2008-2009 PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH REPORTualr.edu/publicaffairs/files/2016/06/AR-08-09-Water-Forum-Report.pdf · 2008-2009 Public Policy Research Report ... During the summer of 2009

2008-2009 Public Policy Research Report

UALR Center for Public Collaboration 1

2008-2009 PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH REPORT

prepared for

Council on Public Policy Education

by

Ruth Craw, Director Center for Public Collaboration

Institute of Government

University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 S. University Avenue

Little Rock, AR 72204 501-569-8562

January 2010



Table of Contents

DescriptionofArkansasWaterPolicyDialogueandDeliberationProject ............ 3Objectives................................................................................................................................................ 3WaterPolicyIssues.............................................................................................................................. 4ModeratorTraining............................................................................................................................. 4NamingandFraming........................................................................................................................... 5ForumDescriptions............................................................................................................................. 8

DialogueandDeliberationProjectFindings ...................................................................10WaterForumParticipants ..............................................................................................................11ReportingOutcomesandImpactonDecisionMaking ..........................................................12LessonsLearnedfromNamingandFraming ............................................................................13MakingDeliberativeDecisionsinForums.................................................................................15ReflectionsonSecondYear.............................................................................................................16UseofForumsinUniversityEnvironment.................................................................................17

AppendixA:ModeratorTrainingAgendaandTrainerBiographies......................18AppendixB:ArkansasWaterPolicyIssueGuide...........................................................19AppendixC:ExampleofWaterForumAgenda...............................................................23AppendixD:WaterFactsHandout......................................................................................24AppendixE:ForumEvaluationForm.................................................................................25AppendixF:SummaryofParticipantQuestionnaires..................................................26



Description of Arkansas Water Policy Dialogue and Deliberation Project

Objectives In 2008-2009 the UALR Center for Public Collaboration (CPC) partnered with the University of Arkansas Agriculture Public Policy Center (PPC) in the Arkansas Water Policy Dialogue and Deliberation Project. The project consisted of moderator training for Cooperative Extension staff and a series of six forums across Arkansas about state water policy. The project team included Ruth Craw, CPC Director; Tom Riley, PPC Director and Associate Professor; Lorrie Barr, PPC Program Associate; and Christina C. Standerfer, Assistant Professor, University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service. As a collaborative endeavor the Arkansas Water Policy Dialogue and Deliberation Project contributed toward achieving the organizational goals of both the CPC and the PPC. In addition, the project carried out research about deliberative forums. This section of the report, the overview, describes the Arkansas Water Policy Dialogue and Deliberation Project. Later sections of the report will address the research findings from the project. The project increased knowledge, awareness, and understanding among Cooperative Extension staff and community members not only about water policy issues but also about addressing policy issues through deliberation and dialogue. The Public Dialogue Project of the CPC has the following objectives:

1. ToincreaseunderstandingofandsupportforpublicdeliberationanddialogueamongArkansans.

2. Tobringcommunitymemberstogetherinnon‐adversarialforumswherepotentiallydivisivepublicissuescanbeexploredconstructively.

3. Totrainleadersandmoderatorsforpublicforums.

4. Tocollaboratewithotherorganizationsinprovidingopportunitiesforpublicdialogue.

The goals of the Cooperative Extension PPC are:

A. To increase citizen knowledge, awareness and understanding of public issues; B. To enhance public participation in decisions regarding public issues; and C. To help citizens craft, evaluate and implement alternative solutions to public

issues. The one day moderator training workshop taught county extension agents and other cooperative extension staff knowledge and skills for dialogue and deliberation. The subsequent water forums gave extension agents and other staff an opportunity to observe and participate in dialogue and deliberation on a public issue important to the entire state and particularly to agriculture.



The project brought together a variety of community members in non-adversarial forums addressing water policies and issues. Forums took place in each of six ecologically diverse regions of the state. Guided by trained and experienced moderators, citizens discussed and evaluated alternative approaches to Arkansas state water policy. Forum participants were encouraged to continue to learn about water issues after the forum and to participate in water policy decisions directly and through their elected and appointed government officials.

Water Policy Issues The PPC suggested that water policy be the focus of the dialogue and deliberation project. Environmental and natural resource issues are an ongoing area of program emphasis for the PPC. Water policy is of particular interest because water scarcity and water pollution are emerging problems in the state. The PPC has carried out considerable research and education on water policy. The PPC co-hosts with the University of Arkansas William H. Bowen School of Law a biennial water conference to bring together water policy, law, science, and technology. In addition the PPC published a series of nine Fact Sheets in 2008 as part of its ongoing Arkansas Water Primer Series. The PPC contributed to a research study about Arkansas water policy which was commissioned by the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation and published in June 2008. The study is intended to be the foundation for considering a new state water plan. During the summer of 2009 the PPC was the Arkansas sponsor for the Survey of Public Perceptions and Attitudes about Water, a regional survey conducted out of the University of Idaho with USDA funding. The study gathers information about citizen awareness, attitudes, and willingness to act on water issues. After conducting the survey and issuing reports for Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri in previous years, in 2009 the researchers surveyed the states of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Louisiana. The PPC considered dialogue and deliberation forums to be valuable additions to its research on water issues. The water forums would provide qualitative information about the opinions of community members. This would enhance the quantitative information from the water survey and contribute to the discussion of a new state water plan. To guide the forums the PPC and the CPC, with input from the extension staff who participated in the moderator training, developed local study materials using the National Issues Forums (NIF) naming and framing approach.

