EPA R573 015 0 .. c -
Socioeconomic Environmental Studies Series
MARCH 1973
Toward a Philosophy
of Planning; Attitudes
of Federal Water Planners
<>
* oi
Office of Research and Monitoring
US Environmental Protection Agency
Washington DC 20460
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and
Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, have
been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further
development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping
was consciously planned to foster technology
transfer and a maximum interface in related
fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the SOCIOECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES series. This series
describes research on the socioeconomic impact of
environmental problems. This covers recycling and
other recovery operations with emphasis on
monetary incentives. The non-scientific realms of
legal systems, cultural values, and business
systems are also involved. Because of their
interdisciplinary scope, system evaluations and
environmental management reports are included in
this series.
-------
EPA-R5-73-015
March 1973
TOWARD A PHILOSOPHY OF PLANNING:
ATTITUDES OF FEDERAL WATER PLANNERS
by
Raymond H. Wilson
Project 16110 DWX
Project Officer
Mr. James D. Russell
Region IX
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Price $2.60 domestic postpaid or $2.25 OPO Bookstore
-------
EPA Review Notice^
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention
of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
The Study was made to examine the attitudes, opinions, and perceptions
of field level planners and their supervisors in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Federal Water Quality
Administration (now Environmental Protection Agency). It is held that
field planners can largely determine the direction of agency plans.
Because many planning decisions are subjective, planners' attitudes
may strongly influence their judgement. Existing knowledge of
attitudes at this level is limited, and the study helps to explain
some of the reasons for the current pattern of federal water management
and identifies areas where changes in policy and planning practices may
be needed.
An interview survey of 70 planners (GS-11 to 15) was conducted. Offices
were chosen to ensure a wide coverage of hydrologic regions and manage-
ment tasks. Each interview was conducted by a team of two researchers.
Attitudes toward planning objectives, personal role, the social-political
structure, time and the environment were explored. Results of the inter-
views are summarized and discussed in relation to accepted concepts of
the planners' role.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Research Grant No. 16110 DWX
under the partial sponsorship of the Office of Research and Monitoring,
Environmental Protection Agency.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Section
List of Tables
Preface
Chapter I
Chapter II
Chapter III
Chapter IV
Chapter V
Chapter VI
Chapter VII
Chapter VIII
Bibliography
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Appendix 5
Introduction
Planning
Survey
Planning Objectives
Socio-Political Environment
Time
Nature
Philosophy and Conclusions
Content of Philosophy of Planning Seminars
Demographic Summary
Full responses to:
(a) Q. N46 - Definitions of the Environment
(b) Q. G93 - Definitions of "a plan"
(c) Q. P145 - Descriptions of personal
planning "philosophies"
Ques t ionna ir e
"Ideal Planner" Scale
Page
vi
viii
1
13
29
37
79
113
127
167
173
179
183
187
191
195
200
221
-------
TABLES
No. Page
IV-1 Features of a "Good" Plan 39
IV-2 The Objectives of the Planning Process 42
IV- 3 Objectives of Planning versus Personal Role and
Decision-makers 44
IV-4 Planners' Personal Role Preferences 46
IV-5 Personal Role versus Present Role, Level of Involvement
and Personal Efficacy 47
IV-6 Knowledge of Laws versus Planner Grade and Experience,
Goal Claims by Geographic Region 51
IV-7 Water Resource Goals 53
IV-8 Agency versus Goals Chosen 54
IV-9 Goal Emphasis versus Age, Grade and Service,
Over- mphasized Goals versus Age, Grade and Service 55
!
IV-10 Goal Initiative and Decision 58
V-l Planners1 Opinions of the Public 81
V-2 Public Motivation versus Decision Powers 83
V-3 Public Image Held versus Age, Grade and Experience 84
V-4 Increased Public Involvement in Planning versus Agency
and Knowledge of Legislation 88
V-5 Value of Political Decisions Versus Grade, Location,
Agency and Knowledge of Legislation 91
V-6 Decision Makers 94
V-7 Decision Makers versus Grade and Knowledge of Legislation 97
VI-1 Outlook versus Time Orientation
VI-2 Planners' Time Horizons
VI-3 Length of Population Projection versus Grade and
Experience 119
vi
-------
VI-4 Urgency of Programs versus Emotional Involvement,
Environmental Urgency and Acceptance of Overbuilding 120
VII-1 Agency versus Environmental Perceptions 128
VII-2 Morality of Man's Control over Nature versus Knowledge
of Nature, Age, Grade and Agency Service 131
VII-3 Man's Influence on Nature 134
VII-4 Service as a Planner versus Man's Perceived Ability
versus Nature 135
VII-5 Man versus Nature Against Role Perceptions 137
VII-6 Preferred National Policy with Respect to Nature 142
VII-7 Planners' Preferred Nature Policy versus Image, Age,
Grade, Service and Office Location 143
VII-8 Planners' Perceptions of Present Nature Policy 144
VII-9 Assessment of Water Pollution Problem versus Age, Grade,
Service, Agency and Perceived Ability versus Nature 148
vii
-------
PREFACE
In the fall of 1969 the Program in Engineering-Economic Planning of the
Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, received a grant
from the Federal Water Quality Control Administration for a study of "The
Philosophy of Water Quality Control Planning." Principal investigators
were Professor Ray K. Linsley, and Assistant Professor Gene E. Willeke.
The term of the grant was from October 1969 to October 1970. It was sub-
sequently extended through March, 1971.
The purpose of the grant was to explore the role of individual attitudes
in the planning process. It was felt that the personal attitudes of plan-
ners must have a significant effect on the plans which they produce. The
plan of activity for the grant involved two main efforts. The first was
a seminar on the philosophy of planning, designed to improve the educa-
tion of young engineers for the planning profession by giving them an under-
standing of their own attitudes as they might influence planning. The se-
cond main effort was a series of exploratory studies to determine the atti-
tudes of practicing planners in the water resources area and the influence
of these attitudes on planning.
Some Thoughts on the Philosophy of Planning
Why is one concerned with the philosophy of planning? Precisely because
the attitudes toward planning, planners, and plans change and planners, of
all people, should be alert to these changes. Indeed, planners should lead
such changes which are, after all, expressions of a search for improved
planning. As a conceptual background to the project the following para-
graphs sketch the views of the principal investigators.
Our proposed philosophy of water resources planning can be illustrated by
a comparison with our conception of the philosophy of water planning in
the past.
In the past, water planning was conceived as proceeding from a clear set of
objectives (often only one objective). There was a close parallel with
design and deterministic design at that. It was believed that there was
a right solution (Irving Fox has made this same point in an address to the
Interstate Conference on Water Problems, Feb. 2-4, 1971)—later called an
optimal solution—and that one could talk about the benefits and the costs.
Planning was a well-defined problem.
The emphasis in this type of planning was on the preliminary design of phy-
sical facilities. Some attention was given to economic analysis—though
primarily for purposes of justification rather than project formulation.
Almost no attention was given to financial analysis. This was a task for
others. Legal analysis was minimal, limited to that required to locate
and cite legal authority and, if necessary, to suggest new legislation.
viii
-------
Problems of the environment were definitely secondary, if they were con-
sidered at all. In the early days of irrigation planning, even such direct
environmental problems as drainage facilities were neglected, to be pro-
vided at a later date in the context of a "new problem
The phrase "benefits to whomsoever they may accrue" was a significant facet
of water planning in the past. One result of such planning was the ommis-
sion of any reference to the groups or individuals who did incur costs or
to whom benefits accrued.
Elitism was the rule in planning. Members of the lay public were considered
ignorant, uninformed, and as having no standing to participate in planning.
Projections were made without regard for contingencies. The idea of water
planning as embodying self-fulfilling prophecies was not often considered.
When it was considered, the water plan was seen as being part of a plan
under divine guidance, e.g., if a large population increase were expected
in southern California, the thought of not providing water to this expanded
population was considered immoral and outside the realm of planning.
Planning took place within rigidly defined boundaries, often a river basin.
What took place outside that boundary was external to the problem. Impli-
citly, the assumption of a river basin boundary limited planning to "water"
planning. Land use planning, recreational planning, agricultural planning
were excluded or, more properly, not included.
Many of the failings of water planning in the past can perhaps best be des-
cribed as falling in the category of non-decisions. Because of the philo-
sophic base for planning, the concepts, attitudes, and methodologies for
planning were such that public participation in planning did not occur to
planners as a consideration. Only after great pressures developed within
society did public participation become an issue upon which a decision
could be made.
By contrast with the philosophy of the past, a number of characteristics
are prevalent in present-day thinking about planning.
The planner should no longer assume the problems and needs are known. A
significant part of his work is expected to be given to problem definition
and clarification. He starts out by considering the entire planning pro-
cess as an ill-defined problem.
The planner is expected to establish the goals, objectives, needs and de-
sires of the society in an iterative process. In this process, the society
is not presumed to be capable of articulating their goals, etc. at the be-
ginning of the planning process. They are presumed to have a role in for-
mulating goals, objectives, etc. in conjunction with the planner. The
planner is expected to provide structures by means of which this can take
place. He is expected to help clarify and articulate. He is expected to
explain the consequences of a particular set of objectives. He is expected
to search out needs, both present and future.
ix
-------
The planner is expected to formulate alternative ways of meeting objectives.
These alternatives are not at all limited to physical structures. They are
as likely to be financial, legal, economic, or social alternatives as they
are to be physical structures.
The alternatives suggested by the planner or by others will have somewhat
different consequences, both positive and negative. The planner is expec-
ted to specify the effects of each alternative, preferably from the view-
point of each affected group.
In addition to specifying the effects of these alternatives, the planner is
expected to weigh and compare these alternatives from various viewpoints.
The technical work of the planner is somewhat similar to that of the planner
in past years. He still does projections, economic and financial analysis,
and perhaps even some engineering design. However, the differences lie in
why they are done and how they are done. Economic analysis would be con-
cerned not only with economic efficiency but also with equity. Financial
analysis would be an explicit part of the planning effort rather than an
adjunct task performed after the planning work had been done. Engineering
design would tend to be employed to establish technical feasibility. If
the cost of a dam and reservoir could be estimated without performing a
preliminary design, costs derived in this alternative manner would be used
in the early economic analysis rather than expending time or money on a
preliminary design.
The time frame for planning has also changed. More accurately, the whole
concept of time frame is changed. Whereas a water planner in the past might
establish a time period of 50 years for his work, a planner today would be
expected to consider the entire time continuum beginning now and looking
forward. Present issues must be considered as well as those 1, 5, 10, 20,
50, or 100 years hence. Problems of water pollution and wild rivers exem-
plify this continuum. Planning for water pollution control must start with
present conditions but must also look some distance into the future. Wild
river planning must consider present day issues as well as the concerns of
populations who may live several centuries hence.
A task that is now part of the planner's set of responsibilities is locating
the decision-makers. Although a planner is always employed by someone the
employer is not always, indeed not often, the decision-maker for whom plan-
ning is done. Plans are implemented by other agencies, other jurisdictions
private interests, etc. Thus, planning for implementation is part of the
planner's job, and locating the decision-maker(s) is part of planning for
implementation.
THE SEMINAR
In their original project proposal, the principal investigators had felt
that a seminar on the "Philosophy of Planning" might:
-------
Isolate the principal relevant attitude dimensions important in planning.
Formulate possible attitude positions that might be held by planners.
Discuss the consequences for planning of holding particular positions.
Help formulate an interview schedule for the nationwide survey of
planners.
Lead to a better understanding of the importance of attitudes in
planning.
Speakers
During the year, five outside speakers were asked to address the group and
engage in dialogue on planning philosophy. These speakers were:
Mrs. Joyce Tavrow, a representative of the League of Women Voters, who
was invited to speak about the activities of the League as they pertained
to water planning and management. This topic related primarily to the issue
of citizen participation in the planning process.
Mr. James Russell, of the Federal Water Quality Administration, who was
invited to speak on his planning experience with particular emphasis on
interagency relations.
Mr. Harvey Banks, a private consultant and former director of the Calif-
ornia Department of Water Resources, discussed various aspects of the plan-
ning leading up to the California Water Project as well as several other
major planning projects currently underway.
Mr. Jerome Gilbert, Executive Director of the California Water Resources
Control Board, directed his presentation toward problems in water quality
planning, emphasizing the relations between an administrative agency, the
legislature, and local jurisdictions.
Mr. Robert Eiland, Assistant Director of the California Department of
Water Resources, discussed the training received on-the-job by planners and
how this has changed over the years. He also addressed himself to the day-to-
day problems of a political nature faced by a planning agency.
During Winter Quarter, another seminar, the Water Resources Seminar, brought
in speakers from local government, consulting firms, and conservation groups.
Although this seminar was not formally part of the Philosophy of Water Plan-
ning seminar, many of the students attended both seminars and the subject
matters overlapped. Thus, the Philosophy of Water Planning seminar had the
benefit of a larger number of outside speakers.than is evident from the five
listed above.
In their original concept of the seminar the principal investigators had
imagined a reasonably structured plan in which during the first quarter
relevant attitude dimensions for planners would be identified and a scale
of attitudes for each dimension developed. In the second quarter it was
xi
-------
planned that visiting speakers would comment on these dimensions and their
scales and suggest from their viewpoint the ideal attitudes for a planner
on each dimension. The last quarter was viewed as a consolidation of the
opinions of the outside speakers, faculty, and students into a discussion
of the "ideal planner" in terms of his attitudes.
The actual seminar departed substantially from this plan. It immediately
became evident that individual student participants had not really thought
very much about attitudes and much of the first quarter was devoted to dis-
cussions aimed at clarifying the concept of attitudes and in particular
separating the concepts of personal attitudes from the constraints, method-
ologies, and procedures of planning. At the outset many students had dif-
ficulties separating, for example, the procedures involved in benefit-cost
analysis from the attitude of the individual planner regarding economics,
beneficiaries, time scale, etc. Early in the seminar the students were
asked to take two simple attitude tests to help illustrate the concept of
attitude.
As the seminar proceeded it became apparent that it would not be practical
to define "the ideal planner" within the seminar. It was possible to a-
chieve some general concensus on the dimensions of attitudes which might
be relevant (Fig. 1), but to attach any scale to these attitudes in the
seminar including 20 or 30 students was a practical impossibility. This
is no reflection on the students but simply a realization of the fact that
a large committee cannot reach a meaningful concensus on such abstract con-
cepts as attitudes.
For much the same reason outside speakers were not able to speak directly
to the attitudes dimensions outlined by the seminar. These speakers had
generally not given much thought to the basic issue of attitudes and it
was not practical to provide them with preparatory material which defined
these abstract concepts sufficiently so as to give them a standard bench-
mark on which to base their comments. In all cases the outside speakers
gave the students significant insight into attitudes which could have been
attained in no other way, but in no sense were either students or speakers
able to set forth a list of attitude dimensions appropriately scaled to
define the ideal planner.
As a result of the seminar the student participants were required to think
about their own personal attitudes as related to their chosen profession.
They now understand that these attitudes will influence their planning and
differences of opinion between themselves and other planners or their public
will in large measure be traced to differences ±n attitude. Since attitudes
can be changed, it is hoped that this exposure will lead to improved plan-
ning and less unnecessary conflict between planners and their clients.
xii
-------
FIGURE 1
IMPORTANT ATTITUDE DIMENSIONS FOR PLANNING
Attitudes toward
Goals
National
Goals
The General
Welfare
MAN
Responsibilities
Vertical
Public
Government
Supervisors
Federalism
Regulations
Decision
Makers
Horizontal
Other
Disciplines
Agencies
Society
Constraints
Planning
Technology
Economics
Money
Conflict
Peers
Communica tion
Planner
Knowledge
Conviction
Self
NATURE
Nature
Locality
Water
Pollution
TIME
Urgency
Innovation
Future
Change
-------
PLANNERS AND THEIR ATTITUDES
Approximately seventy planners from the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Re-
clamation and Federal Water Quality Administration were interviewed by
Mr. Ray Wilson and Mr. Richard McDonald as part of the study of the Philo-
sophy of Planning. The carefully structured interviews averaged two hours
and probed deeply into the attitudes of planners. Selection of interviewees
was designed to sample geographically throughout the country, and to sample
through the range of planners—GS-11 to 15.
The report which follows represents the results of the analysis of these
interviews by Dr. Wilson with respect to planners' attitudes toward goals,
nature, the public, and decision makers. The study served as the basis
for his dissertation and satisfied part of the requirements for the Ph.D.
which he was awarded in June 1971 by Stanford University.
Stanford, California Ray K. Linsley
November 1972 Gene E. Willeke
xiv
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The study was made to gain a greater insight into the attitudes, opinions
and perceptions of field level planners and their immediate supervisors
in three federal water resource agencies, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Federal Water Quality Administration.
The rationale was as follows:
a. The planner, whether he perceives it or not, can materially influence
the direction of the planning which passes through his hands.
b. A planner's attitudes provide at least a part of the basis for his
reaction to the programs, regulations and needs of his agency, to
the needs and desires of the public and to any other external pres-
sures to which he is subject (political demands, peer group standards,
etc.). Since much of the field of decision is highly subjective,
using qualitative data and analysis, the individual's personal opin-
ions are particularly free to influence his judgment. A knowledge
of planners' attitudes could, therefore, explain in part some of the
reasons behind the current pattern of Federal water management, and
the solutions chosen to solve the problems.
Background
Public works projects are ubiquitous features of today's world. The im-
pact of the planning and construction activities of the many levels of
government concerned with urban areas, with transportation and with natural
resources, affects the lives of all citizens. They fulfill a wide range
of objectives, and their influence cuts across many physical, political,
and social boundaries-*-.
Many public works are directly or indirectly within the field of respon-
sibility of the federal water resource agencies, through either their plan-
ning or construction activities. Their importance is emphasized when it
is considered how much of our society depends for its operation and well
being on a continued water supply, on the maintenance of navigation faci-
lities, on protection from floods, on a consistently high water quality,
and even on the provision of recreation opportunities .
The planning of water resource projects is, thus, an extremely responsible
task. Given the diverse goals to be met and the many interests to be
served, it is also a complex and difficult one. Furthermore, the problems
are increasing as demands on limited resources grow, as national priorities
are reassessed, and as social norms and beliefs change.
A water resource plan usually describes a system which is intended to solve
a specific problem. It should detail the need which gave rise to its
-------
existence, the goals which it seeks to fulfill, the criteria by which goal
attainment is to be measured, the alternatives considered and the analysis
performed on them. It will generally summarize the background information
on which the plan is based and will include an economic analysis giving
rise to a benefit-cost ratio for the system. It is often assumed that the
preferred alternative represents an optimum, but even in strictly tech-
nical areas of a plan, this is rarely attainable. However, it is to this
end that the techniques of "systems analysis" can be applied to the plan-
ning problem.
