a planning program’s objectives and advisory responsibilities should be made before the finalization of any significant appointment.

Another conclusion that can be drawn from these case studies of selection procedures is that every level of bureaucratic approval through which appointments must travel serves to delay the process. If several levels of approval are required, particularly the gubernatorial level, the selection process must begin long before the group’s advice is needed. If this seemingly inevitable delay is not recognized as an operant factor, an advisory group simply cannot be organized to function from the beginning stages of the planning process, and crucial decisions which will constrain the nature of their eventual advice will already have been made.

Membership Characteristics Because of the time and effort involved in the selection of the advisory group mem-

bers, a major objective of this research was to identify the relevant characteristics of the individuals who were appointed. A questionnaire survey seeking both demographic and attitudinal responses was mailed in the fall of 1973 to all members of the three groups. The response rate was 84 percent, or 58 of the 69 addressees. Not surprisingly, given the nature of the selection process, this data revealed a profile of a group of individuals who were relatively affluent, well educated, professionally and organizationally active, and well experienced in the kinds of issues related to Study issues. Demographic groups not represented in relation to their proportion in total population were most clearly women, the young and elderly, and the financially disadvantaged. Unlike the characteristics of sex and age, however, the under representation of low-income groups is not as susceptible to improvement even if given more explicit consideration in the selection process. Overt public participation requires a commitment of time, interest, and personal resources not possessed by a large proportion of the public, and especially not by the already disadvantaged. Even so, organized groups within this population segment do exist (e.g., Com- munity Action Programs), and such groups should be contacted as part of the selection process, both in an attempt to seek out potential appointees and as a method of informing them that their welfare will be significantly affected by programs that they might not otherwise perceive as relevant to their concerns.

The dominant characteristics of the advisory group members identified them as the type of people who can be called “opinion leaders.” As such, they were undoubtedly well and uniquely qualified to give meaningful advice to the Studies, and also to com- municate the results of the Studies to their own communities; but they cannot, by virtue of these very characteristics, be considered as representative of the public at large, or even of all affected interests. This observation bears further discussion.

The actual term “representative” may well be misleading when considering citizen advisory groups. In its true political sense, “representativeness” implies “accountability” to some constituency from which the “representative” is chosen. Appointed advisory group members have no such political accountability. Except for the expressed view of some gubernatorial appointees who felt that they possessed a degree of delegated authori- ty, the group members were not accountable to any constituency which could view them as responsible to express its views. Any accountability which did exist stemmed from an individual’s perception of responsibility to serve as a spokesman for an interest group or geographical area association which led to the appointment.

1518


“Representativeness” is often viewed in another sense, that of “reflecting” a larger public view. Although it was observed that the groups under study made a conscious effort to consider other segments of the public beyond their own membership, the demographic data clearly show that they were not “reflective” of the public at large.

If, then, citizen advisory groups are neither politically accountable nor demo- graphically reflective, why does the question of “representativeness’ become an issue iieeding clarification? The answer is found in the perception of both public and professionals, that as the primary lay citizen element in the planning process, the groups were representative of the public, whichever connotation of the term was being considered. One of the identical attitudinal statements to which both advisors and planning staff personnel were asked to respond was: “The advisory group is adequately representative of a broad cross section of the study region’s interests.” The responses were as follows:

TABLE 1. Attitudinal Responses on the Issue of CAC “Representativeness.”

Strongly Strongly Agree A w e Undecided Disagree Disagree

% % % % %

CRBP Citizens 5.0 45.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 Professionals - 3.0 22.0 42.0 6.0

LISS Citizens 5.0 40.0 10.0 40.0 5.0 Professionals - 21.0 26.0 38.0 15.0

SENE Citizens - 33.3 13.3 33.3 20.0 Professionals 3.0 21 .o 23.0 41.0 13.0

The wide variation in responses, plus the large proportioii of “undecideds,” in itself re- veals the perceived ambiguity of the term “representative.” The advisory group members were more likely to express an opinion than were the professionals, but were almost evenly divided on the agreedisagree ends of the spectrum. Those professionals who did express an opinion were weighted toward the “disagree” position. In other words, the citizen advisors tended to view themselves as “representative” to a greater extent than they were so perceived by the professionals.

A perception of its representative nature undoubtedly increases a group’s sense of responsibility to act in the best interest of the public, but the danger inherent in a CAC’s view of itself as a representative body lies in the logically ensuing view that it is a decisionmaking body which exists to not only render advice, but consent as well. While, hopefully, planning decisions made with the assistance of an advisory group will result from a consensus of citizen and professional views, it must be clearly recognized that such decisions are, in the final analysis, the responsibility of the professional staff. The planning staff, for its part, must also avoid the temptation to equate advisory group viewswith the public interest and so neglect the need for other forms of public participation that will involve a broader segment of the public. The advisory groups must be viewed and

1519

Ertel

utilized as a source of unique and important public input, but not as the only source of such input.