Moderator Training The first step in the Arkansas Water Policy Dialogue and Deliberation Project was to conduct moderator training for county extension agents and other cooperative extension



staff in September 2008. The training built capacity for moderating dialogue and deliberation forums. The one day moderator workshop was open to all Arkansas cooperative extension county staff chairs and agents as inservice training. The workshop had 15 participants from 10 counties. The agenda for the training and biographies of the trainers are attached in Appendix A. The training covered convening and moderating dialogue and deliberation forums. Using NIF issue books, the trainers demonstrated how to moderate and record a forum on The Energy Problem. Trainees were then given an opportunity to serve as facilitators and recorders in a practice forum on Creating Communities, Fighting Sprawl, followed by reflection and feedback on their performance. Workshop participants were briefed about the upcoming water policy forums. Participants provided input into naming and framing the issue. They were asked to consider hosting forums in their counties. Evaluations from the workshop gave ratings that ranged from satisfactory through very satisfactory to excellent. The overall evaluation was 4.3 on a scale from one to five. The highest ratings (4.8 average) were given to the knowledge of the trainers and their encouragement of participation in the workshop. The lowest ratings (3.8 average) were given to the improvement of workplace skills and increased likelihood of taking action on the issues discussed.

Naming and Framing The project team prepared an issue guide entitled Uncertain Waters: Considering Water Quality and Quality Issues in Arkansas. In developing the issue guide and the approaches the team members drew on their experience and knowledge of water policy issues and of civic engagement, dialogue, and deliberation. Input from cooperative extension staff and agents helped to recognize people’s concerns, bring the problem into focus, and identify the pros and cons of each approach. The issue guide outlines three approaches to water issues in Arkansas. Approach One is for the state to continue on its present course; Approach Two is to make a number of changes in planning, laws/regulations, infrastructure, and administration; and Approach Three is to rely primarily on education and incentives to solve water issues. Major points of the three approaches are listed below. The entire issue guide is attached in Appendix B. Approach One: If It Isn’t Broken, Don’t Fix It

• Agencies will continue to administer existing water policies to maintain water quality and quantity in Arkansas.

• Agencies, with the assistance of citizens and interest groups, will identify serious water problems and will take appropriate action to resolve problems as they arise.



• Government will implement a minimum of new regulations in regard to water.

• Regulations will consider and respect private property rights.

• Few if any new taxes will be passed to finance water infrastructure.

• The cost to businesses, farmers, and residents will be a major consideration in making decisions about pollution control measures.

Approach Two: If We Don’t Move Ahead, We’ll Fall Behind

• Manage ground water and surface water quantity and quality through one state agency with clear lines of authority.

• Revise the existing Arkansas Water Plan to be up-to-date and adaptable and to support sustainable good quality water supplies.

• Invest in new water storage projects, including new dams and recharge ponds that allow water to filter into underground aquifers.

• Modernize laws and regulations to allow water-related projects to proceed while protecting species and their habitats.

• Consider adopting water laws and regulations to reflect an allocation-type system and to include such requirements such as water sharing, water recycling, and impact fees for new development.

Approach Three: If We Know Better, We’ll Do Better

• Through public forums and comprehensive surveys, determine what is important to citizens and organizational leaders concerning water and what information is needed to make good choices about water policies.

• Through public forums and comprehensive surveys, determine what types of incentives will encourage citizens and organizational leaders to implement and participate in voluntary water conservation efforts.

• Build a coalition of for-profit, non-profit, and educational organizations as well as government agencies to develop comprehensive water education and voluntary water conservation plans.

• Gather, develop, and maintain evidence-based information about water issues and make it readily available through a definitive source of public information about water in Arkansas.

• Provide leadership training on water resource issues and water management to leaders in communities, state and local government, and the agricultural, business, and industrial sectors.

• Mount a collaborative campaign to lobby the state legislature for funds to implement comprehensive water education and voluntary water conservation plans.

• Engage in public awareness and civic engagement campaigns concerning incentives available for participation in water education and conservation activities.



Originally, Approach One was titled “Business as Usual.” Participants in the first forum objected to this way of describing the approach, feeling that the wording implied a lack of concern about the issues. They suggested changing the title of the first approach to “If It Isn’t Broken, Don’t Fix It.” This title was used in subsequent forums.



Forum Descriptions The six water forums were held in ecologically diverse regions of the state in summer 2009. The Arkansas map below shows the forum locations in relation to the state’s ecological regions.