Many factors — technical, social and philosophical--determine the ultimate
form of a recommended plan. Technical problems include the adequacy of
the data, the effectiveness of the methodology used in the analysis, the
forecasting of future needs, the costs of the system, and the calculation
of economic benefits. In none of these areas are the available data and
methods wholly adequate. Extensive research into these subjects is under
way, and it is conceivable that if all, or even most of the errors from
these sources could be identified and their magnitudes estimated or measured,
it would be possible to devise a strategy of planning to minimize their
effects^. At present, however, this type of variance, alone, could lead
to totally false conclusions regarding the most desirable alternative.
Assuming a near-perfect analysis of technical factors, there is no guaran-
tee that the selected system would be an optimum one, because of the sub-
jectivity of the social and philosophic aspects of planning.
The socio-political, or external pressures on a planner can act in two
opposing ways. In some cases the conflicts between political interests,
being served, changes in national priorities, the use of multiple objec-
tives, pressures from higher levels of government, the significance of
prior decisions and the demands for interagency coordination, all intro-
duce new ambiguities into planning. In other situations these pressures
restrict a planner's freedom of choice and may reduce uncertainty. The
difficulty is to identify in what situations such external forces cause
uncertainty, and when freedom is being restricted. In either case, the
effects of these forces are to make the planning task less susceptible
to objective criteria and more dependent on the perceptions and subjective
analysis of a planner.
The ultimate source of uncertainty in any decision process are those day
to day choices (of small import in themselves, but with a large cumula-
tive effect) that are most heavily affected by the planner's experience,
attitudes, values and opinions. There are many of these decisions; the
selection of objectives and criteria to be used in a particular situation;
the initial perception of available alternatives and selection of those
to be studied^"; the amount of data deemed necessary; the type and length
of projections used; the depth of analysis given to an alternative; the
treatment of non-quantifiable aspects such as environmental preservation,
aesthetics, or social effects; how the demands of expediency are handled
when deadlines must be met; and many others.
-------
Two points need emphasis. One is that these decisions are closely tied
to social-political pressures which may heavily condition the planner's
philosophy. His conception of objectives and alternatives may be con-
strained by his perceptions of the de'sires of the public, his agency regu-
lations and his loyalty to the principles of his profession. Second, a
controlling feature of a planner's behavior is how well he perceives that
his work involves all these choices. It could even be postulated that the
difficulty of the planning task and the quality of a planner's work are
directly related to his perceptions about the extent of his influence, the
external pressures under which he works, and his breadth of vision about
the impact of his planning.
The assertion that an important aspect of the planning process is a philo-
sophic one provides the rationale for this study. There are several impli-
cations of the idea to consider.
(a) It makes a plan far more than just a document which describes a pro-
posed project, and gives the data and reasons behind its choice. To quote
Wllleke, 19695:
"A plan should, in the words of Abel Wolman, 'illuminate the alter-
natives'. It should make it possible for the concerned layman to
understand what choices are available and what consequences follow
from each choice. This implication is justified on the grounds that
laymen--legislators, administrators and members of the public--
ultimate ly adopt and implement plans."
(b) It makes the task of the planner much more difficult because it in-
creases the complexity of his role, taking decisions out of the purely
objective area, into the subjective. It also increases his personal
responsibility for his work.
"The life of the planner is rapidly getting more complicated. It is
no longer possible to make planning decisions wholly on the basis of
simple arithmetic calculations. The planner is being forced to use
more judgment, to exercise more imagination in the conception of alter-
natives, and to be more precise in the reporting of alternatives avail-
able. There is no escaping this trend and those who elect a career
in planning must accept these facts. Those who find this game too
rough had better move over to design where the calculations can provide
the answer."^
(c) It sets the planner as the major influence on planning. Most studies
of planning focus on one of five features; the content of planning (what
policies should be sought?); the process of decision-making (is it a systems
operation or an incremental process?); the methods used (the use of multiple
versus single objectives, the type of hydrologic analysis, the projections,
etc.); the agency structure or organization details (methods of control,
bureaucratic types, etc.); or the socio-political influences on planning
(surveys of public opinion, local influentials, etc.). All of these features
are extremely important, but none of them is as central as is the function
of the individual planner''. In fact, it is his understanding of each of
these dimensions which determines the type of planning done.
-------
Few studies have focused directly on the attitudes of the individual plan-
ner**. The relationship of attitudes to decision-making is poorly defined„
Studies by political scientists such as Marshall9 of engineers involved in
natural resources planning have suggested that attitudes have a consider-
able effect on decision making in planning. Because so little has been
done in this field (at least from another engineer's perspective) the work
is highly descriptive and exploratory. No attempt to prove or disprove a
series of specific hypotheses is made. Rather it is intended to provide
a preliminary understanding of existing attitudes, upon which more defined
studies can be based.
An ultimate hope is that the dimension of understanding being added here
will enable a strategy of planning to be developed which will lead to plans
more responsive to the public. An outgrowth of the present study is a
series of scales describing certain characteristics of planners. These
will be rated by various constituencies of the planner, including his peers.
Hopefully, in describing the ideal planner, their concepts of what ideal
planning is will come through.
Study Development
A study of the philosophic aspects of planning raised the question of how
such a topic should be treated. One possibility would have been to take a
theoretical approach, depending heavily on a literature search, case his-
tories of different planning approaches, and psychological studies of the
role of the engineer in dealing with issues and in working within an
agency structure. The difficulty with this option was that one could
completely lose touch with reality, and be simply left with an esoteric
exercise.
Another choice was to make a survey of the planners themselves, to discuss
how they saw their role, to find out what perceptions and attitudes they
have about current issues, and what they feel planning is all about. The
major problem here was to determine what subjects were important, so that
the questionnaire could be efficiently focused.
The second approach was adopted for three reasons. First, although plan-
ning depends on the assumption that planners understand and accept the
methods and policies they work with, few studies have been made to test
this. Opinion surveys have been used to demonstrate how the public feels
about certain aspects of water policy10, and other studies have shown how
politicians and "influentials" view planning1s functions and goals. In
the same way, the survey approach would give the agencies more information
than they presently have about how their policies are perceived and used,
and where possible educational efforts, and even policy changes, might be
directed.
Secondly, the results may be read by the planners themselves, providing
them with information as to how their peers think and act, and where their
own philosophy fits in with the views of a sample of their profession.
Thus the survey could have an educational impact.
-------
Finally, the idea of talking to the planners was appealing because it would
provide the researchers with a direct source of information12 both about
planners and about how planning functions in the field situation. In terms
of strictly personal background, this could represent a concentration of
practical exposure and experience in different aspects of water resources,
unavailable in any other way, except over a number of years of actual
planning.
The next problem was to define the range of topics to be covered. To gain
as broad in input as possible to this question, and so that purely personal
interests would not dominate, a series of seminars1^ in the Engineering-
Economic Planning Program at Stanford, over the 1969-70 academic year, were
held to discuss the planning process and its philosophic implications'^".
Thirty-five separate attitude objects were suggested as being important1^,
falling basically into six categories: attitudes towards individuals or
groups in society; attitudes about methods, policies and goals; attitudes
about the nature of the issues being faced; conceptions of personal role
and goals; and perceptions of the range and type of constraints on planning.
Such a list did very little to restrict the possible scope of a survey of
planners' attitudes, because it touched on almost every aspect of the plan-
ning process. It was decided, therefore, that an exploratory approach
should be adopted which would seek to cover a broad spectrum of planning
issues in order to find out which are potentially most important and could
deserve further study.
This choice meant that the study would be too large a task for just one
researcher. It became necessary to make it a dual project, and it was
divided between this author and Richard J. McDonald, A convenient divi-
sion of the material separates the more abstract aspects of a planner's
philosophy, such as his attitudes about his personal role, about nature,
about the socio-political environment and about national goals, from the
pragmatic details of his job, such as how he functions as a coordinator,
how he perceives the effects of different levels of decision makers, how
he views and uses criteria such as the benefit cost ratio, what he feels
about his agency's rules, constraints, functions, organization, and so on.
McDonald examined the organizational aspects of water resources planning.
This dissertation will focus on the "philosophic" aspects of planning
through a description of planners' attitudes, opinions and believs.
The Nature of Attitudes and the Relationship of Attitudes and Behavior
At the outset, it should be understood that this is not strictly an "atti-
tude" survey. The approach used is exploratory and descriptive, and seeks
to investigate attitudes by looking at planners' perceptions of their en-
vironment, their opinions and beliefs about various aspects of planning,
the pressures they encounter and their personal role. No attempt is made
to use the attitude measuring techniques of a Thurston, Guttman, or Likert
type scale^, which provide a comparative measure of direction and rela-
tive intensity of feeling about a unidimensional concept.
-------
An attitude is defined as "a mental and neural state of readiness, organized
through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the in-
dividual's response (physical and mental) to all objects and situations with
which it is related"1/. Another author describes it as "an implicit, drive-
producing response considered socially significant in the individual's so-
ciety"18. It is usually considered as a hypothetical construct which is not
directly observed, but is inferred from external behavior or verbal expres-
sions1^. An opinion, on the other hand, is a belief20 that an individual
holds about some object of his environment. It is relatively free from the
emotional, feeling or affective concept that characterizes an attitude.
Central to an opinion is the thought, or cognitive concept, which often takes
the form of a factual statement concerning the environment21. Public opinion
polling samples attitudes, some of which are opinions while some are well
fixed prejudices, ideologies, beliefs, values and judgments. To distinguish
attitudes, information giving a measure of attitude strength is required22.
Because this study is a preliminary one the terms attitude, opinion and be^-
lief are used synonymously. This enables us to explore many diverse, often
unrelated concepts to distinguish those attitudes which it could be profit-
able to pursue with more quantitative analysis methods. Before the unidi-
mensional scales of true attitude measures can be used, the areas to be
studied must be well understood.
Attitudes are usually considered as predispositions or anticipatory sets of
responses to social stimuli. In other words, they should predict how an
individual will behave in a given situation. However, conventional methods
of investigating attitudes rarely seek more than verbal responses to symbo-
lic situations^. Very few empirical studies of the relationship between
attitudes and behavior have actually been performed, and those done suggest
that the correspondence is somewhat less than perfect. It is, therefore,
dangerous to assume j:hat a knowledfie of attitudes is in itself predictive
of jjehavioral Consequences In specific situations2^
A major problem is the lack of instruments and models to adequately account
for all the complexities of such relationships2^. Some explanations of the
discrepancies between private beliefs and overt behavior have been reached
through application of Festinger's dissonance theory25. Another investiga-
tion, by Janis and King2^, is noteworthy because it hypothesizes that the
direction of causality is not from attitude to action, as is normally as-
sumed, but from action to attitude--"saying is believing".
This is far too complex a subject for much consideration to be given to it
here. It is beyond the expertise of the researchers. Thus, the conven-
tional assumption is made, that, by investigating attitudes and opinions,
potentials for action and behavior are elucidated. By examining the dif-
ferences between stated opinions and perceptions of agency policy, and what
is apparently happening in the water resource field today, some feeling for
the relationship between a planner's opinions and his actions may be arrived
at. Some political scientists2' have claimed that engineers' opinions and
beliefs have had a profound effect on public policy in the U.S. It is in
this light that this study is made.
However, the warning and problems pointed out above should always be kept
in mind.
-------
Aspects of a Philosophy of Planning
An individual's personality and behavior are strongly influenced by the
culture he lives in, the situation he confronts at any time, and the role
he plays or is expected to play as a member of that system^*, in the
limited aspect of living made up by the work situation of planners, the
analogue of personality is their philosophy of planning, and of behavior,
is how they carry out their planning task. The planners are influence*
by a "culture", represented by the public works arena, the agency and the
planning profession. They are susceptible to situation, the area lived
in, agency responsibility and the type of projects worked on. They are
affected by role expectations, that is, what is expected of planners by
the public and the agencies.
29
In analyzing the relationship of culture and personality, Kluckhohn
stated that "there are a limited number of basic human problems for which
all peoples, at all times and in all places must find some solution."
For planners, the same should hold true and based on the current planning
concerns expressed in Chapter II, four problems, or areas of attitude, were
chosen as covering most of the fundamental aspects of a philosophy of water
resource planning. These are attitudes towards or perceptions of nature
and the environment; goals and concepts of personal role; time; and the
socio-political or decision-making arena^O. By deciding to sample only
water resource planners the environment surveyed was controlled except for
agency and geographic differences, which can be described. Finally, the
role expectations of planners (in this case mainly engineers) have been
documented in the literature^. Thus, the necessary ingredients are avail-
able to describe and analyze a philosophy of planning.
-------
NOTES—CHAPTER I
1. A. Bruce Bishop; Socio-Economic and Community Factors in Planning
Urban Freeways., Ph.D. dissertation,, Engineering-Economic Planning
Program Report No. 33, Civil Engineering Department, Stanford
University, Oct., 1969, p. 6.
2. Many of these works are planned by states and local government, but
few totally avoid federal involvement at some level, such as through
financial aid, technical helps fulfillment of federal standards, or
simply as part of the overall coordination of government activities.
3. It is this aspect of planning where systems analysis has made, and
will continue to make, its most significant impact on the planning
process, through its ability to examine a very wide range of quan-
tifiable alternatives and arrive at an optimum.
4. As a single example the classic case is that of the "do nothing"
alternative. When it is omitted, as it frequently is, this immediately
restricts the ultimate choice to one of the solutions which requires
that because the study is made, money will be spent.
5. Gene E. Willeke: From an unpublished background statement to a course
entitled, "Water Resource Engineering Seminar", CE 269, October 1969.
6. Ray K. Linsley: Workshop for Water Planners, Alternatives in Water
Management, Stanford University and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
EEP-32, Stanford Univ.> Dec., 1968, p. 4.
7. "In the study of organization, the operative employee must be at the
focus of attention, for the success of the structure will be judged
by his performance within it." Herbert A. Simon: Administrative
Behavior, The Free Press, New York, 1957, p. 3.
8. In his study of highway planners. Bishop (op. cit.) touched on this
subject. In the urban planning field even more progress is evident.
Vincent Buck of the Stanford Political Science Department made a
survey of urban planners in the San Francisco Bay area, but as yet
this work is incomplete and no findings can be quoted. Psychologists
and sociologists have also spent time investigating the attitudes of
engineers and professionals, but their interest has been primarily
in assessing their role perceptions and relationships with the rest
of society, rather than the influence of attitudes on planning policy
or the nature of the planning being performed. E.g., Robert Merton:
Social Theory and Social Structure, Glencoe Free Press, 1957.
Kenneth Prandys Professional Employees—A study of scientists and
engineers. Faber and Faber, 1965.
Robert Perrucci and Joel E. Gerstl: The Engineers and the Social
S_ystems Wiley, 1969.
-------
9. Hubert Marshall: "Politics and Efficiency in Water Development",
Water Research, ed. Kneese and Smith, Johns Hopkins Press, 1966,
pp. 291-310.
10. Examples from Stanford's EEP program alone are:
Gene E. Willeke: Effects of Water JPollution in San Francisco
Bay., Ph.D. dissertation, EEP-29, Stanford Univ. Oct., 1968.
A. Bruce Bishop: op. cit.
11. Examples are:
Spenser W. Havelick: Attitudes Held by Water Influencials About
Major Obstacles in Establishing Institutional Arrangements
in an Urbanized River Basin. Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Michigan, 1967.
Darryl L. Hessel: Water Resource Needs and Problems in South-
eastern Michigan°-An opinion survey conducted among county
supervisors., M.S. thesis. University of Michigan, Dec., 1967.
Eulau, et a_l,: City Council Research Project, Institute of Poli-
tical Studies 9 Stanford University. Various books and ar-
ticles under Eulau "s name describe the results of these
studies.
1.2. An early decision was that, if the survey route was chosen, it should
be conducted personally, because of the highly exploratory nature of
its approach.
13. CE 269, Water Resources Planning, Autumn 1969,
CE 229, The Philosophy of Water Resource Planning, Winter & Spring,
1970.
14. Appendix 1, contains an outline of the intended content of the
seminars.
15. A full list of the topics mentioned is also given in Appendix 1.
16. Descriptions of these methods are found in: Martin Fishbein, Readings
in Attitude Theory and Measurement., John Wiley & Sons, 1967.
Jahoda and Warren; Attitudes, Penguin, 1966.
17. Gordon W. Allport: "Attitudes", in E. M. Murchison (ed.), Handbook
of Social Psychology, Worcester, Mass., Clark Univ. Press, 1935.
18. Leonard W. Doob: "The Behavior of Attitudes", in Martin Fishbein,
op. cit., p. 43.
19. R. N. Sawyer and T. E. Harbaugh: "A Methodology for the Construction
of Attitude Measuring Instruments", Water Resources Bull., AWRA, Vol.
6, No. 3, May-June, 1970, pp. 401-402.
-------
20. J. B. Cooper and J. L. McGaugh: "Attitude and Related Concepts", in
Jahoda and Warren, op_. cit.. pp. 26-31. The authors define "a belief
as an attitude which incorporates a large amount of cognitive struc-
turing,, Operationallys one has an attitude toward 3 and a belief .in
or about a stimulus object.
21. Sawyer and Harbaugh: OJD. clt., pp. 401-402.
22. Cooper and McGaugh: op. cit. , p. 29.
23. Richard I. LaPiere: "Attitudes versus Actions", in Martin Fishbein,
P.j3. cit., p. 26.
24. Jahoda and Warrens op. cijt., p. 211.
25. R. B. Zajonic: "Balance, Congruity and Dissonance", in Jahoda and
Warren, _OJD. cit., p. 261.
26. Irving L. Janis and Bert T. King: "The Influence of Role Playing on
Opinion Change", in Jahoda and Warren, op. cit.., p. 225.
27. Hubert T. Marshall: op. cit.
Also, Arthur A. Maass has made this point in his writings. Notably
in Muddy Waters; The Army.Engineers and the Nation's Rivers, Harvard
Univ. Press, 1954. "• /
28. Gordon W. Allport: Pattern and Growth in Personality, Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, New York, 1961, Chapter 8, p. 186.
29. Florence R. Kluckhohn: "Dominant and Variant Value Orientations",
Chapter 21, p. 346, of Personality in Nature. Society and Culture.
edited by C. Kluckhohn and N. A. Murray, Knopf, 1953.