Organizational Rocedwes The three advisory groups studied, while similarly organized within the context of

NERBC, developed variations in operation that reflected their differing situations and perceptions. The CRBP, for example, chose to give much more attention to organizational matters than did the other two groups. It adopted by-laws, established an elaborate subcommittee structure, and elected officers beyond the office of Chairman. LISS put much more emphasis on the Chairman’s position, even making a request, which was denied by NERBC, that this officer serve as a voting member of the Coordinating Group of public agency members directing the Study. The SENE chairperson become unusually involved in Study activities, functionally serving as an adjunct staff member. In retro- spect, it appears that attention devoted to internal organization, while necessary to a degree, can unduly detract from more important matters if allowed to become too important.

Equally as important to the groups’ functions as internal organization was the level of staff support provided by NERBC. Each Study was assigned a staff member with particu- lar responsibility for direction of a public participation program, including but not limited to coordination of advisory group functions. Observation of these groups has led to the conclusion that such staff support is vital to the effective functioning of an advisory group, especially in cases such as these where the membership is geographically diverse. Arranging meeting times and places, setting up agendas, keeping minutes, etc., are critical functions that cannot be left to chance. In each Study, the staff person so designated was an integral part of the planning team, and so served as a crucial communication link between the planning process and the advisors.

Agency support also included provision of adequate meeting places, meals, and over- night lodging when needed, and reimbursement for travel. All the members of these groups served on a volunteer basis, but the question is often raised as to whether a broader range of advice could be secured by payment for advisory services. The obverse of this issue is that of whether independence of advisory opinion is jeopardized by finan- cial reimbursement.

In the course of analysis of the data from this research, another issue became apparent that was never explicitly recognized by the advisors or agency personnel. That issue concerns the variations in levels of actual participation by individual group members.

The previous discussions on advisory group selection criteria and the membership characteristics have shown that these groups epitomize the concept of select groups of individuals chosen for the advisory role mainly by virtue of their preexisting knowledge and experience on the relevant subject matter, their established position as influentials in their local communities, and their identification with recognized interest groups within the Study regions.

Observation of the groups, however, has revealed that the painstakingly sought-after “balance of interests” existed more as a formality than a reality. In actual fact, another key factor determined the real, as compared to the ideal, composition of the groups. That factor was the willingness and availability of the appointed individuals to contribute the significant resources of time and effort necessary for influential involvement in Study activities. Not all appointees proved to be willing or able to make this commitment.

1520


Some individuals, recognizing their own limitations in this regard, formally resigned so that their places could be filled by others who could make the necessary commitments.

The more common occurrence was that individuals lacking the interest or time for active participation simply ignored their responsibilities, apparently placing a higher priority on other activities. This situation resulted in the functional translation of the original selection criteria into a “self-selection” process whereby only a portion of the groups, as appointed, actually participated in their activities. This self-selection process is typical of any volunteer group; in this case, however, it meant that those members who did choose to participate actively were in a position to exert a weight of influence which distorted the “balance of interests” which was the objective of the appointive process. Such a situation is not necessarily harmful to the advisory process; better a smaller, active group than a balanced, but inactive, one. It does mean, however, that the opinions and recommendations of an advisory group must be recognized as reflecting the views of those who choose to be active and only implicitly reflecting the unexpressed opinions of the inactive members. It must be kept clearly in mind, therefore, that anyone responsible for appointment of a citizen advisory group must carefully consider the potential activity level of an appointee as well as his or her other relevant qualifications. In- terest group representation, for example, which exists only on a membership roster but is not actually involved, eliminates the possibility of advisory input from that interest group.

Any appointed group of volunteer advisors, no matter what its designed composition, will tend to be functionally translated into an active group of the most motivated individuals. If the original composition design is to be meaningful, conscious and serious effort must be directed toward increasing the level of participation of those members who are not so motivated or are otherwise unable to participate in the group’s most typical mode of activity.

Functional Activities The Citizens Review Committee, discussed earlier, which served as a predecessor to the

groups studied, had a difficult, but definite assignment: the review of a specific planning document. In performing that task with effectiveness, it substantially contributed to both the direction of future planning efforts and to the inclusion of improved citizen participation programs in the NERBC study programs which followed.