The following table shows forum dates, locations, and participant numbers and characteristics:

# % white % male Thurs., June 11, 5:00 – 7:30, Malvern, Hot Spring Co. 16 88% 69% Tues., June 16, 11:00 – 1:30, Clarksville, Johnson Co. 18 94% 72% Tues., June 23, 5:30 – 8:00, UA Research Station, Hempstead Co. 11 64% 64% Tues., July 7, 5:00 – 8:00, Pine Bluff, Jefferson Co. 15 60% 73% Thurs., July 16, 6:00 – 8:30, Wynne, Cross Co. 7 86% 100% Thurs., July 23, 11:00 – 1:30, Springdale, Washington Co. 14 100% 57%

Total 81 83% 70%



Each county office that convened a forum received a grant of $500 to defray expenses. (The CPC and the PPC each provided one-half of the funds for the grants.) The county offices served dinner or lunch to the forum participants. The moderators drafted an agenda in advance of each forum and adjusted the schedule during the forum based on the timing of meal service. In most cases the meals were served buffet style, which caused a minimum of disruption in the flow of discussion. An example of an agenda is attached in Appendix C. At the beginning of the forum each participant received a copy of the issue guide and a fact sheet on water in Arkansas which had been prepared by the PPC. (See Appendix D for the Arkansas Water Facts handout.)



Dialogue and Deliberation Project Findings The first section of this report described the activities that were carried out through the Arkansas Water Policy Dialogue and Deliberation Project. This section will be devoted to what was learned, reflections on the process, and additional questions raised. One purpose of the project was to conduct research about deliberative forums. The CPC explored six research questions about deliberative forums and two questions about what went well in the process, what was more challenging, and about future plans. The following research questions were raised at the outset of the project:

1. Whataretheobjectivesofdeliberativeforumparticipants?Whoisattendingforumsandwhy?Whatdotheytellyouabouttheirexperience?Whatkindoffollow‐upwork(ifany)doparticipantsreport?

2. Doparticipantsperceivethatexamininganissuethroughdialogueand

deliberationinfluencesthelikelihoodandthemanneroftheirtakingactionontheissue?Ifso,inwhatway?

3. Whatwasyourexperience(ifany)inreportingtheoutcomesofforumstopolicy‐

makers,themedia,oranyoneelse?Howwastheinformationreceived?

4. Whatwastheimpact(ifany)ofthedeliberativeforumsoncommunityproblem‐solving?

5. Whatareyoulearningabout“namingandframing”issuesinawaythatmakes

iteasierforcitizenstounderstandmanydiversepointsofview?

6. Whatareyoulearningaboutwhatfosterseffectivedecision‐makinginaforum?Inadditiontomoderators,whatdoconvenersandothersinvolvedinorganizingtheforumshavetodotocreateanenvironmentinwhichmakingdeliberativedecisionstogetherisfostered?

7. Whenreflectingonyoursecondyear,whatwentwellandwhatwasmorechallenging?WhatchangesmightyoumakeintheCenter’sworkmovingintoyearthree?WhatquestionsdidyourworkraiseandhowmightyouexplorethemincollaborationwithCPPE?

8. Howcanforumsbeusedinauniversityenvironmenttoinformandcontributetootheruniversityefforts?



Water Forum Participants What are the objectives of deliberative forum participants? Who is attending forums and why? What do they tell you about their experience? What kind of follow-up work (if any) do participants report? Forum participants, although primarily white (83%) and male (70%) came from a range of backgrounds and occupations. Extension agents invited people whom they knew to be interested in water policy issues such as farmers; local elected officials; educators; and representatives of state agencies, municipal and rural water systems, water conservation districts, and environmental groups including watershed protection groups. The reasons cited most frequently for attending the forums were to learn more about water policy issues and to express concerns about particular water issues. Many participants also said they came because they received a personal invitation from a county extension agent whom they knew and respected, demonstrating the importance of conveners who are held in high regard in the community. Offering a meal was an incentive as well. Participants expressed considerable appreciation for the food, which was typically delicious and plentiful. The questionnaires completed by participants after the conclusion of each forum provide information about their experiences in the forums. The questionnaire is attached in Appendix E. Appendix F has a summary of the quantitative results. Nearly all participants (97 percent) believed that the water forums were worthwhile. Majorities of those who completed the questionnaires said that participants learned to understand different points of view (93 percent), that the discussion gave fair consideration to the pros and cons of different approaches (74 percent), that participants found more common ground (70 percent), and that their own opinions had changed as a result of the forums (60 percent.) The final question asked for additional comments. Nearly all were positive. The following are examples:

• I liked the informal meeting where everyone felt they were being listened to. • Forum was well presented. Relaxed and informal but “kept on track” very well. • Broad variety of people present. • I really enjoyed the forum. It was very informative and gave me new ideas. • Great way to share and hear all aspects. • I liked to hear ideas from people involved in water quality issues. • Went quick, stayed on focus. • Very interesting to hear views from different backgrounds. • Informative and vital. Generated thought. • Everyone had input and seemed to enjoy and be informed. • Was very good, well run, need more of these.