30. Note that these are areas for description of a philosophy (or per-
sonality) of planning. They are not equivalent concepts, thus no
attempt can be made to give them a comparative weight in an overall
philosophy. This is in contrast to the study of values of Allport,
Vernon and Lindzey , where six value directions making up dimensions
of the personality^-theoretical (truth), economic (usefulness),
aesthetic (harmony),, social (altruistic love), political (power),
and religious (unity)—are compared, using a forced choice question-
naire, and are given comparative weights (not along an absolute scale)
demonstrating an individual's hierarchy of values or preference
system.
Note also, these dimensions are somewhat parallel to the 5 basic
human problems suggested by Kluckhohn--the relationship of man to
nature (men or nature dominant); the innate predispositions of man
(human nature, motivations); the time dimension (where is the indi-
vidual's reference state, past or future?); the dominant modality of
the relationship of man to other men; and the valued personality type.
10
-------
31. G. W. Allport, P. E. Vernon, G. Lindzey: A Study of Values, Houghton
Mtfflin Co., Boston, 1960.
32. R. Merton, etc., op. cit.
11
-------
CHAPTER II
PLANNING
The general nature of the philosophic, and related socio-political aspects
of water resource planning has been outlined. The other necessary prelude
to a study of planner attitudes is a review of the actual planning process
itself, the issues being faced, and some of the changes that are occurring,
since these are the basis for determining the direction and scope of the
survey.
The Planning Process
*
There are two limiting models of the decision making process. The more
idealistic or theoretical model has been termed the "rational-comprehensive"
method. The other, arising as a critique of the first, is more pragmatic
and is referred to as the method of "successive limited comparisons" or
"incrementalism"!.
The first step in the rational-comprehensive model, is the establishment
of a set of broad, usually long term, goals towards whose fulfillment the
planning is to be directed. It is against these ends that the existence of
need can be determined, and it is also necessary that there be a set of
criteria to measure how well the goals are fulfilled. The goals and cri-
teria are usually set at the very top of, or outside, the agency structure
through elected bodies, high-level committees, or presidential commissions,
whose choice is legitimated either by their position or expertise^. Within
this broad framework, both short and long term problems can be investigated,
data collected and plans formulated. After a need is identified a series
of alternatives to meet the need are analyzed, in terms of how well they
meet the goals, and by their impact on the system. The test of a "good"
policy is that it can be shown to be the most appropriate means to the de-
sired ends. The analysis is as comprehensive as possible, with all dis-
coverable factors accounted for. Finally, the "optimum" solution is
implemented.
This is the "systems" approach. Note that the real decision making is done
by the "experts" or professionals since they alone are assumed to have the
knowledge and independence necessary for rational choice. When the politi-
cal arena is given a choice, it involves only a very limited set of structured
alternatives^. The whole process is aimed at doing things for or to the
people who are considered to be incompetent to evaluate or know what is
"best" for them and are, hence, only indirectly involved in planning, usually
in an informational role.
In the past such planning has been viewed as being a one-time function. That
is, once a plan was produced, everything afterwards was measured in terms of
the original. Now, the concept is that planning is a continuing process and
the plan is seen as a flexible guide to policy. This is necessary because
goals often change, predictions of the future and data are found to be wrong
13
-------
A 5
and new values, opportunites and unforeseen side effects turn up . Downs ,
gives a complete summarization of the iterative search and decision process,
with its feedback systems, data inputs, etc.
Reality has never approached this ideal, except in very limited cases. There
is a wide disparity between the traditional notions of rationality and the
social-political processes by which policies are chosen. But more fundamental
criticisms exist, and out of them the incremental approach was formulated.
Banfield, 1965 , gives four reasons for the impracticality of the rational-
comprehensive model: an inability to predict the future beyond five years;
an inability to determine community goals on which all can agree; the de-
centralized character of. the U.S. political system; and a lack of knowledge
of effective means to achieve goals. Braybooke and Lindblom, 1963?, have a
slightly different list. They cite man's limited problem solving capabilities;
the lack of comprehensive information; the cost of comprehensive analysis;
problems of fact, values and goals; the openness of systems of variables; and
the analyst's need for strategic sequences of analytic moves.
The alternative treats decision making as a series of successive limited
comparisons . The selection of goals and the empirical analysis of the
needed action are not separated. Decisions become remedial, they move away
from problems rather than toward goals. Large shifts in policy do not occur,
rather a small change is made, if it has a negative result it can easily be
retrieved with small loss, while if it is successful it is allowed to stand.
The process is exploratory, goals are continuously changed or new ones found.
The number of alternatives is severely limited, since only small steps are
considered, thus many important opportunities may be ignored. The test of
a "good" policy is that several planners agree on it, or that no strong in-
terest is in opposition. Thus, the direction of policy over some period
can really only be seen by an analysis which determines the difference be-
tween where the system was at the beginning of the period, and where it is
at the end^. A characteristic of this model is that decision making is an
internal function. The only outside input comes if some interest group is
powerful enough^ to have its opposition considered.
In spite of the validity of Banfield's and Lindblom's criticism, the rational-
comprehensive model should not be entirely discarded. In most water re-
source cases the overall direction provided by a goal structure is necessary
to guide the development of a river basin or region, and usually such goals,
at least in a broad sense, can be agreed upon. Also, computers and advanced
methods of systems analysis make subsystem optimization possible, and this
gives a start to a more comprehensive treatment of the entire problem. As
Bolan, 196710, said: "... granted that the world can never be as the com-
prehensive planner dreams it to be, neither is it so totally incremental as
Lindblom suggests. There are many possible positions between the extremes,
and planning needs to respond in a manner carefully calculated to be appro-
priate to circumstances"!!.
14
-------
In seeking a middle ground, it will have been noted that neither of the two
extreme models takes much account of the possible inputs the public could
make into the planning process, or of the social environment within which
planning operates. The variations that different types of political struc-
tures, different community or regional decision processes, and different
social climates produce in the content of planning are often recognized by
the more aware planners, but rately have these differences been reflected
in the approach taken to the planning task. The urban planning literature
has a number of studies that show that as the structure of influence varies,
so the nature of the planning proposals change1^, it is not a very large
extension to assume that in the larger environment of a water resource
system^ despite its heterogeneity, similar processes operate. The newer
methods in planning seek to cope with these factors1 .
;'
However, such attempts involve planners in a much broader role concept than
before, because it requires consideration of what Bolan1^ calls a "planning
style". The components of style he suggests are: variations in planning
content; variations in planning methods; variations in planning strategies;
and variations in planning organizations. Of these features, most planners
have been involved with changes in method and content, but very few have
given much _;thought to developing alternative planning strategies1^ in dif-
ferent situations, or to the possibilities as to where planning should be
placed in an organizational structure, and how it should be organized, for
maximum effect. From the ideal of the independent, objective, service
oriented expert who operates in response to a need or request, to develop
strategy or consider organizational change seems to be a much more coercive,
or manipulative role. The increase in personal power and initiative avail-
able must be tempered by the recognition of the greater complexity of plan-
ning and the greater personal responsibility required. It forces a recogni-
tion of the fact that planning is a part of the political arena1^. It makes
planners consciously admit that they have as large a vested interest in the
fulfillment of their own ideas and planning as do the agencies they work
for17.
Planning Style-Strategies
For those devising planning strategies, consideration needs to be given to
two central questions. Where and how are decisions made" Where and how do
they feel decisions should be made? It is the differences between the ans-
wers to these two questions that will enable strategies to be formulated,
and will determine the strategy chosen in any particular case.
The answers to the first question need little attention here. They are
covered in depth in the literature describing the structure and operation
of bureaucracy and organizations18. What will be of interest in this sur-
vey is where planners perceive that decisions are made and how they think
policies are formulated, and to compare their perceptions with current
theory and practice.
The issues raised by the second question, that of the ideal decision making
mode, and of who should have influence on planning, is the subject of a good
15
-------
19
deal of debate and experimentation at present . Among the water resource
agencies, the Corps of Engineers is particularly active, with several pro-
grams of community involvement in goal setting and in the selection of de-
sired alternative solutions to problems. This work arises from the idea
held by many planners that their work should be far more representative of
the people it affects. It is argued that works should not simply be done
to or for the public by a group of relative outsiders, with experts deter-
mining both "needs" and "wants", generally in a national context. Rather,
they feel that planning should be carried out with or by the communities
involved, in whatever way the affected public feels is in their best interests,
and will best fulfill local goals.
This view is much closer to what is held up as the democratic ideal than is
the present process. However, a valid question is the practicality of such
a system. Is the public competent to have such a role? If so, they must
be better informed than at present, and capable of understanding the issues
involved. It is possible that these conditions can be met in these days of
mass communication techniques, with its supposed increase in public aware-
ness and sophistication. It is a less demeaning view of mankind to assume
that man is not only capable of representing his own interests, but also that
when mistakes are made, the public will have sufficient maturity to recog-
nize the errors and seek to correct them.
20 21
The range of strategies available to planners is detailed by Bolan , Bishop ,
and Arnstein224 The extreme positions run from compulsion, or manipulation
of the public, through to full citizen control over planning. The central
positions include such strategies as giving the public an informational in-
put, with planning control still held by the agency; the planner acting as a
coordinator for the various interest groups and levels of government; and
community advocacy planning where local groups have their "own" experts
develop a plan to serve as a bargaining lever to influence governmental
proposals23. xhe positions actually chosen will be a function of the plan-
ners' or agency's motivation in seeking an external input. If it is a gen-
uine attempt to give people some control over their environment, then a
large measure of influence will be given. If, however, as is common, it is
a move to eliminate opposition or placate the public in order to expedite
the acceptance of an agency's proposals, then only a token gesture will be
made, with an informational strategy perhaps being chosen.
24
Bishop , found that the three most popular strategies among highway plan-
ners and their concerned public were, in order, the planner acting as a
coordinator-catalyst, agency control with community feedback links, and
arbitrative planning, where an independent authority arbitrates between
community desires and the planner's proposals.
Planning Style-Organizations
The position of the planning function within the planning process can have
an important affect on the nature of planning. Within water resource agen- '
cies, planning has traditionally been a field level function, since this is
where the planner is closest to the public and to the local situation.
16
-------
However, in recent years there has been a steady shift in authority towards
a more centralized decision-making function^ to provide better control
over the interpretation of policy, insure better coordination among con-
flicting functions and make better use of manpower and resources. It has
also been suggested that planning should be separated from the construction
and regulatory responsibilities of agencies, in order to give it a better
chance at impartiality. There are even proposals to centralize the entire
water resource field within one agency. The development of coordination
authorities such as the various river basin commissions and the Wate^ Re-
source Council^ show the same trend.
Apart from the possible influence of a change in level within a particular
agency, there is also the question of the type and location of an organi-
zation to ensure the best planning. Four or five possibilities exist in
water resources, all represented in the current system. These are: plan-
ning from within the executive branch of government (federal or state);
planning from the federal or state legislative process; planning by an
independent authority or commission; and planning by local irrigation or
flood control districts or city departments. Each has its advantages in
different situations and for different purposes.
Three aspects need to be explored. Which of these planning groups, or
combination of groups will be best in a particular case? Where should
the ultimate authority be? What is the current division of authority?
Planning Style-Methods and Techniques
The methods and techniques used are often tied to the strategy chosen,
since this determines the level of analysis required, and sometimes whether
certain methods are relevant^?.
A central feature of water resource planning in the U.S. has been the de-
mand for an economic analysis, comparing the benefits with the cost of a
change. The 1902 Federal Reclamation Act required economic analysis of
projects, and the 1936 Flood Control Act specified that benefits, to whom-
soever they accrue, must exceed costs^S. The need for a unified federal
policy on economic evaluation resulted in the publication in 1950 of the
"Green Book"^, and probably the best known of all the economic guidelines
was made in Senate Document 97 in 196230.
The basic issue for planners has currently come down to two questions. Why
use benefit-cost analysis? How should benefit-cost analysis be applied?
The measurement of benefits, "to whomsoever they accrue", and "all" costs,
is a difficult task, compounded by the need to cope with secondary and in-
tangible benefits and costs. In today's climate of increasing environmen-
tal pressures and awareness of the social implications of planning, these
latter aspects have called into question the entire application of benefit-
cost analysis as the ultimate test of a project's worth. Particularly,
how is the planner to measure the effects of the intangible factors?
Should he attempt to convert everything to a numerical criteria, or should
he simply describe the tradeoffs? It is argued, for instance, that it is
commonly possible that the intangible social benefits, or prevention of
17
-------
deterioration of the environment provide sufficient justification for a
project, or for rejecting a project, regardless of the economic factors.
Part of the cause of this dilemma has been the attempt to carry out multi-
ple objective planning31. Historically, many goals have been served in
water resource planning, but the central one has usually been that of
economic efficiency. The concern now is to try to satisfy several goals
simultaneously, to more closely satisfy the needs of the public and to
expedite political and social acceptance of the plans. This recognizes
that public welfare is more than just economic and that water projects
have a significant impact on the nature and structure of society. The
concept goes well beyond that embodied in multiple purpose planning, which
maximizes cost effectiveness by extending the range of uses served at small
incremental costs for the additional functions and actually aims at just
one goal, maximum economic efficiency. Multiple purpose projects often
also serve multiple goals, but indirectly.
One of the early multiple goal descriptions, although it was never really
used as such, was given in Senate Document 97, which specified development,
preservation, and the well being of people as the federal water resource
objectives. Another proposal for a multiple objective function was advanced
in the Harvard Water Program in which, to quote Marglin, "a design crite-
rion may be required to choose the system design that performs best in terms
of one objective, subject to a specified level of performance in terms of
another, which we shall call a constraint"3^. TWO goals were being con-
sidered, economic efficiency and income redistribution. A major experiment
in multiple objective planning is currently being tried by the Corps of
Engineers in the Susquehanna River study33. The three goals sought are
economic efficiency (a national concept), regional development (income
redistribution), and environmental quality3^. The latest proposals by the
Water Resource Council3^ add a fourth objective, the well being of the people.
Two questions must inevitably be answered as a result of this approach.
First, how should the different objectives be traded off against each other?
And second, who should decide on the final mix of alternatives?
Planning aims at meeting some sort of public need. How this is determined,
and in what time frame it is calculated, is an important part of the planner's
job. A planner can become aware of a need in two basic ways. The public,
or its representatives, brings it to his attention, because they feel en-
dangered or deprived, or the planner sees a discrepancy betweeen the state
aimed at by a goal, and the actual nature of society or the environment.
In the former case, the first step must be to distinguish "need" from "wants".
In both cases the urgency of the need can only be measured against the goals.
This need can be considered in a short- or long-term sense. The long-term
case involves projections or forecasts of the future state of the world.
The method by which this is done depends on the kind of world the planner
envisions for the future. Most often he sees little change and projections
are made by extrapolating from past data by trend extrapolation, trend cor-
relation or analogy methods36. If the possibility of a totally different
18
-------
society is considered, where current and past practices will be discarded,
then a far more intuitive forecast must be made. The time horizon chosen
may determine the most appropriate method. The inertia of society may
prevent a major change within 10-25 years, but in the light of past changes
over 50 or 100 years, extrapolation methods appear less reliable.
36
Whitford also points out that an important characteristic of many fore-
casts is that they tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies. In calculating
a water need for a future date, the planner decides on a certain size pro-
ject. If built, this in turn will help structure the nature and size of the
community so that that amount of water will in fact be used. Thus, in what
appears to be a simple technical choice, the planner may in fact set in
train a series of value laden consequences for the society he seeks to serve.
Parallel to these changes in the conceptual aspects of planning, there has
been a tremendous growth in the technological aids available to planners.
The development of the electronic computer has meant more than a faster way
to do calculations, although its contribution in this role alone is immense.
It gives the planner the ability to extend his analysis of the consequences
of competing alternatives far further than ever before. The growth in sys-
tems analysis has depended on and paralleled the increasing sophistication
of computers. Large scale simulations and multiple regression analysis
have become practical. It has forced" planners to ensure precise defini-
tions, clear and accurate determination of relationships and has demanded
specific quantitative data. However, it has also caused an overreaction
because planners have attempted to make data quantifiable when it was often
really qualitative in nature. Quantitative thinking has tended to over-
shadow the value of subjectively based judgments.
Finally, the sheer range of the planning process suggested in this discus-
sion has begun to cause the realization that civil engineers are not the
only people equipped to have an input into water resource planning. In
fact, engineering is just one of the contributing disciplines, which include
economics, political science, natural sciences, sociology, mathematics, etc.
While the multi-disciplinary approach has often been used in research groups
or university programs, cross disciplinary teams are rarely well used by
agencies in-their planning offices. Until recently, the economic study was
an appendage to the basic engineering report, instead of an integral part
of the plan formulation. The same growth is slowly occurring in the aware-
ness of ecological and sociological factors.
Planning Style - Content and Issues
In discussing multiple objective planning, four of the basic goals sought
in water resources were mentioned: economic efficiency, income redistri-
bution (regional development), environmental protection and the well being
of the people. The National Academy of Sciences-38 gave five: national
economic efficiency, income redistribution, political equity, control of
the natural water environment, and preservation and aesthetics of natural
water and water related phenomenon.
19
-------
Historically, much of the water policy in the United States was built around
the assumption that economic development was closely associated with^the
development of water resources39. This was the rationale for extensive
navigation programs, many flood control projects and much of the irrigation
thrust in the West. This concept is still widely held and often valid, and
explains why the economic goal remains one of the central themes of water
management. Today, rather than a simple growth citerion (benefits greater
than costs), the demand is for maximum economic efficiency (highest return
for every dollar spent).
The reality has always been somewhat different, since projects are usually
viewed in terms of their regional or local impact, both by the recipients
and by national agencies. In partial recognition of this fact, and in an
attempt to face some of the social obligations of water planning, a modifi-
cation of the economic theme is the goal of regional development. Essen-
tially, this goal aims at a redistribution of income. If maximum economic
efficiency requirements demand that a region does not grow to its maximum
potential, then full regional development may involve a loss to the nation
as a whole. The tradeoff is a reduced national growth versus increased
local growth. This may be justified in several ways, for instance, as in
Appalachia*0, if the assistance given to a disadvantaged group is accepted
as a national duty. In other cases it may be taken simply as the price
for political gain.
The quality of the environment has become one of the chief concerns of water
management today and is one of the key issues in the current political arena.
It has arisen over the last few years because of increasing public aware-
ness of the damage done to wildlife and to the quality of air and water.
Ecologists and others have given repeated warnings of the limited nature
of natural resources, the danger of unchecked population growth and the im-
portance of the environment in terms of man's physical and mental health,
and his ultimate survival. Politically, it has been seized on as a safe
"motherhood and flag" issue, with almost universal appeal. The public, too,
is eager because preservation problems are highly visible and their sources
are usually readily identifiable*1. People apparently feel that it is a
policy area where they as individuals can have a real impact on government
operations.
