Strategic Use of Technical Information in Urban Instream Flow Plans
Publication: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 113, Issue 1
Abstract
A number of cities hope to follow the example of San Antonio, Texas, in developing a viable tourist/retail park near an urban river. While this is an appealing idea, problems are associated with such a task, including the problem of ensuring that water flows through the park. Success in such an important undertaking depends on a three‐part strategy: (1) understanding laws; (2) projecting agency concerns; and (3) using technical information. The authorities vary according to state water law. Understanding the concerns of agencies involves understanding data needs, anticipating resistance to plans, and assessing the roles of supporters and opponents. This paper describes four roles which water resources management agencies commonly assume, addresses issues pertaining to urban instream flow programs, and discusses the agency concerns associated with each role. Because effective use of technical information is required to both address these agency concerns and to explain urban instream flow programs to the general public, recent research on water resource “knowledge holding” is also described. Research suggests that public acceptance of programs intended to preserve water resources is enhanced by the possession of knowledge concerning local water resources—even among those ideologically opposed to such programs.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Aiken, J. D. “Opportunities to Protect Instream Flows in Minnesota and Iowa,” FWS/OBS‐83/07, Western Energy and Land Use Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colo., March, 1983, pp. 1–64.
2.
Beckett, P. L., and Lamb, B. L. “Establishing Instream Flows: Analysis of the Policy‐Making Process in the Pacific Northwest,” A‐077‐WASH, U.S. Office of Water Resources and Technology, and Washington State Water Research Center, Pullman, Wash., June, 1976, pp. 1–79.
3.
Calvert, R. L. “The Value of Biased Information: A Rational Choice Model of Political Advice,” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 47, 1985, pp. 530–555.
4.
Freeman, R., and Robinson, F. “Opportunities to Protect Instream Flows in Maine, Vermont and Pennsylvania,” BS 86(1), Western Energy and Land Use Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colo., April, 1986, pp. 1–91.
5.
Henning, D. H., “The Politics of Natural Resources Administration,” Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 2, 1968, pp. 239–249.
6.
Lamb, B. L., and Meshorer, H. “Comparing Instream Flow Programs: A Report on Current States,” Advances in Irrigation and Drainage: Surviving External Pressures, S. Borrelli, U. R. Hasfurther, and R. D. Berman, Eds., ASCE, New York, N.Y., 1983, pp. 435–445.
7.
Lamb, B. L., “Agency Behavior in the Management of Section 208,” Water Quality Administration: A Focus on Section 208, B. L. Lamb, Ed., 1980, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, Mich.
8.
Lovrich, N. P., “Policy Relevant Knowledge and Perceptions of the Public Interest: Source of Consensus or Dissensus,” presented at the March 1985 46th Annual Conference of the American Society for Public Administration, held at Indianapolis, Ind.
9.
Lovrich, N. P., and Pierce, J. C. “Situation‐Specific and Transsituational Factors Affecting ‘Knowledge Gap’ Phenomena,” Communication Research, Vol. 11, 1985, pp. 415–434.
10.
Lovrich, N. P., et al., “Policy Relevant Information and Public Attitudes: Is Public Ignorance a Barrier to Nonpoint Pollution Management?,” Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 22, 1986, pp. 229–236.
11.
Nelson, W., et al., “Instream Flow Strategies for Colorado,” FWS/OBS 78/37, Western Energy and Land Use Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colo., May, 1978, pp. 1–89.
12.
Ohrenschall, J. C., and Imhoff, E. A., “Water Law's Double Environment: How Water Law Doctrines Impede the Attainment of Environmental Enhancement Goals,” Land and Water Law Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 259–291.
13.
Olive, S. W., “Protecting Instream Flows in Iowa: An Administrative Case Study,” FWS/OBS‐83/18, Western Energy and Land Use Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colo., August, 1983, pp. 1–35.
14.
Olive, S. W., “Decision‐making in Natural Resources,” presented at the 1982 Conference on Water and Energy, held at Fort Collins, Colo., April, 1982.
15.
Olive, S. W., “Protecting Instream Flows in Idaho: An Administrative Case Study,” FWS/OBS‐82/35, Western Energy and Land Use Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colo., September, 1982, pp. 1–30.
16.
Pierce, C. P., Lovrich, N. P., Water Resources, Democracy and the Technical Information Quandary, Associated Faculty Press, New York, N.Y., 1985.
17.
Searns, R. M., “Recycling a River: Denver's Platte River Greenway Project,” Instream Flow Needs, J. F. Orsborn and C. H. Allman, Eds. The American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Md., 1976, pp. 197–216.
18.
Soden, D., Lovrich, N. P., and Pierce, J. C., “Conflict Resolution in Small Scale Hydropower: The Effects of Preservation Values, Technical Information, and Knowledge Holding,” Proceedings of the May 1985, American Fisheries Society Symposium on Small Hydropower and Fisheries held at Denver, Colo.
19.
White, M. R., “Opportunities to Protect Instream Flows in Alaska,” FWS/OBS‐82/33, Western Energy and Land Use Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colo., July, 1982, pp. 1–30.
20.
Wildavsky, A., Budgeting: A Comprehensive Theory of Budgeting Processes, Little Brown and Co., Boston, Mass., 1975.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 113 • Issue 1 • January 1987
Pages: 42 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 ASCE.
History
Published online: Jan 1, 1987
Published in print: Jan 1987
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.