Do participants perceive that examining an issue through dialogue and deliberation influences the likelihood and the manner of their taking action on the issue? If so, in what way? At the end of each forum the participants were asked how they could use what they had learned. Responses included the following:

• Include information about water in 4-H educational programs. • Encourage collaboration to promote water conservation and water quality. • Fix dripping faucet. • Continue to learn and tell others about water issues. • Hold a town meeting with water system experts. • Serve as watchdogs to see and report problems related to water (such as

pollution sources.) • Be an example. • Be more aware of what is going on in the state in regard to water. • Remember that little changes can make a difference. • Encourage officials to develop a contingency plan for water distribution in case

of crisis. • Seek good information on current conditions in regard to water. • Serve on boards related to water and volunteer in other ways.

Overall, participants seemed to feel that the water forums provided good information, taught them about different perspectives, and motivated them to continue to learn about water issues. Perhaps because water issues are just beginning to emerge in Arkansas, most participants did not express specific plans for taking action on the issue and did not provide feedback after the forums about actions undertaken.

Reporting Outcomes and Impact on Decision-Making Whatwasyourexperience(ifany)inreportingtheoutcomesofforumstopolicymakers,themedia,oranyoneelse?Howwastheinformationreceived? Whatwastheimpact(ifany)ofthedeliberativeforumsoncommunityproblemsolving? The state is at the beginning stages of developing a new state water plan. Many kinds of information are being gathered to guide the potential plan. The results from the water forums will be reported in the year 2010 to those who influence policy, at the appropriate time for maximum impact on decisions. It is too soon to tell how the information will be received or what the effect might be on community decision-making. Policy-makers will doubtless be interested to hear that 7 out of 10 citizens who deliberated the issue said they favored revising the state water plan. This result and other findings from the water forums will be a valuable addition to the body of information that underlies the water plan.



Opinions among participants were divided about whether the state should change its policies and laws regarding water and whether there should be one state agency to manage water. There was a great deal or variation among regions, which may be analyzed in more detail for policy makers. The following table shows responses to the post-forum questionnaire in regard to opinions about water issues.

Notes from the forums show that participants, particularly those in areas where water quantity or quality is an emerging problem, support planning to meet water needs. However, many are skeptical about the need for a larger and more powerful state agency to manage water. Participants said they would support new laws and policies only if they were evidence-based and adaptable to different conditions in different regions.

Lessons Learned from Naming and Framing What are you learning about “naming and framing” issues in a way that makes it easier for citizens to understand many diverse points of view? Nine out of 10 participants thought most people had a better understanding of different points of view after the forums, according to the post-forum questionnaire results. This would imply that the manner in which the issue was named and framed did not impair understanding of different points of view, at least. In naming and framing the issue the project team was guided by their knowledge and experience with dialogue and deliberation and with water issues, input from coop extension field staff, and National Issues Forums materials on naming and framing. It required several drafts and much consideration to arrive at the final name used for the issue and the three approaches to frame the deliberation. The name “Uncertain Waters: Considering Water Quantity and Quality Issues in Arkansas” was chosen for the forums because it described the scope of the discussion—water quantity and quality issues—and established an open, non-dogmatic tone with the use of the word “uncertain.” Based on participant and coop extension staff feedback, the name appears to have been successful in communicating the forum topic without prescribing any particular



point of view, except the view that water quantity and quality are important enough to take the time for discussion. The project team originally drafted three approaches as follows:

A. Educate citizens and leaders about water issues. B. Plan effectively to assure an abundant, sustainable, high quality water supply in

Arkansas. C. Implement water policies effectively.

After further discussion with cooperative extension staff it was decided that one approach should recognize the fact that Arkansas in general still has plentiful water and its citizens might not see a need for increased planning or regulation. The team decided to add a “no change” approach and combine planning and implementation in one approach. The third approach would still focus on education and incentives. Another option considered was to use four approaches, adding the “no change” approach to the initial three. However, the team believed that three approaches tend to work better than four, based on experience with dialogue and deliberation forums. Although some participants said the approach that combined planning and implementation packed too much under one heading, nevertheless the three approaches generally seemed to work well. The issue seemed to be outlined in a way that led to productive discussion. Before the first forum the three approaches were entitled as follows:

Approach One: Business As Usual Approach Two: If We Don’t Move Ahead, We’ll Fall Behind Approach Three: If We Know Better, We’ll Do Better

The team invited feedback from participants in the first forum regarding the way the approaches were framed. Participants replied that the approaches themselves were helpful in considering different points of view. However, they objected to the name “Business As Usual,” feeling it had negative connotations. To them “Business As Usual” implied a failure to recognize real problems. They felt the evidence was not clear as to whether or not Arkansas has real problems in water quality and quantity. Continuing on the present course can be a positive approach, in their view. “If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It” was suggested as an alternative name. The team adopted a grammatically correct version of this name—“If It Isn’t Broken, Don’t Fix It”—and used this name successfully in subsequent forums. One lesson learned from this experience was to obtain as much input as possible when naming and framing the issue and to listen respectfully to all points of view. The project team had an unrecognized bias toward more planning and more regulation. The option of continuing on the present course was not originally included as an approach; it was added due to input from cooperative extension staff. Even then, the initial name for the approach may have reflected the bias of the team. Only by diligently seeking feedback and listening



respectfully was the team able to find a name and frame that participants considered to be even-handed. In naming and framing it is also important to remember and make it clear to participants that the approaches are meant to facilitate discussion of pros and cons, not to frame a debate. Naming and framing should create a climbing frame, not a cage.