Environmental preservation involves more than simply building dams to con-
form to the local scenery, or landscaping to cover building scars and im-
prove aesthetics. It begins at the outset of planning, in determining the
whole direction of a program. A large step in concept is required to shift
from the traditional frontier development philosophy of unlimited resources
to a program which accepts that water is a limited resource, and that pos-
sibilities other than economic progress may have a major demand. It will
involve, very real costs and can mean sacrifice of certain material advan-
tages . Such choices must be made on very limited and non-quantifiable
data, so clear options do not exist.
20
-------
Water resource projects can have a major impact on the nature of the society
which they are built to serve. The possible influence of a growth projec-
tion on actual community growth was mentioned earlier. A regional develop-
ment project, as in Appalachia, can return productivity and growth to a de-
pressed area, and thus change patterns of outward migration. One analyst^
suggested that a main effect of western reclamation was to displace agri-
cultural production from the South, causing a shift in employment demands.
A result of this decline was to force the migration of mainly black labor
to the Northeast, making western irrigation a factor contributing to the
current socio-economic crisis in the major industrial cities. Whether or
not this chain of causality is true, such models are operative to greater
or lesser extent in public works situations.
Awareness of the social implications of their work has rarely appeared as
a strong influence on the planning of the federal water resource agencies
until the recent advent of multiple objective programs. Certainly, the
social justification of projects has been a minor aspect compared with econ-
omics. Social concerns interact with environmental issues, since certain
environmental measures may mean a change in the pattern of growth of a
region and even in the social moves espoused. Thus, the spread of interest
into one area is helping open up others.
The social sphere includes as a subset the political arena. A particularly
important facet of this in water resource public works is the "pork-barrel".
Political considerations are recognized by most planners, but rarely are
they acknowledged publicly. They should be, since it is the planner's task
to illuminate all the alternatives for public scrutiny, and politics is an
important factor in decisions. Political equity was also one of the goals
recognized by the National Academy of Sciences^. The motivations of con-
gressmen are of prime concern. Knowledge of them will enable the planner,
if he wishes, to design a range of strategies to include politics in his
plans. At one extreme, he could acquiesce in the political demands, at the
other he could defy or ignore them. A middle road could be to structure
the alternatives to limit the field of choice to a particular direction.
Ultimately, the use of such strategies will depend on the planner's per-
sonal orientation, whether he sees himself serving Congress, the public,
his agency, his profession, a special interest group, or just himself.
Multiple goals and overlapping responsibilities lead to another issue.
What should the relevant environment of planning be, both in a geographical
and functional sense? What is the area of concern of the agency and of the
planner, and who do they work for? Geographically, the choice can be made
as wide as the nation, or be restricted to the region, state, county or
even city. The functional choice ranges from working for Congress to act-
ing in a purely self interest role. These selections are important, since
they determine the goals sought and influence the strategies used.
Public works projects require large capital outlays which may impose heavy
burdens on local finances. A question to be faced in planning any project
is the choice of financing method. How much of a contribution should be
21
-------
expected from the public? The degree to which a project serves the national
interest, or simply meets a local need, should determine the justification^
for federal aid. For example, is cleaning up the water a national obliga-"
tion, or does it belong to the polluters, the industries or the cities?
Is it still in the national interest to subsidize irrigated agriculture in
the West? Is recreation important enough to the nation to be fully sub-
sidized, or should it be a consumer's cost?
Another choice is that of time horizon. Should planning attempt to meet
far distant, or immediate, needs? From an economic viewpoint the planning
period can be pivotal in determining project justification. The longer the
benefit stream, the more chance a project has to be approved. The validity
given distant benefits is not just a function of their projected magnitude
but also of the discounting rate used in the analysis.
Planning is, by its very nature, a future oriented concept. It is also a
highly optimistic endeavor, since it assumes that a future will exist.
Else, why plan? Thus, the extent of a planner's optimism and length of
his time horizons can greatly affect his selection of projection techniques,
the images he has of the future, the urgency he instills into his recommen-
dations, and so forth.
Finally, water management must face some of the problems arising from the
mystique surrounding the material itself. In an article entitled "The
Conventional Wisdom in Water Philosophy", Bruner and Farris, 1969^, des-
cribe four of these factors.
Water has a combination of physical, economic and emotional attributes
making it complex in nature. Some of the aspects are its unique chemical
composition and properties, its cyclic characteristics, the "externalities"
it gives rise to, and its importance to man. Economically, water can be
thought of as a stock or a flow, a free or an economic good, a public or a
private good, and a producer or a consumer good. From a psychological
standpoint, water has many properties and satisfies a number of needs,
ranging from its impact as an industrial or economic resource, through its
destructive potential, its everyday apsects in its use as a household sol-
vent and maid of all work, to its recreational and aesthetic attractions
and its universal symbolism of purity. The second factor covers certain
water images commonly held; the need of water for survival, the idea of
agricultural fundamentalism, and the wish "to make the desert bloom", by
supplying it with water. Third, it is part of America's cultural heritage
that economic growth follows the development of water resources and the
conquering of nature1. The frontier and pioneer spirit is intimately part
of water projects. Lastly, water management is subject to limitations in
knowledge and firm data about some of its fundamental processes and reliance
on the intuition of its planners is called for.
Together, these four factors are claimed to give rise to certain beliefs
(the "conventional wisdom") that are highly influential in current water
policy. These are: an increase in water supply is a necessary, if not
sufficient answer to most water problems; demand aspects of water are
relatively unimportant; price is an unsuitable allocative factor in water
22
-------
administration; and water problems are in need of immediate solution.
Though not true in all cases, the operation of this "conventional wisdom"
can certainly be seen to have affected federal water planning, particularly
in the West. The complexity of water, physically and economically, has
been and still is of fundamental importance to most planning. The treat-
ment of water as a special commodity rather than as an economic good has
very markedly constrained its efficient allocation^-5.
23
-------
NOTES—CHAPTER II
1. Charles E. Lindblom: "The Science of 'Muddling Through"1, Public
Administration Review. Vol. XIX, Spring 1959, p. 81.
«
2. Often, in fact, goals may not be set rationally, but arise out'of
the current political issue, more through force of circumstance
than by choice.
3. As much for legitimation as for true policy decision making.
4. Richard S. Bolan: "Emerging Views of Planning", Journal of the
American Institute of Planners, Vol. 33, No. 4, July, 1967, pp.
234-243.
5. Anthony Downs; Inside Bureaucracy.. Little-Brown Co., 1967, p. 175.
6. Edward C. Banfield: "The Use and Limitations of Metropolitan Plan-
ning in Massachusetts", paper presented at the Fifth Working Con-
ference on Metropolitan Planning and Regional Development, Joint
Center for Urban Studies, Metropolitan Area Planning Council, June,
1965 > pp. 12-14.
7. David Braybrooke and Charles Lindblom: A Strategy of Decision. The Free
Press, 1963. Chapters 2 and 3.
8. Lindblom: op. cit., p. 81.
9. Much policy making in foreign affairs shows these characteristics
particularly well.
10, Richard S. Bolan; op. cit. p. 234.
11. A. Bruce Bishop: og. cit. Chapter 1, in a discussion of planned
change has a very relevant analysis of the relationships and per-
mutations of these planning extremes.
12. Richard S. Bolan: op. cit., p. 235.
13. An attempt to solve the problem that Banfield (Edward C. Banfield:
Political Influence. New York, The Free Press, 1961, pp. 325-6)
describes. "The tension between the nature of the system, and the
requirements of planning, is for all practical purposes ineradicable."
14. Richard S. Bolan: op. cit.. p. 237.
15. A planning strategy is the means by which a planner persuades others
that his ideas, values, etc., should influence government policies
and plans. It includes the way in which he expedites the passage
of his plans through the bureaucratic and political arenas and
towards social acceptance.
24
-------
16. Where it has been. all. along, of course, but few planners would con-
cede It publically, still preferring to hide under the cloak of
professionalism.
17. A legitimate vested interest, since planners should believe in the
worth of their recommendations.
18. Many references exist. Some of those most useful to this writer
were:
Herbert Simon: Administrative Behavior., New York, The Free
Press, 1957.
Anthony Downs: _o£. cit.
Amitai Etzioni: Modern Organizations, Prentice Hall, 1964.
Peter M. Blau and Richard Scott: Formal Organizations, Chand-
ler Publishing Co., 1962.
19. Especially in urban planning, largely arising out of the need to
gain acceptance of urban renewal plans. Examples are:
Sherry R. Arnstein: "A Ladder of Citizen Participation",
Jour, of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 35,
No. 4, July, 1969.
Edmund M. Burke: "Citizen Participation Strategies", AIP Journal,
Vol. 34, No. 5, September 1968.
Mervin Mogulof: "Coalition to Adversity: Citizen Participation
in Three Federal Programs", AIP Journal, Vol. 35, No. 4,
July, 1969.
Martin Rein: "Social Planning, The Search for Legitimacy",
AIP Journal, Vol. 35, No. 4, July, 1969.
20. Richard S. Bolan: ££. cit.. pp. 237-240.
21. A. Bruce Bishop: op. cit., Chapter 3.
22. Sherry R. Arnstein: op. cit., p. 217.
23. So far this concept appears mainly in urban planning literature.
It is more difficult to apply on projects or systems on the usual
water resource scale. However, it is essentially the same technique
used by certain states in developing their own state plans as alter-
natives to federal programs. A good summary of the approach is by
Lisa R. Peattie: "Reflections on Advocacy Planning", AIP Journal.
Vol. 34, No. 2, March 1968.
24. A. Bruce Bishop: op. .cit., P. 71.
25. The questions being raised within the Corps of Engineers about the
proper relationship between the Divisions and Districts is one
example. Another is the possibility of a shift in planning locus
from Denver to Washington in the Bureau of Reclamation.
26. Water Resource Planning Act, PL 89-80, 1965.
25
-------
27. An incremental strategy, for instance, would hardly call for sophis-
ticated analysis. The coordinator, or adversary strategies could use
almost any methods, however.
28. Allen V. Kneese and Stephen C. Smith: Water Research, published for
Resources for the Future, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1966, p. 3.
29. Subcommittee on Benefits and Costs: Report to the Federal Inter-
agency River Basin Committee, Proposed practices for Economic Analy-
sis of River Basin Projects, Washington, D.C., May 1950. Revised by
the Subcommittee on Evaluation Standards, May 1958.
30. U. S. President's Water Resource Council: "Policies, Standards and
Procedures in the Formulation, Evaluation, and Review of Plans for
Use and Development of Water and Related Land Resources", Senate
jDocument. 91, 87th Cong., 2nd Sess., May 1962.
31. Robert Rehm Werner: An Investigation of the Employment of Multiple
Objectives in Water Resource Planning;, Ph.D. Thesis, South Dakota
State University, 1968.
32. Arthur Maass, et aJL«.: Design of Water Resource Sjystems, Cambridge,
Harvard University Press, 1962, p. 17.
33. Robert R. Werner: op. cit.. p. 96.
34. Susquehanna River Basin Study, Working Paper, Planning Objectives,
May 1968.
35. Water Resources Council, Policies and Procedures in Plan Formulation
and Evaluation of Water and Related Land Resource Projects, July 26,
1968.
36. Peter W. Whitford: Forecasting Demand for Urban Water Supply. Ph.D.
Dissertation, EEP-36, Stanford Univ., Sept. 1970, pp. 8-9.
37. Allen V. Kneese and Stephen C. Smith: O£. cit., p. 5.
i
38. National Academy of Sciences: "Water and Choice in the Colorado
Basin", NAS-ARC Pws 1689, HAS, Washington D.C., 1968, pp. 42-55.
39. W. R. D. Sewell: "Water Resource Planning—Changes in the Approach
to Water Management in the United States", Proceedings of a Summer
Institute in Water Resources. Utah State Univ., Vol. IV, 1966. Chap.
III. —
40. Appalachian Regional Development Act. 79 Stat. 5, 1965.
41. Smog—automobiles /industry ; water pollution--industry/sewage/agricul»
ture; species damage--DDT; etc.
26
-------
42. Harold Gilliam: "The Spaceship Earth is on a Collision Course",
San Francisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle, This World, Aug. 9,
1970, p. 29.
43. G. S. Tolley: "Reclamation's Influence on the Rest of Agriculture",
Land Economics, Vol. XXXV, No. 2, May 1959.
44. John M. Bruner and Martin T. Farris: "The Conventional Wisdom in
Water Philosophy", Water Resources Bulletin. AWRA, Vol. 5, No. 4,
Dec. 1969, p. 44.
45. Hirschliefer, DeHaven and Milliman: Water Supply—Economics, Tech-
nology, and Policy, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960, Chap. I, p. 4, and
Chap. III.
27
-------
CHAPTER III
SURVEY
The Planner
If a population of planners is to be sampled, it is necessary to define the
term "planner".
The first point of reference depends on what "planning" is. Water manage-
ment includes several different decision roles. Two are particularly
important.
A common role for engineers is to act as consultants. They are asked for
advice, or respond to an apparent need within their specialty. The impor-
tant fact is that they respond to a request, they do not initiate action
themselves. The analysis is done within a strictly defined set of guide-
lines as to what can be studied and how far their considerations should
extend. The end result is a report or plan, which gives alternative courses
of action, and details a recommended solution.
The second role contains the task of drawing up comprehensive schemes for
long range development; of defining a desirable direction for growth or for
change, determining the alternative possibilities of how to get there, and
evaluating their respective impacts on the social, economic and environmen-
tal spheres; or of taking a vague, general, policy and turning it into an
actual, realizable concept, whether structural or administrative in nature.
It means determining the likely shape of the future, who will be affected
by the change and how they will react to it.
Men with either of these functions are commonly titled as "planners". The
performance of each task results in a plan. However, the latter generally
works toward goals in a cognizant fashion, whereas the consultant may do
this unknowingly, moving society toward the achievement of an unspecified
goal through the cumulative effects of a series of responses to needs or
requests for action. The more comprehensive task is becoming increasingly
important and this is the concept of planning primarily aimed at in this
study-'-.
Planners are the individuals within an agency who take the goals of society,
turn them into particular objectives for the individual cases and determine
the ways to fulfill themla. They make policy into actual schemes for action
before they can be given structural reality in design blueprints and
construction.
The Population
The most obvious source of water resource planners who could fulfill the
role just defined are local, state, and federal government agencies. The
29
-------
largest and most important of these agencies are the U.S. Army Corps of
ihigineers2, and in the West, the Bureau of Reclamation3. Another agency
which has risen rapidly to prominence, though not as large as the first
two, and without their construction responsibility is the Federal Water
Quality Administration4. A number of other agencies also have important
planning functions, but since it was felt that these three covered most
of the currently important areas of water resources, represented a fairly
homogenous group of interests, and from a practical standpoint would provide
a sample of a manageable size, it was decided to limit the choice to the
Corps, BuRec, and FWQA.
A valid question is whether or not the sample is as homogeneous a group as
assumed, especially considering the strong historical differences and even
apathy between the agencies. Several factors work to support the supposi-
tion. Most of the men had had similar educational backgrounds with over
90 per cent being trained as engineers or scientists'. A majority had not
been restricted in experience to just the one agency. Many had been with
other federal departments, others with state or local government and pri-
vate engineering firms. Their perspective was thus potentially broader
than just that of their immediate positions. (Further, as is demonstrated
later, major differences in attitude between the agencies were not frequent
enough to suggest that as a group, any one agency's planners were markedly
different in outlook from the others.) Thus, even though the agencies have
different responsibilities and consequently different views of current water
problems, their planners could still share similar opinions. Several man ,
actually commented to this effect. Questioned about interagency rivalries ,
they said that even when the agencies did disagree it occurred mainly at the
higher administrative levels and did not extend to the field, where these
planners felt that they enjoyed excellent rapport with their colleagues in
other departments. In addition, nearly 40 per cent said that inter-agency
conflicts did not occur at all (at least any more) or that they simply acted
to provide necessary stimulus and incentive.
It was decided to concentrate the interviews on the field level planner.
These are the men who write reports, work on benefit-cost calculations, analyze
alternatives, coordinate the work of technical groups, etc., but have no major
supervisory responsibility. In most cases, this description fits men in the
federal grade classification of GS-11 or GS-12. About a quarter to a third of
the sample was to be supervisory personnel in direct control of GS-11 and
11 planners. Their major function was supervision, but the overall task was
also largely planning in nature. Here, selection among the GS-13, GS-14, and
GS-15 grades was indicated.
Within the Corps, the diestrict offices do most of the planning, with coor-
dination by the division offices. Thus in the Corps, the main sample was
to be in the preauthorization and long-range studies sections at the district
level, with a few divisional planners for comparison. In the BuRec much of
the technical work is done in field or project offices but the main task of
preauthorization and concept planning appears to be a regional function.
Thus all interviews in the BuRec were conducted in the regional offices.
FWQA is also arranged in regional and basin offices and planning occurs in
ooth, apparently depending on the local situation. Interviews were taken
in both office levels.
30
-------
An early decision was that the survey would consist of interviews, using a
questionnaire which combined structured questions with others which were
to be open ended. The questionnaires were to be personally administered
by the researchers. Thus only a limited sample size was possible. About
half were to be among the Corps, and a quarter each among the BuRec and
FWQA, somewhat reflecting relative agency sizes and budgets.
The object was to conduct a nationwide survey, covering most of the major
geographic and climatic regions, and as many different types of responsi-
bility as possible. The following areas were selected:
Corps: District offices in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Fort Worth,
New Orleans, Charleston (S.C.), Baltimore, Boston, Detroit,
Omaha, and Portland.
Division offices in San Francisco, Dallas and Omaha.
BuRec: Regional offices in Sacramento, Billings, Denver and
Boulder City (Nev.).
FWQA: Regional offices in Chicago, Dallas and Portland.
Basin offices in Alameda (Calif.), Denver and Boston.
In a Corps district, or BuRec region, usually four interviews were made
per office, one supervisor (GS 13-14) and three planners (GS 11-12). In
Corps division offices, only one man was taken in each case. In each FWQA
office, two men were sampled, generally one supervisor and one planner5.
The sample was selected from a list of all GS-11 and GS-12 personnel meet-
ing our definition of a "planner", by random choice using a table of ran-
dom numbers^. The supervisors and Corps division planners interviewed
were appointed by the head of the respective planning branches as being
most representative of the office's attitudes, and cognizant of their
policy direction.
