Highlights: introduction | issue identification | dam and river ecosystem basics | legal aspects | economic considerations | decision-making process | conclusions

The decision-making process

Deciding to remove or repair a dam can be contentious. The experiences of numerous Wisconsin communities that have faced this decision in the past suggest that designing and adhering to a well considered collaborative decision-making process can significantly reduce the conflicts.

A well designed decision-making process can address safety, economic, and environmental concerns and also satisfy the desire of community members and other stakeholders to participate actively in shaping the future of the dam and related natural resources in their community. In many cases, a Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources notice that a dam is unsafe initiates this process. When such a catalyst begins the discussion of what to do with an aging dam in the community, the first step in designing a decision-making process is to assess the potential or existing conflict surrounding the decision. This involves gathering information about the relevant issues, principal stakeholders, and time available for decision making.

Assessing the conflict helps with the next two steps: identifying citizens with a significant stake in the fate of the dam and to inviting them to participate in the decision-making process. It is important to be sure that all stakeholder groups are identified and invited, so that all interests are represented in the decision-making process. These three steps -- assessing the conflict, and identifying stakeholders, and involving them -- will provide the necessary information for selecting the most appropriate approach for making the dam decision. These steps and their interrelationship are illustrated in figure 1.
 

Figure 1. Flow chart illustrating the principal components involved in designing and implementing an appropriate decision-making process.

 

From the interaction among the stakeholders in these initial steps, you can decide upon what method to use for decision making. The five possible decision-making methods are the following:
 

• Consultation: Repair/removal decisions are made by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources after consultation with community members and interest groups.
• Facilitation: A neutral third party trained in conflict resolution takes on the role of moderating discussions among stakeholders. University of Wisconsin-Extension agents are ideally suited for this role. If that cannot be arranged, private consultants could be contacted.
• Mediation: This level of third-party intervention is suited for disputes that have escalated beyond the capability of a facilitator to handle. A mediator has no formal decision-making power, but is responsible for developing lines of communication, encouraging concessions, managing the exchange of proposals, and possibly proposing solutions of their own.
• Arbitration: The most involved level of third-party intervention for disputes that have reached a point where it is too difficult to solve by the above means. An arbitrator will hear both sides of the story and then make a binding decision regarding the fate of the dam.
• Adjudication: Adjudication involves going to court to arrive at a decision.

When only a small number of identifiable issues are being disputed and a few stakeholders are involved, consultation, or unassisted negotiation, may be an appropriate decision-making process. If there are intense emotions that prevent parties from communicating productively, issues that are perceived to be irreconcilable and/or value differences that divide the parties, facilitation is a more appropriate method. Finally, if the disagreement has become so intense that communication has broken down, no progress is being made toward making a decision, and stakeholders are threatening litigation, it may be worthwhile to hire a mediator. Arbitration and adjudication should be considered only as last resorts.

As part of designing and implementing a decision-making process, the experiences of Wisconsin communities that have faced a dam decision suggest that adherence to the following five strategies can significantly reduce the level of conflict and dissatisfaction surrounding the dam decision:
 

1. Start the process early. It is crucial to recognize that good decision making is a lengthy process. If you have received notice that your dam needs repairs, begin considering your options immediately to allow time for choosing a decision-making strategy, educating yourself and the community, and engaging in discussions.

2. Use an unbiased approach. Consider all of the options available to your community, research them honestly, and share what you find out with all the residents and taxpayers who are interested. Encourage people whose opinions are in the minority to speak out by listening to what they have to say and avoiding the use of tactics that might seem intimidating. Decisions that resolve the situation and satisfy community desires to have a meaningful role in the process typically begin with an unbiased approach.

3. Educate the stakeholders. What looks like an easy decision at first glance may turn out to be very complicated, with numerous important details. The information needs associated with evaluating various options may be quite large and it may be necessary to form working groups to do research, or to seek out neutral experts who can give objective advice. Most communities that have made repair/ removal decisions have done so only after holding numerous public information meetings where citizens can talk to elected officials, engineers, state agency scientists, and other experts. Needless to say, it takes time to collect and prepare information, to organize and hold meetings, and to bring all parties involved to a similar level of understanding.

4. Keep discussions focused on interests. Interests are the concerns, desires, and fears that underlie a stated position. Negotiating how to best accommodate people’s concerns is less costly and more satisfactory than negotiating who is most “right” or which stakeholder has the most power. Although reconciling interests is not simple, a well conducted decision-making process allows stakeholders to generate creative solutions that are acceptable to all stakeholders, even though they may not be their first choice.

5. Select and implement an appropriate decision-making process. Soon after your community begins working on the repair/removal question and throughout the ensuing decision-making process, assess the degree to which stakeholders who are in disagreement are able to work together. If relationships are fragile or animosity escalates, strongly consider contacting a neutral third party to help manage discussions. Misreading the situation can cause well intended efforts to make the situation worse, rather than helping to resolve disagreements. Choosing the appropriate decisions-making process plays a critical role in resolving disagreements in a constructive manner.

Next section: Conclusions

URL: http://www.ies.wisc.edu/research/wrm00/highdec.htm