Making Deliberative Decisions in Forums What are you learning about what fosters effective decision-making in a forum? In addition to moderators, what do conveners and others involved in organizing the forums have to do to create an environment in which making deliberative decisions together is fostered? The six water forums had two important elements in common which contributed to their success—a well-respected unbiased convener and a neutral location. Additional positive factors were the sharing of food and the arrangement of the room so participants faced one another. Many participants in the water forums mentioned that the reason they attended was because of the respect they had for the county agent who invited them. The conveners were known for providing well-researched unbiased information and for helping with community problems. The respect and friendliness participants felt toward the agent in each of the different areas was apparent in their interactions before and after the forums and while meals were served. These good relationships created an welcoming atmosphere of openness and frankness from the outset. The meetings were held in neutral locations not associated with any position or partisan on the issue to be discussed. The locations were in meeting rooms owned by extension services or 4-H programs or in restaurants. Having the participants sit down to a meal together seemed to increase the perception that those in the room were embarking on a collaborative endeavor rather preparing to fight for their positions. A perception of partnership and collaboration arguably enhances the ability of a group to make deliberative decisions together. As recommended in the moderator training, for each forum the room was arranged so that participants faced one another. In most forums they sat on the outside of a U-shaped arrangement of tables. In one forum (at a restaurant) they sat around one large table.



Reflections on Second Year When reflecting on your second year, what went well and what was more challenging? What changes might you make in the Center’s work moving into year three? What questions did your work raise and how might you explore them in collaboration with CPPE? The Arkansas Water Policy Dialogue and Deliberation Project was both challenging and rewarding. It was ambitious for a new PPI to attempt to name and frame a state issue and conduct a series of forums across the state. It turned out to require more effort on one hand and on the other hand to be even more worthwhile than anticipated. Organizing forums for dialogue and deliberation is time-consuming, especially when such forums are not familiar to the conveners. Each step took longer than expected; the “second year” activities were carried out over a period of two calendar years. The naming and framing process required numerous meetings and revisions based on feedback from stakeholders. Moreover, it took longer than the team expected to persuade county agents to schedule the forums and to work with them on arrangements. The small grants provided to cover expenses were an essential inducement. One of the most satisfying parts of the project was the partnership among representatives of the CPC, PPC, and the Clinton School of Public Service. All the team members worked hard, learned from one another, encouraged one another, and came away with increased respect for one another. This project established the basis for future collaborative endeavors. Another satisfying reward from the project was experiencing the enthusiasm of the forum participants. Five out of six forums included a broad variety of participants, most of whom seemed to have a genuine desire to learn about the issue, to share their opinions, to listen to other opinions, and enter into dialogue where opinions may be changed. The sixth forum typified “business as usual” in parts of rural Arkansas, with white men in business or government—the powers that be—at the table, plus one black male minister for diversity. This was also interesting in its own way, though not as satisfactory as the others because there was less genuine dialogue. It was very gratifying to read the results from the questionnaires, which were predominantly positive. Moving into “year three” we are in a position to build on what we have learned. We have not yet decided how to proceed but may have another series of water forums in additional areas of the state. We might refine the issue guide and make it shorter, more concise. In Arkansas the concept of dialogue and deliberation forums is still relatively unfamiliar, as distinguished from forums where experts present one or more points of view. It is very encouraging that the water policy forums were so well received. Perhaps we could add a few minutes to future forums for participants to reflect on the process and suggest other arenas where dialogue and deliberation forums could be used. We could ask for volunteers to be trained as moderators and assist with other forums. We would need to be prepared to follow up with a couple of moderator training/forums if promising ideas emerge.



Use of Forums in University Environment How can forums be used in a university environment to inform and contribute to other university efforts? The Arkansas Water Policy Dialogue and Deliberation Project is a good example of using forums to contribute to other university efforts. Through the water forums the University of Arkansas Agriculture Public Policy Center educated Arkansans about water policy and gathered information about support for a new state water plan.