The final sample was as follows:
Planners Supervisors
(GS-11.12) (GS-13.14,15) Total
Corps 29 14 43
BuRec 9 6 15
FWQA 7 5 12
45 25 70
Some of the other demographic details are as follows:
31
-------
The age distribution gave 14 men under 30, 22 men from 30-40, 18 from 40-50
and 16 over 50. Everyone had been with the agencies for at least one year,
and 54 had been there at least 5 years or more. Sixty-seven had at least
a bachelor's degree (53 civil engineers, 4 other engineers, 4 economists,
3 natural scientists, 2 physical scientists and 1 geographer) with only
three without a degree, but with at least two years of college or equiva-
lent education. Sixteen had master's degrees, and one a doctorate. The
sample showed an interesting case of upward mobility, since only 11 men
came from families where the father was a professional or had an executive
level white-collar position.
The major deficiencies were a distinct western bias with 42 men from west
of Dallas, and 28 from Omaha and Chicago or further east. This could partly
be expected from the inclusion of a distinctly western agency, the BuRec,
but also reflects choices of expediency, made to minimize travel time, etc.
One large Corps division (Ohio River) was omitted, and perhaps too many
coastal offices and larger districts appeared in the sample. The BuRec
sample was reasonable geographically, but possibly some of the larger field
offices, such as that working on the Central Arizona Project, in Phoenix,
could have been included. The FWQA offices also had a western bias and no
offices confronting the problems of the humid southeastern areas were
included.
Unfortunately, very, little demographic information is available to check
whether or not the profile of ages, grades, experience, etc., chosen is
reflective of the general profile of federal planners. All that can be
said is that the sample looks reasonable.
Interview Techniques
Interviews were personally conducted by the researchers in order that an
intimate knowledge of the subjects could be obtained, the open ended
nature of many of the questions required knowledgeable interviewers, and
because this was apparently the most economical way of getting the infor-
mation required. There were some problems to this approach. The inter-
viewers were not experienced in the task, they knew what type of responses
were sought, and thus would have to control tendencies to lead interviewers
and to record what they thought they heard rather than what was actually
said. Several steps were taken to combat these difficulties.
The subject matter covered was largely the result of the discussions of
the seminars held in 1969-70. Thus, it's range was not restricted to the
interests of the two researchers. The questionnaire was pretested by
interviews of four planners from the California Department of Water Re-
sources. These were conducted with both researchers working as a team
and alternating questions. Both men recorded answers, and observed each
other for personal idiosyncracies. The interviews were taped for checking
the transcripts and individual interviewing techniques.
As a result of this pretest, the schedule was drastically shortened and two
of the steps were incorporated as part of the standard interviewing methods.
32
-------
Q
Almost all interviews were conducted as a team, with both researchers
recording the answers. Tape recordings were taken of every interview.
These tapes were used to check the schedules each night after the inter-
views were made, and one transcript of each interview, incorporating all
the information from the three records, was kept. The tapes were then
erased.
No resistance to the use of the tape recorder, or to being interviewed,
was experienced when the confidential nature of the interviews and the
very restricted use of the tapes was explained. The cooperation extended
by everyone encountered was excellent^, and very little attempt to avoid
particular answers or to give the agency viewpoint was noticed. Even some
quite challenging questions about the relationship of the individual with
his agency and superiors seemed to be openly answered.
In spite of the cuts made, the interviews averaged 3 hours in length.
Some problems of fatigue were noticed in a few cases, but often the longer
interviews were the result of the eagerness of the planners to give as
much detail as possible to amplify their answers. Only occasionally was
a serious attempt made to restrict planners' answers, it being felt that
full freedom during the interviews, with a minimum of direction, was more
desirable than saving time. Even then, the only pressure used was just to
keep the interview moving. Normally a break was taken in the middle to
help minimize fatigue. Usually, two three-hour interviews could be com-
pleted each day. Sixty-three interviews were completed between April 20th
and June 15th, 1970, averaging 7-8 per week. The first seven were taken
in the San Francisco area early in April. They were used as a second stage
pretest, but the resulting changes made insignificant difference to the
final form.
The Common Data Bank and Analysis
All open ended questions were coded literally. In the initial coding, no
attempt was made to fit the answers into a few predetermined categories,
but each was recorded fairly closely as given. If there was more than one
facet to an answer, provision was made to credit each respondent with as
many answers as given. This meant that each question could have many ini-
tial coding categories, in some cases 40 or more. Each category was given
a separate column on a computer card. One of the answers per question
was coded as being the most important given. To determine this, sometimes
in asking the question the most important section of the answer was requested,
sometimes ranking of the answers was used, on some the central part of the
answer was obvious from the weight given a particular idea. On the remainder,
the first response given was taken as being most significant. Coded in this
form, the entire questionnaire filled 38 IBM cards per person.
The first step of analysis was to select the questions from the data bank
which were significant to each researcher's study. The many answers in
those questions were then condensed into 3 to 6 more general categories
determined by the way the question was to be used. These could then be
receded where needed, into a series of mutually exclusive answers, using
33
-------
just those responses recorded as being most important. The condensation
could then be repeated if necessary. Thus a process of 3-4 iterative
condensation steps was used to reduce the raw data to usable form for a
particular analysis. Not all questions were used in the analysis, some
because the answers given didn't answer the original intent of the question,
others because of a flaw in the question, and some because they proved to
be redundant for present purposes. However, the system used means that
the raw data is still available for other researchers, who might have dif-
ferent purposes in mind.
34
-------
NOTES—CHAPTER III
1. While the comprehensive planner was sought, the sample probably
included more of those in the consultant group, since this is the
traditional mode of operation of the Corps and BuRec. See Chapter
IV, "Planning Objectives".
la. This task can also be described as administration. "Goals may be
set, but it is up to the administrators to activate and guide the
process by which broad goals are translated into specific objectives,
and by which resources are allocated and expended to convert objec-
tives into achievements."
E. S. Savas: "Cybernetics in City Hall", Science. Vol. 168, May 29,
1970, p. 1068.
2. From now on, the abbreviation "Corps" will be used.
3. Abbreviated--"BuRec". The BuRec is part of the Department of the
Interior.
4. Abbreviated--"FWQA". Formerly it was the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration (FWPCA) . At the time of the survey, FWQA
was part of the Interior Department. In late 1970, it was trans-
ferred to the newly created Environmental Protection Agency.
5. The actual breakdown of interviews by office are given in Appendix 2.
6. In the Corps--usually 3 out of 6-12 men.
In the BuRec—usually^ 3 out of 5-10 men.
In the FWQA—usually 1 out of 3-5 men.
7. Full demographics are given in Appendix 2.
8. Towards the end of the field work, time pressures caused some of
the interviews to be done solo. However, taping was still done,
the interviews were still checked at night. By this time the re-
searchers were able to feel more confident of their ability as in-
terviewers and had enough experience to keep these interviews con-
sistent with the earlier ones.
9. This could partly be due to the support given the study by each of
the agency hierarchies. The Corps interviews were set up through
a letter which came from within the Corps itself. The other agen-
cies were first contacted at the highest levels from Stanford, and
only after approval was given, and this approval transmitted to the
field, were letters setting up the specific interviews sent out.
35
-------
CHAPTER IV
PLANNING OBJECTIVES
Planning Is the process by which an individual selects a course of action
for the attainment of ends. It will be judged to be effective if the means
chosen attain the ends or maximize that possibility. It is usually assumed
that the best chance of achieving this is through a process of rational
choice. However, there are limitations on both collective (bureaucratic
or political) and individual rationality. These obstacles lead to theories
of incremental rather than absolute rationality. Some redefine planning as
"a way of thinking, or approaching social problems with the instrument of
reason," or as an attempt "to rationalize the objectives given by the poli-
tical process, and to improve the logic of decisions implementing community
goals."21
In either case, planning is the antithesis of a philosophy of laissez-faire,
or self-directing change. Planning has and sets goals or directions for
progress. It attempts to control growth. It is more than just a response
to problems and needs or an arbitration of community pressures. (Allowing
growth simply according to the wishes of the strongest or loudest.) It
tries to guide and predict the future in an effort to ensure that for all,
or at least a majority, the community will be a better place in which to
live. It involves planners in directing an aspect of the lives of their
fellow citizens, thus giving them a heavy social responsibility. Planners
must be able to justify their motives and means of intervention to give
their proposals public legitimacy.^2
The above implies that there are at least five possible aspects of attitudes
toward objectives that need investigation. What is planning, or what is a
plan? What are the reasons for planning, or why plan? What role should the
planner assume? What are the specific goals of current water planning (and
how are these goals set?) or what direction are the agencies following? What
are the individual's personal goals or motives as planners, or why become a
planner?
A Plan
22a 1
The majority, 59 per cent , defined a plan as a means to achieve an end
or goal, or to satisfy a need; or less directly, as a guide for future action.
Nearly a third had the very limited concept that a plan was the description
of a structure or other physical solution to a problem, or was a series of
blueprints of something to be built. The remainder saw it as a non-directive
presentation of alternatives, or an evaluation of a series of consequences
and facts, which should be given its value direction only by those in auth-
ority. (Actually, the total proportion of those discussing the evaluative
aspects of planning was 32 per cent, if those primarily in one of the first
two categories were counted.)
37
-------
The centrality of goals to planning is clear. Yf>t, of all the definitions,
just a quarter mentioned that a plan involved the specification of, or
working toward a goal or series of goals. (Fifteen of the seventeen men-
tioning goals gave the means and ends definition of a plan.) Forty-three
per cent, evenly spread among the three original categories, viewed planning
as a more immediate function, as a reflex or response to a direct need or
problem. Only 26 per cent volunteered that a plan should contain a series
of alternatives and an analysis of their relative merits. Three or four
men, all relatively young supervisors,2^ presented a detailed picture,
combining all the above facets into a coherent process.2^
The perceptions given generally lacked depth. The possible range of in-
volvement and awareness open to, and necessary for, planners if some of
the current viaws of their task are to be implemented, was demonstrated
only in a few of the definitions. Over two thirds failed to mention the
analytic function and a third saw a plan simply as an end product or as a
blueprint. Especially notable was the almost total omission of the concept
of a plan as a dynamic, continuously evolving process which is sensitive
to changing circumstances.
Planning was apparently viewed mainly as a remedial rather than an antici-
patory process; its operation as more incremental than comprehensive; short
term ends were held more important than long range goals. In fact, the
general impression was that there was more identification with the strictly
defined and structured task of the consulting engineer than desire for the
supposed independence and initiative available to a planner.25 Lindblom's
model would have been recognized as most applicable to their task description.
A possible part of the reason for this can be seen in the backgrounds of the
interviewees. Most had been through a structly engineering education and had
primarily engineering experience. Few had had more than a preliminary expo-
sure to other disciplines, such as economics or specially designed planning
programs.27 Most had received their planning training in-house.. From a
practical standpoint, this may be good, but it is difficult to distill the
overall significance of one's actions from a mass of daily detail and admin-
istrative issues.
Further, and perhaps even more importantly, the sample chosen was actually
biased in favor of our choosing consultants. The Corps and BuRec have tra-
ditionally been in the position of carrying out their planning function in
response to the request of, or the expression of, a need by a community or
state. Despite the need for a more widely coordinated, centralized and
long-range approach to planning from within the federal water resource
agencies their self imposed image has remained that of pragmatic problem
solvers rather than more visionary planners. Only the FWQA, without a
direct construction responsibility, may be independent of this view. It is
undoubtedly true that for many men in the so-called planning sections, the
image given accurately reflects their jobs. Their work is limited in scope,
with little opportunity for the exercise of much initiative. Most are
simply given a problem to solve without knowing, or having to know, the full
ramifications of the plan. The viewpoint _is_ incremental, rather than
comprehensive.'
38
-------
In an attempt to give more substance to the analysis, the planners were
asked to distinguish those features which separated a "good" from a "bad"
«1 an f- /'TaXIa TT7_1 '\
plan.2 (Table IV-d)
TABLE IV-1
2
Features of a Good Plan
Good planning techniques used (comprehensive, flexible, etc.) 46.4%
Well presented, lucid 2 9
49.3%
Achieves its objectives, is realistic 21.7%
Economically feasible, technically sound 11.6
33.3%
Meets public needs and desires; fulfills commonly held objectives 14.5%
Makes the optimum use of resources 2.9
N = 69 100.0%
The first group of nearly fifty per cent expressed concern with the method-
ology used. A good plan is one which contains the widest range of inputs,
considers all the alternatives, is flexible, coordinated and unbiased. It's
presentation, clarity and readability were mentioned. Another third were
thoroughly pragmatic in outlook. The quality of a plan was seen as being
determined by its practicality, that it actually could achieve its objective,
that it creates the fewest difficulties, that it should be economically
justified, and, of course, technically sound. Finally, around one fifth
were content or goal oriented. That is, most important for them was what
the plan tried to achieve, rather than whether or not the analysis was com-
plete or that the proposals were fully realistic or economical. Included in
this last answer were responses such as that a plan should solve peoples'
problems, that there should be general agreement on its objectives, that it
should provide the greatest good for the greatest number, and that it's pro-
posals should be publicly acceptable and sensitive to local political
philosophies.
All the features mentioned are undoubtedly vital to the success of a plan.
It is difficult and perhaps unfair to make a meaningful distinction between
these answers. Nevertheless, the indication was that the planners were more
caught up in the task of planning, in the rales controlling their work and
the means of justification, than in its content.
39
-------
In fact, if true, this is hardly surprising, since it is by their confor-
mance to agency or legislative requirements that their performance is
measured, rather than by the excellence and public acceptance of the re-
sults they achieve. To give planners the freedom to pursue the full ef-
fects of their work they should be aware that planning is a function
which cannot, and should not, be assessed by the traditional measures of
production units achieved (e.g., the number of projects found to be fea-
sible, or the largest possible planning and construction budget). An
attempt should be made to assess the quality of the plan in terms of what
it tries to achieve, the means it proposes and how well it assesses the
potential effects.2* The responsibility for this change in emphasis does
not lie primarily with the planners, but with the agencies and Congress,
since it is their demands the planners are expected to meet. Some support
for this view, or at least a demonstration of an awareness that the pro-
blem exists, was given in the answers to a question about how planning
could be improved.^
Because this query was primarily directed towards opinions about the plan-
ning process itself, rather than aims, it was not surprising that again
only a quarter discussed the need for a policy change. More important,
however, it showed that planners feel that they work under three major
constraints. The principal one is that planning receives insufficient
resources of men, money, or time, since too many studies must be carried
on simultaneously. This provides a contributing reason for the emphasis
on method over content; planners are too heavily laden with everyday detail
to give the necessary attention to the full ramifications of their plans.
Secondly, about 41 per cent ielt that their freedom was restricted in a
legal or organizational sense. When the law, agency regulations, or a
supervisor act to limit the topics a planner can pursue, then obviously
the plan will be less comprehensive than it could be. Thirdly, a fifth
recognized the need for either a wider coverage of disciplines than is
provided by engineers or the more intensive scrutiny provided by a study
team. Again, the suggestion is that current planning efforts are incom-
plete in their consideration of alternatives.
These answers suggest a greater level of unease about the limitations on
the coverage of plans than was demonstrated by the answers to preceding
questions. Even if under the practical requirements of their jobs, plan-
ners perceptions are restricted by the demands of methods and rules they
must use, the desire to do more and, more importantly, the appreciation
that more is possible apparently still exists.
Why Plan?
It has been emphasized that planning is not a neutral function. Although
planners usually attempt to be as objective as possible, the results of
their proposals have a decidedly subjective impact on the community. The
rationale for their work held by planners is important because it should
legitimize their interference in the processes of social change. Table
IV-2 summarizes the ranking given to a series of structured alternative
purposes for planning.4
40
-------
The most popular choice was that the aim of planning -is to provide a basis
for meeting future water needs. Three possible factors operated in this
selection. The statement summarizes the general aims of the agencies, mak-
ing it an easy and obvious option. The second stimulus was apparently the
word "needs". It is part of a strong indication emerging from the entire
discussion of objectives, that planning is, and should be, primarily a re-
sponse to a need or problem rather than to a set of long range goals29»30.
Responding to needs implies being asked for help. By acting on request,
advice can be given from a largely neutral or value free position, which
leaves the planners with the least personal responsibility for their
decisions.
The next ranked alternative continued the emphasis on non-directive objec-
tives, but here the focus was more specifically on the service aspects.
Twenty-two per cent felt^ that planning should be aimed at helping to ful-
fill the agency's responsibility to the public. Less clear, however, is
whether the service was seen as being rendered mainly to the agency or
the public.
Overall the picture is different. More directive views of planning emerge
when second and third choices are included. Purposes such as preparing a
document describing project alternatives or giving methods to achieve
economic and/or social gains were more frequently chosen^. Grouping them
broadly into directive, service, and non-directive3! purposes, the sum gave
a 40-20-40 split respectively (Table IV-2). The planners desire to stay
neutral was tempered by the recognition that they inevitably must impose
value decisions.
The secondary emphasis given the more manipulative aspects of their work
reflected an understandable attempt to minimize the fact that planning does
mean the imposition of personal values on others. However, this is ines-
capable. This fact must be fully recognized and given adequate analysis
within the planning itself before the plan can become fully responsive to
the community it seeks to help.
The difference between the primary and overall selections gives rise to
some ambivalence in determining the planners' sources of Iegitimation32.
No single justification is available. The nondirective and service goals
emphasized by their first choices, seems to indicate that their authority
is derived mainly from the consumers of their plans, that is those they
seek to serve, whether this is the community, the agency, or Congress.
The image is of the planner as a consultant who does as his client directs.
Some weight also derives from their expertise which qualifies them for
this role33, and their professional commitment which limits their behavior.
The more directive choices that have a "planner knows best" view, demonstrate
a greater claim on the two latter authorities, expertise and professionalism.
The question of who the planners felt they should aid as consultants, or
that planning should serve, was left unanswered earlier. Put directly it
asks whether current planning is meant to provide for the people, or is
it used to justify the decisions of, and thereby support, the bureaucracy?
41
-------
TABLE IV-2
i
The Objectives of the Planning Process
Directive
To prepare a document describing project
alternatives
To show a way to achieve socially useful
objectives
To show ways to achieve economically useful
results
Implement plans/optimum cost effectiveness
Service
To meet the agency's responsibility to the
public
Non-Directive
To provide a basis for meeting future water
needs
A standard to measure progress to water
resource goals
Anticipate change
Illuminate future alternatives
N = 69
1st Choice
13.0%
4.4
4.4
1.4
23.27.
21.7%
45.0%
8.7
0
1.4
55.1%
100.0%
Overall
Sum of 3
Choices*
50.7%
20.4
46.4
4.2
121.7%
60.9%
74.0%
31.9
1.4
10.1
117.4%
300.0%
The planners were asked to rank their top three choices. The second
column is the direct sum of the number of rankings of any particular
alternative, without any attempt to weight them according to the rank-
ing given. Weighting was investigated, but did not significantly alter
the relative choices.