These subsequent efforts, centering around the advisory commitees here being des- cribed, had to deal with the even broader and more ambiguous functions associated with all aspects of the planning process, not just the review of a fmal plan. Consequently, their own understanding of their purpose was even less precise, but they did have the opportunity of functionally defining and evolving their roles over a longer time span than that allotted to the CRC. This opportunity was also disadvantageous in the sense that the lack of specificity as to role and responsibility led to mutual misunderstandings between advisors and staff, the actual resignation of some members, and the loss of active interest on the part of many others. The CRC members, on the other hand, were more inclined to persist with their task since they could see the “light at the end of the tunnel” in their 90-day limitation.

To be meaningful, nevertheless, citizen participation must be a part of the planning process from its earliest stages; but the goals of that involvement, and particularly the definition of advisory visa-vis staff responsibility must be made as clear as possible at the outset .

1521

Ertel

The specific tasks to be performed by an advisory group, of course, depend on the nature of the subject under consideration. The general functions of these three advisory groups was examined in the following ways: first, the general functions assigned to the groups; and second, the importance of these functions as perceived by both the citizens and the professionals.

The specific tasks to be performed by an advisory group, of course, depend on the nature of the subject under consideration. From observations of these groups’ activities, however, their general functions can be summarized as follows:

1. Advice to the staff on the on-going planning process, including review of working documents, and expressions of views concerning study issues;

2. Review of the final plan produced by the study; 3. Enhancement of the general level of public information concerning the study; and 4. Development of a basis of public support for implementation of the plans’ recom-

mendations. The relative importance of these functions was not perceived in the same fashion

either by members of the three groups or by the advisors and the professional study participants.

In the questionnaires sent to both the citizen advisory group members and to the professional study participants, the respondents were asked to rate (on a scale of 1, most important, to 4, least important) the above functions according to their expectations of how the advisory groups would most significantly contribute to the studies.

There were no statistically significant correlations derived from these data, but certain important observations became apparent:

1. The citizen advisory group members clearly perceived their public information role as their most important function; 77 percent of them ranked this function as either first or second in importance.

2. The professional study participants also perceived this function as highly important; 62 percent of them gave it either a first or second choice rating.

3. The professional study participants tended to see as less important than did the advisors the functions inherent in the on-going planning process (advice to the study staff and review of the final plan).

4. The clearest contrast between the two groups was in their perception of the function defined as “basis of public support for the final plan.” The “professionals” gave this function their highest proportion of first-choice rankings while the citizens gave it their highest proportion of fourth-choice rankings. This contrast probably stems from the “professionals”’ longer experience with the difficulties of translating plans into politically acceptable realities, and reflects their hope that citizen advisory groups would be of major assistance in this task.

5 . Except for the emphasis on the “public information role,” there was no clear consensus on the overall priorities of the various functions. All were important, and priorities as they related to specific activities tended to depend upon the stage of the planning process.

The LISS and SENE groups, having been in existence longer, were more concerned than the CRBP group with the approaching need for public support of the final plan recommendations. At the time the questionnaire was distributed, the CRBP members were heavily involved in the conduct of their first series of public meetings, very likely accounting for their greater emphasis on the public information role. A follow-up survey

1522


of CRBP in 1977 confirmed this expectation. By that time, the CRBP rankings reflected a pattern similar to that of LISS and SENE in 1973 (Ertel and Koch, 1977).

SUMMARY The major conclusion of this research is that citizen advisory groups are an extremely

valuable strategy of citizen participation. It has been shown, however, that the balance of interests as defined in selection criteria is unlikely to be realistically achieved because of the nature of the selection process itself and because of the process of “self-selection” inherent in the functioning of volunteer bodies. Also, because of the very characteristics which make them uniquely and well qualified to offer advice to a planning program, members of such select groups cannot be considered as representative of the public at large. Neither are they representative in the sense of political accountability to a larger constituency. Their primary role, then, must remain that of providing advice, not that of decisionmaking. This distinction must remain clear to citizen advisors and planning professionals alike.

These findings point to the conclusion that, while citizen advisory groups can justifi- ably be regarded as a key component of a public participation program, they cannot be regarded as the only such component. Other strategies, also supported by adequate agency resources, for informing and involving the general public must also be utilized. One of the most valuable functions that advisory group members can perform is to serve as a link, by virtue of their influence in and knowledge about their own communities, to those other strategies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research upon which this report is based was supported in part by a grant from the Office of Water Research and Technology, Department of the Interior, as authorized by the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 (as amended).

LITERATURE CITED

Ertel, Madge and Stuart G. Koch. 1974. Citizen Participation in Comprehensive Water Resource Plan- ning. Water Resources Research Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Publication No. 77.

Ertel, Madge and Stuart G. Koch, 1977. Public Participation in Water Resources Planning: A Case Study and Literature Review. Water Resources Research Center, University of Massachusetts, Am- herst, Publication No. 89.

1523

the role of citizen advisory groups in water resources planning

Documents