Appendix A: Moderator Training Agenda and Trainer Biographies

AGENDA

Moderator Training: The Role and Practice of Deliberation Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Registration and continental breakfast 8:30 Welcome, introductions, review agenda 9:00 Demonstration forum: The Energy Problem 9:15 Morning break 11:00 National Issues Forum overview and format 11:15 Practice forum instructions and sign-up 11:45 Working lunch: set goals and develop questions for practice forum 12:00 Practice forum: Creating Communities, Fighting Sprawl 12:30

Introduction (feedback will follow each section of the practice forum) Choice 1 Choice 2 Choice 3 Conclusion

Afternoon break 3:00 Convening public dialogue forums, resources for forums 3:15 Overview of Arkansas water forums 3:30 Issue framing: Arkansas water 3:45 Last questions, wrap-up 4:20 Adjournment 4:30 Trainers Christina C. Standerfer is an Assistant Professor at the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service. Her BA and MA degrees were in Speech and Communications at UALR, and her PhD degree was in Communication at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Her research centers on the rhetorical construction of civic engagement, public issues, and public opinion – how citizenship and civic engagement become engaged in political talk. Ruth Craw is the Director of the UALR Center for Public Collaboration. Ms. Craw holds a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Washington and a Graduate Certificate in Conflict Mediation from UALR. She has 18 years of experience with the UALR Institute of Government consulting and conducting applied research projects with state and local government and nonprofit organizations.



Appendix B: Arkansas Water Policy Issue Guide

Uncertain Waters: Considering Water Quantity and Quality Issues in Arkansas

Introduction

Arkansas is rich in water resources; however, there is no guarantee that the state’s water supplies will always be plentiful or safe. Population increases, rising living standards and industrial and economic growth are among many factors influencing the state’s water quantity as well as the quality of surface and groundwater sources. According to the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, the state’s water management agency, the general trend in Arkansas is that the ground-water levels have been slowly dropping. This, along with increasing sources of pollutants entering our waterbodies, compromises the state’s ability to meet future water needs.

Since the beginning of civilization, there have been conflicts about who can use water, in what amount and at what time. There are two common legal concepts, or doctrines, states have used to base water rights. Most Eastern states recognize the riparian doctrine, which considers water to be a common use resource rather than private property. The basic concept of riparian doctrine is that private water rights are tied to the ownership of land bordering a natural Waterbody, such as stream or river. Under riparianism, water rights are controlled by land ownership. Arkansas’ water rights are based on a “regulated riparian” system in which traditional riparian principles are recognized but within a dynamic supervisory, administrative and legal structure.

Western states follow the doctrine of prior appropriation, which is a water allocation system. This doctrine is based on the concept of "First in Time, First in Right." Under the prior appropriation doctrine, water resources are made available to individual users in specified quantities for specified qualified uses, referred to as beneficial uses. Those who secure their rights earlier in time have rights superior to subsequent users.

While most agree that water is the lifeblood of Arkansas, the state’s citizens have different opinions about whether or not the state has serious water issues and what, if anything, should to be done to address water quantity and quality concerns. This forum will examine three approaches for addressing Arkansas’ water issues. Approach One: If It Isn’t Broken, Don’t Fix It

Arkansas’ water resources policy was established in the Arkansas Water Plan. The Plan, developed more than 25 years ago by the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission (ANRC), advocates conservation, education and the cooperative use of surface and groundwater. In addition to the ANRC, there are 20-plus state agencies with responsibility for ensuring Arkansas’ water quality, water quantity and public health are maintained.

More government intervention is not necessary. Arkansas should continue on its present course and change water policies and regulations only when there is a clear need for modifications in a specific area. What can be done?

• Agencies will continue to administer existing water policies to maintain water quality and quantity in Arkansas.

• Agencies, with the assistance of citizens and interest groups, will identify serious water problems and will take appropriate action to resolve problems as they arise.

• Government will implement a minimum of new regulations in regard to water. • Regulations will consider and respect private property rights. • Few if any new taxes will be passed to finance water infrastructure. • The cost to businesses, farmers, and residents will be a major consideration in making decisions

about pollution control measures.

Some likely tradeoffs: • A dislike for new regulations must be weighed against the failure of existing regulations to prevent

decline in water supplies and likely future shortages.



• The burden of additional taxes must be balanced against the need for infrastructure to capture, store, and deliver water to control flooding and retain water for use.

• Requiring pollution control will bring immediate costs to farmers, businesses, and residents. On the other hand, without pollution control measures the quality of water is likely to decline, which could have adverse effects on public health, quality of life, and the state economy, particularly the recreation industry.

• Consideration should be given to the costs and benefits of long term planning versus reacting to immediate problems as they arise. Long term planning has more up-front costs but may be less costly and more effective over 10 or 20 years.

• Private property rights, such as the right to build residences near a public water supply lake or reservoir, must be weighed against the public’s need for good quality drinking water.

In opposition: • Public health and economic prosperity depend on having an adequate supply of good quality water.

Water supplies and water quality in Arkansas are declining because of the state’s current approach. To avoid crisis and attain sustainability the state must make major changes in its course.

• Resolving specific problems as they arise is not enough. The state should prevent problems through up-to-date comprehensive planning and policy.

• It is appropriate to regulate business practices and the use of private property when others are being harmed, as, for example, by pollution of a public water supply.

• Changing course about water offers the opportunity to increase government efficiency by consolidating state government activities related to water, which is presently carried out by a multitude of agencies with little coordination.

• Changing course in regard to water offers the opportunity to incorporate citizen input and creatively utilize partnerships and collaboration.