The answer determines the strategy chosen. Strategies can be used to get
better, more responsive planning or at the other extreme just to gain
public acceptance of and expedite the plan. The balance each planner
must determine for himself is between meeting what he sees as the full
public will, and the necessity to ensure the plan is justified and is
within his legal responsibility.
The evidence is that only those giving planning a service function were
fully committed to a consultant's position. They had a service oriented
42
-------
personal role image, and saw decision-making as being largely the right of
those outside the federal agencies, such as the general public, Congress,
or regional, state or local bodies (Table IV-3). Since their authority is
derived from the consumers, these planners were apparently ready to accept
the restrictions and even the irrationality of the public will. The posi-
tion is an admirable one, but taken too literally it could represent an
abdication of the accountability planners must accept.
Just as positively, those choosing one of the directive alternatives also
had a directive role concept, and felt that the planner himself, or his
agency, should make all decisions. Although their liability is apparently
accepted, the primary identification is with the agency, not with people.
The authority is that of expertise and bureaucratic position. The concern
is with the plan and its successful progress rather than who it affects.
The compromise between these positions should have plan- '-.i? controlled by
and providing for the public, but with planners ackno'-jeJfeiMip, and accept-
ing full responsibility for the direction imposed by t'«*> wUo said planning
should aim to meet needs) begin in this direction. Their personal role
concepts were spread, but emphasized that of the coordinator. On decisions,
a moderate trend saw a local viewpoint prevailing in goal conflicts, but
upheld the right of the planner or agency to decide what needs and alter-
natives should be considered, and to select the ultimate plan to be carried
out. While the public was placed first, the degree of planner control
sought was still high.
It is necessary that planners become aware that the independence of the co-
ordinator or consultant cannot be accompanied by the authority or unques-
tioning acquiescence of the clients. The public or its representatives
should have the power to select the final plan, and to make some input
into determining needs and alternatives, without affecting the planners'
involvement or moral commitment.
Personal Role
The preceding section has shown that planners have mixed, even confused,
views of the functions served by planning and of their personal roles with-
in it. The same range of opinion was evident in their choices when faced
with a series of specific alternative roles*3.
Once again, the primary desire of the majority was to seek a nondirective
or service oriented task. Nearly 40 per cent said that planners should
simply act to serve the public, and a further one in five felt that their
job was just to coordinate the work of all interested agencies and public
groups (Table IV-4). The role preferred was that of the technical advisor,
whose input is legitimized by being given in response to a request and by
the planner's expertise and professional standing.
43
-------
TABLE IV-3
Obiectives of Planni
ng versus Personal Role and Decision-makers
4
Q. G134 Planning Obiectives
(First Choice)
Directive
Q-
Q.
P24135
Personal Role
Planner should
fulfill (first
choice)
S6936
Should the public
have decision
making power?
Direct!, ve
Coordinate
Service
Yes
No
9**
3
4
3
M
16
Non-
Directive
14
11
13
14
li
38
Service
4
o I
11
11
4
15
Q-
Q.
Q.
Q.
S81a37
Who should
decide on
needs?
S81e38
Who should decide
what the best plan
is?
S80d39
Who decides on
what alternatives
are studied?
G13240
Who resolves
conflict between
local and national
goals?
Planner/
Agency
Public/
Congress*
Planner/
Agency
Public/
Congress*
Planner/
Agency
Public/
Congress*
National
view
Local
interests
8
7
I
8
12
3
15
8
6
14
20
17
17_
20
11
6
37
10
11
37
3
_12
3
-i2-
6
2
15
7
8
15
27
14
28
28
41
69
31
36
27
40
49
18
67
25
41
66
Public/Congress = decisions by public, U.S. Congress, state & local
interests or regional commissions, etc.
•k
Underlined numbers are those larger than the expected value if rela-
tionship was due purely to chance.
44
-------
However, in this case, there were nearly twice as many (39%, rising to 50%
overall) who sought one of the more directive functions available to plan-
ners. Accepted were such tasks as educating the public, having the ulti-
mate decision control over projects, and being able to actively promote
the project to outside interests. The implication is that these men were
more willing to rely on the authority of their own expertise33 than
previously.
i
The conflict expressed is a familiar one. The agencies' historical mode
of operation and the accepted task of planners, has been to serve, to re-
spond to the demands of the public and Congress. This view (Table IV-4)
still has considerable force, especially if the current role perceptions,
which heavily emphasize service (with the limited technical task being
quite strong)^l and coordination activities, are accurate.
However, there is a growing awareness of the need for a more independent
and comprehensive planning operation to cope with the increasing and inter-
related problems of the utilization of natural resources and maintaining
an adequate quality of environment. To achieve this, the planners evident-
ly feel that they should have more personal authority, freedom, and a better
educated public.
Despite this mixture of role perceptions, planners' feelings of efficacy
remained fairly high. Around 60 per cent said that their views received
some expression in agency policy^. The main mechanism was felt to be
through the influence of field decisions or comments on plans (33%). Others
(23%) felt they had opportunity for more direct influence through written
or verbal suggestions to their superiors. The major complaints were the
lack of communication channels available (20%) or the limited opportunity
to exercise initiative (11%).
Further, the planners desire for a policy input was even stronger. Nearly
90 per cent felt that they should be able to influence agency policy^6.
Thus, whether or not a directive role was openly sought, most expressed a
desire for at least some control of their agency's direction. The primary
reason (50%) given was that being closer to the problem, the planners could
best represent the viewpoints of local interests and understand field pro-
blems. Others saw policy as a field function because i most directly af-
fected those in the field. Only 11 per cent felt that they should influence
policy because they were the most competent to make such decisions, and this
was nearly balanced by those who said that planners lacked the expertise to
make a meaningful contribution.
The image (Table IV-5) which emerges is that those with the highest feel-
ings of efficacy, with confidence in their current role and who felt most
strongly involved in the plans of the agency, expressed a wish for a direc-
tive role. Those who saw themselves as currently functioning mainly as a
coordinator, as not emotionally involved and with a low ability to influence
policy, accepted a non-directive position. Those who wished to serve,
commonly also felt this to be their present function, still felt efficacious
but were mixed about their level of emotional involvement. However, there
45
-------
TABLE IV-4
Planners' Personal Role Preferences
4a,4b
1st
Choice
Directive
Educate the public about conse-
quences of water planning
Have decision making power to
determine direction of
development
Actively promote the project being
worked on
Initiate change to maintain progress
Independently form a plan -
get projects completed
Service
Act to serve the public
Serve in technical capacity
Coordinate (Non-Directive)
Coordinate all agencies and
interests
N - 70
12.9%
12.9
10.0
2.9
0
38.6%
38.67,
2.9
41.4%
20.0%
100.0%
Sum of 3
Choices
64.3%
37.1
22.9
27.1
2.9
154.3%
52.9%
5.7
58.6%
87.1%
300.0%
Current
Role
1.4%
7.1
10.0
2.9
1.4
22.9%
22.9%
18.6
41.4%
35.7%
10000%
were almost no indications, as occurred in the previous section, that these
personal role preferences were in any way related to planners' opinions
about where specific decisions should be made.
Overall, it appears that those who sought the more directive positions
actually have the greatest potential to fulfill the demands of a more
comprehensive planning approach. They were confident of their own ability
and displayed a greater sense of personal involvement in the nature of the
plans than their colleagues. However, in their zeal to plan effectively,
they should not lose sight of their ultimate purpose, which is to seek the
welfare of the community. This requires a greater degree of public control
than they are presently willing to accept (Table IV-3).
Those opting for consultant or coordinator positions appeared to be less
interested or willing to bear personal responsibility for their value judg-
ments than the above. Though seeking simply to serve the public is an
admirable position, it is not one which is truly available to planners
46
-------
TABLE IV-5
4a
Personal Role versus Present Role.
Level of Involvement C, and Personal Efftcacy4d
Planners' Personal Role
Preferences (First Choice)
Q.
Q-
P254Ia
Actual role at
the present
time
P2741b
Level of Emotional
Involvement
Directive
Coordinate
Service
High
Low
Directive
10
9
8
23
4
27
Coordinate
1
9
4
4
12
14
Service
5
7
11
20
9
29
a..
P2941=
Personal Efficacy — Yes
are field ideas in- No
eluded in agency policy?
17
8
25 '
5
2
14
20
7
27
16
25
29
47
23
70
42
24
66
today. Public servants are confronted with the need to trade off the de-
mands of conflicting value systems, and must face that they will limit
the personal freedoms of other men. Confidence and a degree of emotional
involvement may be just as valuable a basis for this as reliance on pro-
fessional objectivity. The "ideal" planner may no longer be the most in-
dependent, rational and professional individual. Rather, the need is for
men confident enough of their own integrity and expertise to be able to
also accept community direction of their plans.
Personal Goals
Downs describes the motives of officials as a mixture of goals from two
sources. All men, at least in part, act to serve their self-interest, or
to maximize their individual well-being. Examples are goals such as power,
money income, prestige, convenience and security. The second set of ob-
jectives arises from the "social function", that is, from the role an
individual fulfills in maintaining his part in society's division of labor.
Because these actions at feet others, they are externally valued. Personal
loyalty, pride in the proficient performance of work, the desire to serve
the public interest and commitment to specific programs of action are
applicable
43
47
-------
A planner is more heavily involved with the community than most officials.
Planning attempts to interfere with and manipulate the process of change.
The acceptance of social responsibility by planners should therefore be
particularly strong. There is also a high potential for planners to ad-
vocate a particular direction for reform or change. In sum, the reasons
given for choosing a planning positionlS were a fairly even combination
of self interest and social motives.
The primary selection was most frequently given as selfish in origin.
Convenience, or circumstances (being in the right place at the right time,
the ease of the transfer, the pressure of events, and having the skills
and training which best matched the job) were chosen by half the sample,
with a further 13 per cent claiming even narrower self-interest reasons
(wages, security, promotion, travel, etc.).
Pride in accomplishment, or in the challenge offered (the need for initia-
tive, policy involvement, variety of issues) was moderately popular but
was most heavily given as only a contributing reason for planning. The
most altruistic of all the alternatives, public service, was also more
commonly seen as a secondary motive. Even then, the selection was not
entirely selfless. A number of men had as much a program emphasis (plan-
ning mainly to promote the conservation of resources) as a service outlook.
The planners were overwhelmingly satisfied (88.6%) that whatever their
original motives had been, planning had proved to be a good choice of
profession^". Sixty per cent said that they would consider no other,
given a fresh opportunity^.
19
The explanations showed a slim majority of those claiming pride in meeting
the difficult nature of the task itself, and enjoying the sense of accomplish-
ment of rendering service to the public. Most of those dissatisfied had just
the opposite outlook to the first group; they disliked planning because of its
complexity and ambiguities. Only one man was unhappy because he felt a con-
flict between his own and the agency's goals.
44
Most of the planners would have been classed according to Downs as "conser-
vers" rather than "climbers", since they were generally non-aggressive, search-
ing for convenience rather than promotion^. Mixed motives dominated by a
service or advocate outlook were exhibited by about a quarter of the sample.
The high potential for advocacy was unfulfilled, with only four men accepting
that goal. No particular feeling for water resources, as opposed to any other
type of planning, apparently exists. Primary loyalty to the general welfare,
the position of the theoretical bureaucrat, was not as strong as anticipated
(or as it should be) although it was shown somewhat when the lesser motives
were included. In fact, and probably not unsurprisingly, there was little in
their personal goals to distinguish this group of planners from any other group
of professional civil servants.
48
-------
GOALS
A basic theme of this study has been that water planning should involve a cog-
nitive attempt to find means to satisfy community goals. A planner's identifi-
cation with the goals of his agency™ will strongly influence the nature of his
work, and may determine the sense of personal achievement he gets from it.
More important, perhaps, than whether or not the agency actually has goals, or
what they are, are the perceptions the individual has of them47.
The issue "Is your agency's planning directed by a set of long range goals?"
produced a slim majority (55%), who gave an unequivocal "yes." Six men saw
limited, unwritten, or goals set in ad hoc fashion for each study. A large
minority, 38 per cent, felt the agency did not have goals, or didn't know if
there were any".
The number in the minority is surprising and disquieting. It indicates that
over a third of the "planners" interviewed were not performing a real planning
function at all! This opinion was even shared by several individuals. Four
men said that they did not feel that they were planners. Another gave as his
chief source of frustration that he did very little planning, because as he
put it "the federal government does no planning, it just collects data."
There are four likely reasons for the size of this group. One is that the
agencies do not in fact have any goals. This can be discarded, since all the
agencies covered by the survey follow a number of federal acts or guidelines
specifying objectives (such as SD97^8f with goals of national development,
preservation and the well being of the people, the Water Resource Planning
Act of 1965^9, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969^0). Secondly,
although legally bound by such goals, the agency might ignore them in favor
of its hidden agenda. For instance, planning could be done merely to satisfy
certain constituents, such as congressmen or major economic interests whose
support is vital to the agency's prosperity. This was prevalent in the past.
Today the issue is less clear though certainly not dead. The third is that
knowledge of the legislation controlling their work is very limited at the
field level, and that the agencies do not give sufficient opportunity for
planners to get this exposure. This may well be true. It was noted earlier
that few of the planners had attended many meaningful courses or seminars
outside the strict engineering field. In answer to a question to assess
their familiarity with the laws8, fourteen men (or 21% of all the planners)
could list no laws passed in the last 10-20 years that had significantly
changed the quality of their work. Over 54 per cent named three or fewer
laws. One man commented that he could see little direct connection between
legislation and planning. Finally, it could be that because goals were not
considered to be of prime importance to planning, since the purpose was simply
to meet needs or solve problems, they were ignored. This is distinctly
possible*.
The distribution of those acknowledging goals, and those showing the greatest
knowledge of water resource legislation is interesting. It was felt that the
younger planners, more recently from the universities where there has been
increasing emphasis on the concepts of planning in addition to the strictly
technical aspects of engineering, might actually make more frequent goal
49
-------
claims. This was not the case; no significant differences along age, grade
or length of experience dimensions were evident. It may be concluded also
that the process of agency socialization towards its specific aims, which
should increase with time, is not directed towards, or effective in creating
an awareness of a goal structure.
However, there were better relationships between familiarity with the laws
and higher grades and longer service (Table IV-6). Age was still not a signi-
ficant variable. The operative processes were apparently the length of agency
exposure and the fact that longer term planners and supervisors have a better
chance of being chosen to attend planning short courses and special seminars
where the laws are likely to be discussed.
There were variations in goal perceptions between the various regions. The
Western and Northeastern planners were far more likely to say that the agency
had long range goals than those in the South and Midwest. Those in the West
have been involved with the development of untapped resources for national
economic growth, and in certain areas, preservation objectives. Northeastern
planners have been making studies on the Susquehanna River and in the Boston
region, where the multiple goal concepts of the Water Resource Council guide-
lines are being tried. In the South and Midwest these pressures and oppor-
tunities are less evident.
Both differences above give a strong indication of the increasing awareness
engendered by simple exposure to planning concepts. Programs aimed at the
younger men and planners with limited experience rather than primarily for
supervisors are needed.
The goal descriptions of those who said the agencies in fact had such long
range aims, support the view that there is a low level of understanding of
what these goals are, and continue to demonstrate the reliance on needs to
give plans their direction?. Less than half mentioned specific objectives,
or even the goal of national economic efficiency implied by benefit-cost
analysis. The multiple objective statements of SD 97 or the latest Water
Resource Council proposals, were given by 13 per cent, and economic develop-
ment and management aims by a like number. Seventeen per cent responded
that their goals were simply to meet the needs and to provide service to the
public. A fifth had even more limited concepts, giving that their goals
were to build water control structures or to provide for water uses such as
water supply, navigation, flood control, etc.' Of those who said there were
no goals, six people talked of working to meet needs. Four men showed an
awareness of the broader goal concepts, but maintained that in fact, though
available, the agency did not use them?.
The service goals can hardly be faulted since they are mentioned in almost
every law, but they are too general to be accorded much significance. The
considerable proportion (19%) who saw as goals what should be considered as
part of the means available to achieve ends such as economic growth, showed
a definite lack of understanding of what constitutes a goal. Of those who
said there were definite agency objectives, less than half showed a real
knowledge of what they are, or an awareness of what they mean54. Overall,
about 70 per cent of the planners are apparently working without genuine
long range goals. The evidence of a perception that planning is just a
50
-------
TABLE IV-6
Q. G107 Number
0
14
D - Grade51
Planner GS-11 & 12 J.3
Supervisors GS-13, 14,15 1
52
D - Planning Experience
Years Under 10 6
10 and over J5
of laws
1-3
23
11
, 6
JJ
6
g
mentioned
4-7
33
15
18
15
18
Goal Claims by Geographic
Region
Q. G124 Does agency have long
Yes
53
D - Region
Far West, West, Northeast .33
South and Midwest 5
38
Some
2
4
6
70
45
25
38
32
i ?6
range goa Is •'
No
Don't know
16 51
9 18
25 69
response, without real initiative, is further strengthened. There is an
evident need for those in the planning sections of agencies to be exposed
to some of the broader concepts of their jobs, and even more basically,
simply to be made aware of the legislation that controls their agency, what
its aims are and how it has been interpreted in specific agency guidelines
and planning rules.
51
-------
Current Goals of Water Planning
A slow change in national priorities is occurring. The traditional over-
riding goal of progress through economic growth is being challenged by
those emphasizing the quality of life over material affluence. This is
particularly true in water resources. The primary target of national
economic efficiency is faced by demands to openly consider regional and
local growth and environmental preservation. Even strictly social aims
must be reconciled. The catchall "to protect the well-being of the people1'
may be acquiring a more specific meaning.
At issue is whether or not these new or revitalized goals are also being
accepted by the planners. It is important because it should provide an
indication as to how ready the agencies are to move into these areas.
From an organizational standpoint, it may reveal whether a unified outlook
exists among their field offices. Downs" points out that goal concensus
is essential to a true decentralization of authority.
9
Among a set of economic goals the primary identification was with the na-
tional good. Maximum economic growth was the first choice of 39 per cent
of the sample. Nearly as popular was the essential conservations aim of
maintaining the resource base57. Since both have been basic to the work
of the Corps and BuRec, the result was expected, but was still strong
enough to indicate some identification with the agencies' purposes.