Approach Two: If We Don’t Move Ahead, We’ll Fall Behind

An adequate supply of good quality water is essential for agricultural needs, public health, economic development, outdoor recreation and tourism, and quality of life. Arkansas uses more water than can be replenished. Increased demand and competing perspectives undermine present water management strategies. The Arkansas Water Plan is supposed to serve as a guide for water resources conservation and protection programs but it is outdated and functionally unmanageable. In addition, with more than 20 state agencies responsible for water quality and quantity, there are “too many cooks in the kitchen,” and little, if any, substantive coordination among the agencies.

Most of the Eastern states follow some form of riparianism, which gives landowners the equal right to make reasonable use of water on or bordering their property. However, severe droughts, water shortages and economic conditions have prompted a number of states replace riparian doctrine with the prior appropriation doctrine. The essence of prior appropriation is that, while no one may own the water in a stream, all persons, corporations, and municipalities have the right to use the water for beneficial purposes.

A state agency or official is charged with the administration of all water rights within the state, usually an executive branch department of water resources or the state engineer. Additionally, there may be a “water commissioner” to administer the allocation of water on a particular stream or streams. Competition for water, as well as proper enforcement of the priority system, requires comprehensive administration.

What can be done? • Manage ground water and surface water quantity and quality through one state agency with clear

lines of authority. • Revise the existing Arkansas Water Plan to be up-to-date and adaptable and to support sustainable

good quality water supplies. • Invest in new water storage projects, including new dams and recharge ponds that allow water to

filter into underground aquifers. • Modernize laws and regulations to allow water-related projects to proceed while protecting species

and their habitats.



• Consider adopting water laws and regulations to reflect an allocation-type system and to include such requirements such as water sharing, water recycling, and impact fees for new development.

Some likely tradeoffs: • Efforts to stabilize Arkansas’ water system and ensure water quality will cost money. • More effective water management to assure adequate good quality water for the future would

require more government regulation. • A system that assured dependable good quality water supplies statewide would probably lead to

higher costs for some consumers. • If an allocation-type system were adopted ater markets would emerge and water would become a

commodity that is bought and sold like a mineral right. A relatively small group of individuals and organizations could make a great deal of money.

In opposition: • Much of the money will need to come through additional state water bonds, but in these tough

economic times, public and political support may be weak. • Some citizens and organizations would oppose more state oversight of water use. • Additional laws and regulations could negatively impact economic development. • If mandated water-sharing were adopted it could negatively impact farming and other agricultural-

based operations. • Water supplies might cost more for some consumers. • If an allocation-type system were adopted Arkansas landowners would resist having their water

rights taken away. Approach Three: If We Know Better, We’ll Do Better

Develop and implement a plan for education and incentives that will persuade individuals and organizations voluntarily to conserve water and improve water quality. Currently, little understanding on the part of citizens and organizational leaders about water issues exists. Information about current water quantity, quality, and infrastructure in Arkansas is not widely known and is in some cases incomplete.

Lack of information and misunderstanding are also present regarding trends in water quality and use, options for water management, and the ways that policy decisions influence one another. Moreover, citizens and organizational leaders are offered little or no incentive to learn more about water issues or to voluntarily participate in water conservation efforts. In order to protect the future of the state, citizens and leaders need to be aware of the complexities of water issues in Arkansas and the ways and means of water management to ensure the sustainable use of our valuable water resources. However, efforts to raise awareness about water issues must be coupled with incentives to develop educational programs and participate in water conservation efforts.

What Can Be Done? • Through public forums and comprehensive surveys, determine what is important to citizens and

organizational leaders concerning water and what information is needed to make good choices about water policies.

• Through public forums and comprehensive surveys, determine what types of incentives will encourage citizens and organizational leaders to implement and participate in voluntary water conservation efforts.

• Build a coalition of for-profit, non-profit, and educational organizations as well as government agencies to develop comprehensive water education and voluntary water conservation plans.

• Gather, develop, and maintain evidence-based information about water issues and make it readily available through a definitive source of public information about water in Arkansas.

• Provide leadership training on water resource issues and water management to leaders in communities, state and local government, and the agricultural, business, and industrial sectors.

• Mount a collaborative campaign to lobby the state legislature for funds to implement comprehensive water education and voluntary water conservation plans.



• Engage in public awareness and civic engagement campaigns concerning incentives available for participation in water education and conservation activities.

Some Likely Tradeoffs: • Researching the needs and wants of citizens and organizational leaders in different regions and

industries will require a considerable amount of time and input from stakeholders at various agencies and, therefore, may stretch the already limited resources of some agencies/stakeholders.

• Developing a coalition of for-profit, non-profit, educational and governmental agencies may require negotiating ostensibly competing priorities concerning water education and conservation.

• Funding to implement educational plans and incentives programs may require shifting funds away from other programs and initiatives.

In Opposition: • Providing information about water issues and offering incentives to participate voluntarily in water

conservations programs is too expensive and does not necessarily guarantee more awareness about water issues or participation in conservation efforts.

• Given the current economic crisis, spending public and private funds on water education and conservation programs is unrealistic; more pressing issues such as general education and energy issues must be addressed first.

• Even if a coalition of for-profit, non-profit, educational and governmental agencies could be built to develop water education and conservation plans, given different perceptions of water issues among citizens and organizational leaders in various regions and industries, the plans developed may not reflect the needs and wants



Appendix C: Example of Water Forum Agenda Agenda Troubled Waters and Clear Streams: Considering Water Issues in Arkansas Wynne Water Forum July 16, 2009 Opening 6:00 Welcome Lorrie Ground rules Christy Personal stakes Meal 6:20 Deliberation 6:50 3 approaches to Arkansas water policy Pros and cons, tradeoffs Approach 1 Ruth 6:50 Approach 2 Christy 7:15 Approach 3 Ruth 7:40 Closing Reflections Christy 8:05 Has your perspective changed? If so, how? Can we identify common ground? What trade-offs are we or are we not willing to make to move forward? How can we use what we have learned in this forum? Questionnaires Lorrie 8:20 Resources Lorrie Total 2 hrs 30 minutes



Appendix D: Water Facts Handout

Arkansas Water Facts Arkansas is the fourth-largest user of groundwater in the U.S., behind only California, Texas and Nebraska.1 In Arkansas, 94 percent of groundwater withdrawals are used for irrigation, the majority of which comes from two major aquifers – the Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Aquifer (Alluvial Aquifer) and the Sparta-Memphis Aquifer. Approximately 7.5 billion gallons of groundwater are used in Arkansas daily. This is the equivalent to every person in the state (2.8 million) taking 105 5-minute showers a day. Surface water is the largest source of fresh water. Approximately half a million acres of the state are covered by natural and man-made surface lakes. Almost 4 billion gallons of surface water are used in Arkansas daily. This is the equivalent of every person in the state (2.8 million) flushing the toilet 400 times a day. Water withdrawals from surface and ground water supplies increased 31 percent between 1995 and 2005.2 Arkansas’ public water systems serve 91.8 percent of the state’s population, or all BUT 230,000 of the state’s 2.8 million citizens. From Spring 2005 to Spring 2006, Arkansas experienced the 5th worst drought year in recorded meteorological history. Water quality problems are caused in large part by nonpoint source pollution, which occurs when water runs overland or through the ground and picks up pollutants that end up in surface and groundwater supplies. Nonpoint pollutants are both natural (such as sediment from eroding stream banks) and man-made (such as faulty septic systems). Polluted water compromises the chemical and biological integrity of the state’s waterbodies and poses a risk to public health. There are both laws and incentives in place to control pollution. One incentive is the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). This voluntary program is designed to restore wetlands and trees, enhance wildlife habitat and reduce sediments and nutrients entering streams. The state has three CREP programs totaling almost 30,000 acres that are expected to reduce thousands of tons of sediment loading into local waterways every year. More than $60 million in federal funds have been brought into the state through CREP. More than 20 state agencies have some sort of regulatory or permit/administrative oversight of Arkansas’ water quality and quantity.

1 2000 U.S. Geological Survey data 2 Arkansas Natural Resources Commission



Appendix E: Forum Evaluation Form

2009ArkansasWaterForums

Pleasechecktheresponsethatisclosesttoyouropinion.

1. DoyouthinkthatArkansasshouldcontinuewithitsexistingwaterpoliciesandlaws,ordoesthestateneedtochangepoliciesandlawstomakesuretherewillbeenoughgoodqualitywaterinthefuture?

____Continueasis ____Changepoliciesandlaws

2. Doyoufavororopposeformingonestateagencytomanagegroundwaterandsurfacewater?

____Favor ____Oppose

3. Doyoufavororopposerevisingthestatewaterplan?

____Favor ____Oppose

Pleaseindicatewhetheryouagreeordisagreewiththefollowingstatements.

4. Myopinionshavechangedbecauseoftheinformationanddiscussioninthisforum.

____Stronglyagree____Agree____Neitheragreenordisagree____Disagree____Stronglydisagree

5. Thediscussionintheforumdidnotgivefairconsiderationtotheprosandconsofdifferentapproachestowaterissues.


6. Aftertheforum,mostpeoplehadabetterunderstandingofdifferentpointsofviewaboutwaterpolicies.


7. Participantsintheforumdidnotfindmorecommongroundaboutwaterissues.


8. Itisworthwhiletohaveforumslikethistolearnaboutanissue,shareopinions,andtrytofindcommonground.


9. DoyouneedmoreinformationbeforeyoumakeupyourmindaboutthebestapproachtowaterpolicyinArkansas?

____No____Yes(Pleasemakeanotebelowoftheinformationyouwouldliketohave)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

10. Pleasemakeanyothercommentsyoumayhave,suchaswhatyoulikedanddidnotlikeabouttheforum.(Continueonthebackofthispageifyouwish.)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thankyou!



Appendix F: Summary of Participant Questionnaires

Documents

2008-2009 PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH REPORTualr.edu/publicaffairs/files/2016/06/AR-08-09-Water-Forum-Report.pdf · 2008-2009 Public Policy Research Report ... During the summer of 2009