However, considering the overall sum of three goal choices, while these
two remained strong, the preference for more limited goals such as re-
gional or local growth opportunities and control over regional development
were stronger-^. Since national government interference in state water
development is not yet fully accepted although its necessity is becoming
evident, this demonstrates one of the realities of planning. While the
surface justification for a project is made on national grounds, the job
of field planners is to solve local problems, and they must satisfy the
demands of their immediate constituents (especially the Congressional
delegation) in order to get necessary support. Thus income redistribution,
used in the sense of maximizing a subsystem's growth, was well supported.
However, when more directly phrased as "to redistribute income from the
rich to the poor," the concept was rejected, probably because of a basic
conservatism among the engineers and an incomplete understanding of the
goal.
National defense was included because it is almost always used as part
justification for Corps projects. It received little attention, confirm-
ing its status only as window dressing.
9 11
The choice of environmental goals ' was confused by the inclusion of the
very general and easily accepted objective "to enhance and improve the
environment," which overwhelmed the other alternatives5^. in spite of
this, the responses showed the growing desire to meet some of the nation's
current non-economic demands. The popularity of the "ecology" image5^
was demonstrated by its 70 per cent selection when all rankings were summed.
52
-------
Recreation was often mentioned, but was weak in comparison to the present
public demand and its frequently decisive weight in justifying plans.
Limited support for activist positions, such as the preservation of unique
areas and population control was also shown.
When a choice between the economic and environmental alternatives was
forced9*10*11, the latter remained strong. Again the unassailable nature
of the first environmental alternative was partly responsible. Even so
the trend away from economic ends was probably significant60. In view of
the fact that the benefit-cost ratio, which measures a project's relative
contribution to the nation's economy, is a universal criterion among the
agencies, the selection of national economic growth was quite low. Also
when the responses were regrouped into three broad categories emphasizing
economic growth, resource management and protection of the environment
respectively (Table IV-7), 70 per cent opted for the latter two over a
pure growth philosophy!^, it was interesting to note that population con-
trol remained as popular a choice overall as it was when just in the en-
vironmental group, indicating the existence of a small but committed group
of activists11.
Although due in part to the restriction on the interviewees choices, a
greater emphasis on national goals was also demonstrated. Income redis-
tribution and regional or local ends received little support. When the
possibilities were sufficiently limited, it was the more general public
responsibilities, reflecting the official agency position, that were
given, rather than the day to day demands of community involvement.
The division by agency on goals also reflected their legal functions.
Corps planners emphasized economic growth and gave moderate support to
environmental alternatives. BuRec was strongest on management aims. FWQA
went for the environment, and to a lesser extent management ideals.
TABLE IV-7
„ . 9,10,11,12
Water Resource Goals
Sum of 3
1st Choice Choices
Economic growth emphasized 30.47<, 81,1%
Management emphasized 27.6 88.5
Environment emphasized 42.0 130.4
N = 69 100.0% 300.0%'
53
-------
TABLE IV-8
62
AGENCY VERSUS GOALSJgHOSEN
Q. G128; Corps BuRec FWQA
Goal Emphasis;
Economic growth
Resource management
Environment
16_
9
18
43
4
6
5
15
1
4
_6_
11
21
19
29
69
Further support was given for the contention that the planners feel that
the agencies should move more strongly into planning for the environment-1-'.
Economic goals were viewed as overemphasized by nearly half of the sample,
while only fifteen per cent felt that they have received inadequate atten-
tion. The reverse was true for the environment, although over a quarter
saw some overreaction in the current wave of concern^3. Population con-
trol again received its core of support.
64
Significant by its general omission was mention of social goals . They
were neither felt to be overemphasized or not being met. This could indi-
cate either a lack of understanding of the social influence of water plan-
ning, or simply that planners don't see them as being part of their re-
sponsibility. Over the entire survey, in fact, little evidence of a
strong social consciousness was found.
One other facet of the responses was that, in both instances, over twenty
per cent apparently accepted the current approach to water planning, or,
at least could not think of any deficiencies. No completely new or dif-
ferent goals were suggested either. There was certainly no evidence from
any of the respondents of a perception that major problems were being
overlooked.
Breaking the goal preferences among the different groups of planners
(Table IV-9) it was apparent that our preconception that social and en-
vironmental questions would be better received by the younger men was
borne out in this case. Planners in the GS-11 and G-12 grade, under forty,
and with less than ten years agency or planning experience, chose environ-
mental or management goals over economic ones and were more likely to feel
that the latter had also been overemphasized. Older men said that too much
effort had been spent on social and environmental considerations and that
economic objectives were most important. This result was probably caused
by the educational emphasis now being placed on the broader aspects of
planning, the fact that the present environmental crisis is heavily youth
supported, and the generally more idealistic nature of younger men.
54
-------
TABLE IV-9
Goal Emphasis* versus Age, Grade
, Service
Q. G128 - Goal
D
D
D
- Age
Years
- Grade66
Planner
Supervisor
- Agency Service
Years
_ . Manage-
Economic
ment
21
Under 40 8
40 & over _13
GS-11 & 12 11
GS- 13 ,14, 15 10
Under 10 6
10 & over JJ>
19
il
6
11
6
12
1
Emphasis
Environ-
mental
29
15
14
11
8
16
13
Overemphasized Goals versus Age
D
D
D
A 68
- Age
Years
- Grade69
Planner
Supervisor
70
- Agency Service
Years
Q. G129
Economic
30
Under 40 18
40 & over 12
GS-11 & 12 21
GS~13S14,15 9
Under 10 19
10 & over 11
69
36
33
45
24
34
35
s Grade, Service
- Overemphasized Goals
Environ-
mental
19
7
11
8
H
4
J.5
Social/
Population
4
0
4
1
1
1
1
53
25
28
30
23
24
29
10 11 12
Using first choice goals only ' ' - See Table IV-7
55
-------
There was also a slight indication that a regional difference existed.
Western planners7^- tended to view economic goals as having too much weight
while those from the industrial and populous East, Midwest, and South felt
that the environment and social factors were overstressed72.
•7O
SD 97 states that the overriding determinant in considering the best use
of water and related land resources must be the "well-being of the people."
The only real clue to a specific meaning is that "care should be taken to
avoid resource use and development for the benefit of the few or the dis-
advantage of many." General goals of this type are part of many laws and
planning guidelines7^. They are usually viewed as catchalls to cover any
contingency omitted directly. Because SD 97 fs "well being of the people,"
and a similar phrase, "the common good," are so frequently used, and do
indicate an attempt to ensure that some consideration is given to the social
influence of plans, an attempt was made to find out what they convey to
planners-^.
A wide range of responses was given. By far the largest (57%) was that
these clauses were meant to remind planners that the ultimate object of
their attention was a human being, and not the statistical, technical or
economic detail and regulations faced on a day to day basis^. This general
theme had several subdivisions. The main one (20%) was that they meant that
the people should be given what they want; that the interests of the public
should be served first. A second group saw them in physical terms, as en-
suring the health (13%) or the highest standard of living (12%) of indivi-
duals. Four men discussed them as a guarantee of individual liberty and
rights, and three said that the concern was the quality of life. The
second response (22%) was the one included in SD 97, that the good of the
majority, "the greatest good for the greatest number," was being protected.
Some put this in reverse order, tnat the fewest should suffer when a major-
ity is served.
Other minority definitions were more specific. Local needs, the environ-
ment (20% overall), and economic good were all mentioned^. An unexpected
description was that they meant that planning should be futuristic, far
sighted, looking beyond just immediate problems and needs. Nearly one
fifth also mentioned their catchall or safety-valve function.
All the aims given were valid ones. The motives demonstrated by the largest
group were for the first time openly human centered. However, the question
was directed this way. It may be more important that over forty per cent
failed to use this choice. Even within the majority, only seven men really
showed concern for the individual.
! f-
If social goals are to be served by water planning (inevitable even if not
consciously done) there is obviously a need to have them more directly
spelled out in legislation and agency regulations. Planners must be made
aware of what they are and how they should be incorporated in their work.
General statements of the type presently relied on do not give the leverage
required to ensure social goals equal weight when compared with economic
benefits and the environment.
56
-------
Generally, It appears that a reasonable goal concensus around current
economic and conservation goals exists both among the planners as a general
group and by agency. Environmental goals received heavy support, but main-
ly in a broad sense, not in the more single purpose, action oriented alter-
natives. There was no evidence of major dissatisfaction with the direction
of water planning, or that different offices emphasize Very different ends.
Although there was some goal division by age and experience, this did not
appear to be strong enough to create"real dissension.
* '
However, a readiness to accept a change in goals was apparent. The tradi-
tional objective of national economic growth is still accepted as valid
and should remain strong, but will be tempered by an increasing emphasis
on regional development or redistribution. Concern with the environment
was deeper than anticipated, and being held more by younger men, it would
appear likely that this will continue to grow. The planners' reassess-
ment in this area may have been more profound than the changes within the
agencies themselves, or at least than their new programs have yet shown.
New initiatives from Congress on control of the environment should receive
ready support at the field level.
The importance of social goals in water planning was not widely perceived,
or highly rated. An increase in community and Congressional pressure,
similar to that boosting the environment, will be necessary before social
goals receive full attention.
*- r' .'- - ' ,-.'
Goal Source and Decision
The perception of where and how goals are set is basic to the development
of an effective planning strategy. It establishes for whom the service
is intended, the planner's primary allegiance and thereby the reasons for
the choices made. It also provides some limits to the alternatives con-
sidered. Two facts are evident so far. Many planners have a limited
understanding of the general nature of goals. When given specific examples
both national and local objectives were accorded considerable weight, but
with the former dominant.
For the broad goals referred to above, the impression given was that they
are seen as resulting from a two-stage process3-5. They are suggested or
advocated at one level, but are confirmed and established by a different
group (Table IV-10).
The initiative was felt to come primarily from the public through the ar-
ticulation of a need or through public pressure on a legislator for a
particular local project. When the need receives sufficient support or
publicity, it then becomes an agency goal. This latter decision was almost
always seen as belonging outside the public's authority, being made by
Congress or the Executive^, and occasionally also at the agency level.
The concept here is a specific and immediate one. The goals are actually
the ways in which the response to the need should be made, and do not
necessarily direct long term change or development. The means to the end
57
-------
TABLE IV-10
Goal Initiative Goal Decision
Public pressure, public Congress and/or the
articulation of needs 55.9% Executive 66'27»
Federal Government/ Federal agency or
agency, commission 20.6 commission 25.0
Special interests/
business or preserva- Compromise •«••->
tion lobbies 16.2
No specific source - part None - part of society 5.9
of the fabric of society 5.9
No answer 4.4 No answer 4.4
N = 68 100.0% N = 68 100.0%
is the goal, not the end itself. It is an incremental view of the planning
process, the same concept discussed previously in postulating that most of
the interviewees saw themselves as consultants. (These comments also apply
in the less frequent case where the initiative was felt to come from the
special interest groups.)
The other main method given reflects the rational-comprehensive model con-
cept that goal setting is wholly a governmental prerogative. Federal
agencies, or commissions, make a study of a general pattern of needs or
of the nation's progress in some field. From this analysis any necessary
new directions for grotwh and change become evident and are made part of
the agency's goal structure. The initiative is internal and results from
rational choices, not political pressure. The ultimate decision is again
out of the public's hands.
A third, quite small group, felt that goals were not set as the result of
any identifiable choice by Congress or the agency, though they may be legi-
timated by them. Rather the objectives are a natural outcome of the in-
teraction of man and the resource base, or come from the pattern of society's
behavior and general beliefs. It views change as self directing, and if
carried to its logical conclusion, eliminates the need for planning at all.
The two major change processes given above would require quite different
minimum77 planning strategies. If the first operates, the function of the
planner is mainly to coordinate7^ the various interests that determine the
need and pressure Congress into setting the agency goal. However, because
he possesses bureaucratic authority (the ultimate decision is not controlled
by the public) and since it is to the agency advantage to maintain the
public's interest in and contribution to the planning (the more needs that
58
-------
are raised, the greater the agency responsibility), the planner's actual
strategy could go beyond this, to the semi-directive role of the coordin-
ator-catalyst7 °. In the second case, since the community has little or
no direct role, the entire planning operation occurs within the agency
and the only public participation necessary is to provide information.
Up to this point, the main thrust of the discussion has dealt with national
and long range objectives. As already shown, less comprehensive goals
were also considered as significant. Further evidence was added by the
fact that 94 per cent of the planners said that regional and local objec-
tives influenced their planning, with 90% viewing them as important16.
Expectedly, they describe very specific means, with the two most common
being economic growth and the need to provide projects for flood control,
water supply, irrigation, and so forth. Recreation and the environment
also received moderate attention. An interesting, though not simply a
water related goal, was the desire for autonomy from federal government
control.
Obviously, these goals are quite similar to those given by many planners
as long range agency goals?. Again, the indication is that while certain
national objectives may officially guide programs, the perceptions and
allegiances felt at the field level are actually restricted to the needs
of the local community. Actually, these may best be described as "wants"
rather than needs. They represent the limits of local desires, and are
not necessarily subject to any objective criteria, of real value added,
to be considered valid. The important issue is how a conflict between
these local demands and the national interest is resolved1?. Here the
planners' view attributed the majority control to the regional or local
groups1?.
A pragmatic outlook emerges. When broad goals are considered alone, the
decision can rest with national spokesmen. But, faced with local demands,
the reality?^ for a planner is that they must be met first, since this
is where program support lies.
The response calls into question the structure of national objective based
planning, especially the measurement of benefits "to whomsoever they accrue."
A project's impact is locally concentrated and has very diffuse impact
nationwide. If the planners' goal weighting is valid and carries over
into their plans, then the most effective results will be achieved at state
and local levels.
59
-------
QUESTION SUMMARY—CHAPTER IV
!- Q. G93 "A plan is many things to many people. What do you think
a plan is?" (Full listing in Appendix 3)
Means to an end 58.0%
Blueprint ' 30.4
Analysis 11.6
100.0% N = 69
Features;
Contains goals 24.6%
Works to needs 47.8
Analyzes alternatives 26.1
2'- Q. G94 "What distinguishes a "good" plan from a "bad" plan in your
opinion?"
Features of a "good" plan; 1. 2. 3.
First Second
Choice Choice Total
"Good planning"--considers all
alternatives, flexible,
comprehensive, etc. (1)= 46.4% 21.7% (1) = 68.1%
Achieves its objectives,
is realistic. (2)= 21.7 13.1 (3)= 34.8
Economically feasible,
technically sound, 11.6 30.4 (2)= 42.8
•
Meets public needs and desires;
fulfills commonly held objectives. (3)= 14.5 17.4 31.9
Well presented, lucid. 2.9 8.7 11.6
Makes the optimum use of resources;
causes minimum damage 2.9 7.3 10.2
69 100.0% 98.6% 198.6%
Note; The numbers beside the percentages (as (1)= 46.4%) indicate
the rank of that alternative.
60
-------
3. Q. S96 "How would you improve the present planning process?"
Increase the resources per study
Use planning teams, improve planners skill
levels, more multidisciplinary concepts
Improve policy, evaluation criteria
Increase planner/field autonomy
Improve coordination/communication
Improve leadership
Reorganize agency structure
No answer
N - 68
33.9%
20.6
13.2
10.3
10.3
4.4
2.9
4.4
100.0%
Q. G134 "Another important aspect of goals is what you feel the
objectives of the planning process are. From the list,
choose the three that best describe the purpose of your
planning."
Percentage of those ranking
the alternative as:
1st
Choice
Directive
(a) To prepare a document
describing project
alternatives (3)=13.0%
(e) To show a way to achieve
socially useful results 4.4
(g) To show ways to achieve
economically useful
results
(i) Implement plans/optimum
cost effectiveness/
course of action
4.4
1.4
Service
(c) Meet the agency's
responsibility to
the public
2nd
Choice
21.7%
7.3
17.4
1.4
3rd
Choice
16.0%
8.7
24.6
1.4
23.2% 47.8% 50.7%
Summary
(3)=50.7%
20.4
46.4
4.2
121.7%
(2)=21.7% 16.0% 23.2% (2)=60.!
21.7% 16.0% 23.2%
60.9%
61
-------
Non-Directive
(b) To provide a basis
for meeting future
water needs (1)= 45.07,
(d) Standard to measure
progress to water
resource goals
(f) Anticipate change
(h) Illuminate alternative
futures
N = 69
21.77.
7.3% (D = 74.0%
8.7
0
10.2
1.4
13.0
0
31.9
1.4
1.4
2.9
5.8
55.17,
36.27o
26.17o
100.07o 100.07, 100.07,
10.1
117.47,
300.07,
The direct sum of the number of choices of any one alternative,
A weighted sum could have been used, reflecting the effects of
1st, 2nd choices, etc., but tests showed that it wouldn't have
significantly changed the ordering of the marginal percentages
relative to each other.
4a. Q. P24 "A water planner can serve a number of purposes in the
course of his work. From the list of possible roles
that a planner could assume, choose the three you feel
are most important."
Percentage of those ranking
the alternative as:
Directive
(b) He should actively
promote the project
he is working on
(d) He should educate the
public about the pos-
sible consequences of
water resource
planning
1st
Choice
10.07,
2nd
Choice
8.67,
3rd
Choice
4.37,
Summary
22.97,
(3)= 12.9
32.9
18.6 (2)= 64.3
(e) He should have the
decision-making power
to determine the dir-
ection and type of de-
velopment needed (3)= 12.9
4.3
20.0
37.1
62
-------
1st 2nd 3rd
Choice Choice Choice Summary
(f) He should initiate
change whenever he
sees progress slow-
ing down 2.9 14.3 10.0 27.1
(h) Independently form a
plan - get project
completed 0 1.4
38.6% 61.4%
Service
(a) He should serve in a
technical capacity only 2.9% 0 %
(g) He should act to serve
the public (1)= 38.6 8.6
41.4% 8.6%
Coordinate (Non-Directive)
(c) He should coordinate
all agencies and inter-
est groups involved in
any project (2)= 20.0% 30.0%
20.0% 30.0%
N = 70 100.0% 100.0%
4b. Q. P25 "Which of all these descriptions (P24)
your present job?"
Directive
(b) Promote project
'(d) Educate public
(e) Decision-making power
(f) Initiate change
(h) Independently form plan
Service
(a) Serve in technical capacity
(g) Serve public
1.4
54.3%
2.9%
5.7 (3) =
8.6%
37.1% (1) =
37.1%
100.0%
most nearly
10.0%
1.4
7.1
2.9
1.4
22.9%
18.6%
22.9
2.9
154.3%
5.7%
52.9
58.6%
87 . 1%
87 . 1%
300.0%
fits
41.4%
63
-------
Coordinate
(c) Coordinate all interests 35.7%
LOO.0% N = 70
4c. Q. P27 "Would you comment on your level of emotional involvement
in the success or failure of the plans you work on?"
High •"• Moderate Involvement
Highly involved 34.3%
Moderately involved 28.6
Try to be detached but fail to do so 4.3
67. 2%
Neutral or Low Involvement
Somewhat detached 21.4%
Completely detached - objective 10.0
31.4%
Disillusioned 1.4%
100.0% N = 70
4d. Q. P29 "Do you feel that the ideas and opinions of the field plan-
ner get much expression in the policy of your agency?"
Yes - 51.4%; Sometimes - 8.6%; No - 34.3%
Don't know - 5.7% N = 70
Yes - "How?"
Through planning decisions, review
comments 32.9%
Written, verbal suggestions,
minority report 22.9
55.6%
No - "Why not?"
Work strictly to manuals, set pro-
cedures, no opportunity to
exercise initiative ' 11.4%
Lack of communication channels,
length of chain of command 20.0
Policy should be a Washington level
function - field lacks time and
ability to make policy 7.1
37.1%
64
-------
4e. Q. P30 "Do you think that the field planner should be in a posi-
tion to influence policy?"
Yes - 88.6%; No - 8.6%; No opinion/Don't know - 2.9% N = 70
Yes - Why?
Closest to problems - understand local
feelings best 50.0%
Policy affects field plans, and is
most affected by field decisions 15.7
Field planner'scompetency is high 11.4
Policy is part of planner's daily task 5.7
Give planner incentive, motivation 4.3
No answer 1.4
88.6%
No - Why Not?
Field competency limited 7.1%
Policy should be made in Washington 1.4
Go by experience 1.4
Field impotent 1.4
11.4%
4c. Q. F32 "Do you think it is necessary for a water resource planner
to have an engineering background?"
Yes 40.0%
Yes - at present, not in the future 2.9
Yes - engineering training, not a degree 5.7
Yes - because system works this way 1.4
50.0%
No, not necessary but, nevertheless,
helpful 15.7%
No 34.3
50.0% N = 70
Q. P35 "Who should lead such a (multidisciplinary planning) team?"
Engineer 42.9%
Best leader - independent of discipline 50.0
Economist, social scientist 7«1
»T 14
No answer *••*
100.0% N = 70
65
-------
5. Q. G131 "Do you prefer to work under a set of specified goals,
or would you rather have the freedom to respond to needs
as they arise?"
Goals - 27.6%; Both - 7.3%; Needs within goals - 11.6%;
Needs - 53.6% N = 69
6. Q. G124 "Is your agency's planning directed by a set of long range
goals?"
Yes - 52.5%; Yes, but they change - 2.9%; Limited, unwrit-N
ten or set own on each study - 8.7%; No - 29.0%; Don't
know - 8.7% N - 69
7. Q. G125 "Would you describe these goals?" (G124)
Multiple objectives/SD 97 goals 13.0%
Economic development
Management of the resource
Service - meet needs
Means/functions (w/s, f.c.,
irrig., etc.)
Self preservation
N = 69
13.0%
11.6
1.4
17.4
18.8
1.4
63.6%
20.4%
18.2
2.2
27.4
29.6
2.2
100.0%
N = 45
8. Q. G107
"Has there been any legislation in the past 10-20 years
which has significantly changed the quality of water
resource planning? Describe what it was and its effect,
Which laws were most important?"
Water Quality Acts 54.4%
1969 Environmental Policy Act 33.8
Recreation Act 25.0
Water Resource Planning Act of 1965 23.6
Senate Document 97 16.2
Water Supply Acts • 14.7
Fish and Wild Life Acts 14.7
Flood Control Act of 1958 (multiple
purpose projects) 7.3
Requirements for interagency
coordination 7.3
Flood plain authority - flood
insurance bills 5.9
Regional studies (Chesapeake/Appalachia) 4.4
Beach Erosion and Navigation 4.4
State Legislation (non Federal acts) 4.4
PL 89-72 - Makes f.c. and recreation
nonreimbursible 2.9
Establishment of Water Research
Institutes at Colleges 2.9
Preservation of Historical Sites 1.5
Land and Water Conservation Acts 1.5
66
-------
Operation Foresight (Emergency Flood
Protection) 1.5
Wild Rivers Bills 1.5
Small projects authority 1.5
Small watershed development 1.5 N = 68
Frequency of number of bills mentioned by each planner:
0 20.6% 4 20.6%
10 5 20.6
2 14.7 6 5.9
3 19.1 7 1.5
100.0% N = 68
9. Qs G 126 "Here is a general list of possible broad economic goals
to be sought in water resource planning. Choose the three that
you consider most important and rank them. Add any you feel are
omitted."
Q. G 127 "Here is a general list of possible broad environmental
goals to be sought in water planning. Choose three and rank."
Q. G 128 "From the six goals you chose above pick the three you
feel are most important and rank them."
67
-------
C
WATER RESOURCE GOALS
Q. G126 & G127
Individual Choices
Sum of
1st choice 3 Choices*
10. Q. G126 Economic Goals
Maximize national
economic growth
Maximize regional
economic growth
Maximize local
____ economic growth
Maintain the resource
base (recycle)
Redistribute income
from rich to poor
Promote national defense
Control the growth of
regions
Other - equity /he lp
underdeveloped areas
local needs/control
growth /provide
amenable life style
N = 69
(1)= 39.2% (1)= 69.67«
(3)= 8.7 (2)= 66.7
5.8 44.9
(2)= 37.7 (2)= 66.7
0
0
4.3
4.3
100.0%
5.8
5.8
33.3
7.2
300.07o
11 . Q. G127 Environmental Goals
Control population
growth
Other - redistribute
population
Supply recreational
_ opportunities
Enhance and improve
the environment
Enhance fish and
wildlife
Ensure ecological
principles are met
Preserve unique
natural areas
Preserve unique
historical areas
(3)= 10.2% 33.37,
0 1.4
5.8 (3)= 53.6
(1)= 71.0 (1)= 94.2
0 11.6
(2)= 11.6 (2)= 69.6
1.4 36.3
0 0
100.07.
300.07o
Q. G128
Overall Ranking
Sum of
1st choice 3 Choicesj
(2)= 23.27o (2)= 47.87o
2.9 24.6
4.3 8.7
(3)= 13.0 (3)= 44.9
0
0
0
1.4
0
2.9
5.8
5.8
10.27o
0
2.9
18.87o
0
10.2
(1)= 34.8 (1)= 76.8
0 2.9
7.2 (3)= 44.9
0 5.8
0 0
100.07o
300.07o
The Sum column is the total percentage of those ranking the alternative as
their 1st,, 2nd, or 3rd choice.
68
-------
12. Condensed Categories
A - Economic growth emphasized
B - Management emphasized
C - Environment emphasized
13,
1st choice
30.4%
27.6
42.0
100.0%
Sum of
3 choices
81.1%
88.5
130.4
300.0%
Q?. G129 "What goals do you feel are overemphasized or not being met
at the present time?"
Overemphasized Not being met
Environmental. 28.0%
Economic 44.1
Social 1.5
Population control 4.4
No answer 22.0
51.5%
14.7
2.9
10.3
20.6
N = 68
100.0%
100.0%
14. Q. G133 "In Senate Document 97, a general goal states that overriding
all other objectives must be considerations protecting 'the well
being of the people1 or 'the common good'. What do you think these
terms mean?"
1st choice 2nd choice Summary
Human or individual considerations
(health, happiness, rights, etc.
emphasized)
Good of the majority or the nation
Local needs guaranteed
Protect the environment
Economic good
Make plan futuristic
Catch-all safety valve
Don t know
57.0%
21.6
6.1
4.6
1.5
3.1
4.6
1.5
4.6%
12.3
3.1
15.4
12.3
1.5
13.8
--
61.6%
33.9
9.2
20.0
13.8
4.6
18.4
1.5
N = 65
100.0%
62.0%
162.0%
15. Q. G130 "With respect to the formulation of goals such as those
above, how do you believe they are arrived at?" (Ref. Q. G126, G127)
Goal Initiative
Public pressure/publicly
articulated needs 55.9%
Federal Government/
agency/commission 20.6
Special interests/
business or preser-
vation lobbies 16.2
No specific source, part
of fabric of society 5.9
No answer 4.4
N = 68 100.0%
Goal _Decision
Congress and/or Executive 66.27»
Federal agency or
commission
Compromise
None, part of the fabric
of society
No answer
25.0
1.5
5.9
4.4
100.0%
69
-------
>• S^_2i32 "Do regional and local, objectives affect your planning.
Yes - 94.1%; Unsure - 1.4%; No - 4.4%. N = 68
"Are they important?"
Yes - 89.7%; Sometimes - 1.4%; No - 2.9%; No answer = 5.9% N = 68
"What are. they?" 1st Choice, 2nd Choice Total
Economic growth 41.2% 19.1% 60.3%
Means/functions (W/S, f.c.,
irrig., etc.) 44.1 20.6 64.7
Environment/recreation 5.9 28.0 33.9
Local/regional autonomy 4.4 8.8 13.2
Planning service 0 2.9 2.9
No answer 4.4 — 4.4
N = 68 100.0% 77.4% 177.4%
17. Q. G132 "How do you resolve conflict?" (Between local and national
goals.)
National viewpoint Local viewpoint
„ national spokesman 17.7% . local/state interests 38.2%
. agency decides 13.2 . compromise 16.3
. economic, criteria 4.4 . no conflict—goals
. Congress decides 1.4 same 5.9
36.7% 60.4%
No answer 2.97,
N = 68
i
18. Q. G22 "As a water resource planner, you must have some personal
reasons for choosing this profession. What do you feel, are your
primary reasons for this choice?"
Primary Second Total
Reason Choice
Convenience:
force of circumstance, suits
personal abilities 50.0% 14.3% 64.3%
Pride:
challenge, initiative needed, inter-
disciplinary stimulations policy
involvement 20.0 44.3 64.3
Services
water planning needed, relevant, help
conservation, public interest,
community involvement 17.1 27.1 44.3
Self-interest:
wages, promotion, travel, variety
of experience 12.9 17.1 30.0
N = 70 100.0% 102.9% 202.9%
70
-------
19 . Q. G23(a) "Have you been satisfied with your choice of occupation?"
Yes - 88.6%; Ambivalent - 8.6%; No - 2.9% N = 70
Reasons:
Satisfaction Dissatisfaction
Pride 30.0% Task complexity
Service 22.9% Task narrowness
Self-interest 11.4 Agency goals wrong
Convenience 10.0 No answer
Educational 8.6
No answer 5.7
88.6%
20. Q. G23(b) "What other profession would you consider given the choice
again?"
No answers - 44.3%; None other - 15.7%; Other branches of engineering
- 18.6%; Medicine/dentistry - 15.7%; Law - 8.6%; Teaching - 8.6%;
Urban planning/architecture - 7.1%; Natural sciences - 7.1%; Business
- 5.7%; Physical sciences - 2.9%; C.P.A. - 1.4%; Journalism - 1.4%;
Pharmacy - 1.4%; Flying - 1.4% N = 70
71
-------
NOTES--CHAPTER IV
21, Francine F. Rabinowitz, City Politics and Planning. Atherton Press,
1969, Chapter VI.
22. Martin Rein, "Social Planning: The Search for Legitimacy", Jour. Am.
Inst. Planners. Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, p. 233.
22a. General notes about all statistics used.
(a) The summarized answers to all questions used in a chapter are
listed in a "Question Summary" at the end of each chapter.
General footnotes follow directly after the questions, numbered
consecutively. Tabulation of the original, unreduced response
categories are published under separate cover, available through
the Engineering-Economic Planning Program, Civil Engineering
Department, Stanford University.
(b) All percentages quoted in the text will be rounded to the near-
est whole number. The sample size, unless specified otherwise
for certain questions was 70. Thus each individual represents
1.4% of the total. (1 = 1.4%s 2 = 2.9%, 3 = 4.3%, 4 = 5.7%,
5 = 7.1%, 6 = 8.6%3 7 = 10%)
(c) For open ended questions the percentages quoted are normally
those made up by the most important responses to each question.
These categories are mutually exclusive and will sum to 100%.
However, commonly more than one answer was given to each ques-
tion. These secondary choices were also recorded. (See Chapter
III, Survey, "Data Coding and Analysis" for more details.) Oc-
casionally a quoted answer will give the total percentage of
responses to a category, which will be the sum of the most impor-
tant or initial answer, plus the secondary choices. In this
sum, the category percentages are no longer mutually exclusive
and will sum to more than 100%. See for example Q. G94 in the
question summary.
The most important response percentages are given in column 1,
and sum to 100%. Secondary responses given in addition to the
major answer are tabulated in column 2. The total percentage
of times any particular response was given, is the sum of 1 and
2, given in column 3. Normally,, the relative importance of the
larger categories is unchanged between column 1 and 3. The
smaller groups, however, may and commonly do change in relative
magnitude. Usually, sums will be omitted unless they signifi-
cantly change the balance of the primary choices, or it is the
total response which is more meaningful in the analysis and
discussion.
23. 35 - 45 years old.
24. Essentially the rational-comprehensive process model, described in
Chapter II„
72
-------
25. See the. definition of "a planner" in Chapter III, "Survey".
26. Charles E. Lindblcm, ojg. jcit.
See also Chapter II, "Planning1 Process".
27. Such as the 1 year "Planning Associates" program of the Corps or some
of the. '.inlversity based planning schools, as at Stanford, Wisconsin,
Corne.JJ.s ecc.
28. Since the ultimate, actual results lie in the future, only the poten-
tial, effects and the motivation the plan displays can be used as
assessment points.
29. This dichotomy was placed directly before the planners in Q= G131:5
"Dc you prefer to work under a set of specified goals or would you
rather have the freedom to respond to needs as they arise?"
Although this question was biased by the word "freedom" as applied
to needs, the emphasis that planners respond to, and prefer to work
to satisfy a "need",, rather than work under a set of goals or guide-
lines is clear. The reasons given for the choice emphasize this.
467» stated that satisfying needs gives planners the greatest flexi-
bility, they are able to best express their individuality and that
having goals restricts the alternatives available. Another aspect
to needs was that they were felt to lead to action rather than just
documents or-words, needs have an immediacy that goal directed plan-
ning lacks (970, The main reason given for the goal choice (227,) was
that goals are needed to give planning a direction, to ensure that
the. overall task is kept in perspective.
30. In the distinction being made here between goals and needs, there is
no attempt to diminish that planning operates to satisfy needs and
solve problems. Most legislation controlling water resource planning
opens with a phrase that the overall objective being pursued is to
meet the needs, short and long term, of the public. The point that
requires clarification, is that a need should not, or cannot be de-
termined without reference to some goal. To identify a need, there
must be a public objective which is not being attained. A performance
gap or discontinuity is created, causing friction or pain to somebody,
who then brings it to public attention as a need. Thus simply to talk
of meeting needs or solving problems, without reference to the goals
which caused them, indicates a limited understanding of the full
nature of planning.
For example, if the goal is the preservation of life, because we hold
it sacred, then a loss of life caused by a flood raises the need for
flood control measures to prevent further loss. If life was not
highly valued, then no goal to preserve it would exist. The loss of
life by floods would then not create a problem, and no dams for that
purpose would be needed. If the goal is maximum economic growth, the
existence of unused resources makes it possible that their development
would boost, the economy. This creates a need to find means to exploit
73
-------
them for this purpose. If the goal was preservation, then the econ-
omic "need" would vanish, and be replaced by a "need" to find means
to stop possible changes.
31. This division is a little uneasy. The categories are certainly open
to interpretation.
32. A comprehensive discussion of the question of sources of legitimacy
of planning, and possible strategies to combine them for optimum ef-
fect in different circumstances is given in the article by Martin
Rein, op. c i t. The sources he mentions are the authority of exper-
tise, bureaucratic position, consumer preferences and professional
values. Legitimacy strategies proposed for social reform are the
concensus of elites, rational analysis and citizen participation.
33. Fifty per cent of the sample felt that an engineering background was
necessary to qualify a water resource planner (Q. P32)^f and 43 per
cent said that an engineer should lead any planning team (Q. P35)^ .
34. Using only the first ranked responses, 1st column, Table IV-2.
35. N = 69, Chi Square = 11.67, 4 degrees of freedom, level of signifi-
cance = 0.02. (i.e., only 1 in 50 times is the relationship expected
to be simply a chance occurrence.)» The significance level of all
tables will be quoted in the notes. For clarity, all tables are
given in the actual numbers of responses, rather than percentages.
As a general rule, in all tables presented, major values that are
higher than would be predicted by chance, will be underlined. The
expected or chance value for any cell is calculated as follows:
In a 3 x 2 table, for examples
A
D
A-HD
B
E
B+E
C
F
C+F
A+B4C
D+fi-ff
' A+B+C+D+E+F = N
The exp_ec_tecl value in the upper left cell, say X1 is:
v JAJJ3) • (A-HB4-C)
Xl * N
and in the lower left cell, say Y. iss
v (A+D) • (D-ffi+F) , . .
Y. = -» '"" -*— *• and so forth.
Sidney Siegel, Non-Parametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.
McGraw Hill, 1956, p. 97~~~~'
74
-------
36. N=69, Chi Square=10.06, 2 degrees of freedom, level of signtf.=0.01.
37. N=67, Chi Square=5.37, 2 degrees of freedom, level of signif.=0.10.
38. N=67, Relationship not significant.
39. N=67, Chi Square=10.88, 2 degrees of freedom, level of signif.=0.01.
40. N=66, Chi Square=4.62, 2 degrees of freedom, level of signif.=0.10.
41. Which would indicate that nearly a fifth of the sample saw themselves
as performing a function with somewhat less than the initiative that
our definition of a planner demands. Again, although we sought to
sample only those beyond the strictly technical phases of planning,
some were obviously included.
41a. N=70, Chi Square=12.15, 4 degrees of freedom, level of signif.=0.02.
41b. N=70a Chi Square=13.42, 2 degrees freedom, level of signif.=0.01.
41c. N=66, Chi Square=6.19, 2 degrees of freedom, level, of signif .=0.05.
42. Anthony Downs, ££. cit.. p. 82-85.
43. Though as Downs points out, these are not all "pure" in the same
sense as the self interest goals. Loyalty, pride and program em-
phasis are mixed motives, since they can, and usually do contain
elements of self interest as well as altruism.
44. Anthony Downs, op. cit., p. 88-89.
45. For instance, when their ultimate grade objectives were compared with
their current level, no extreme ambition was found. Many GS-11 and
12's were content to remain so, and most viewed their limits as in
the next available group, GS-13 and 14, mainly GS-13. The GS-13 and
14's were a little more promotion minded, most seeking at least a
GS-15, but a number also accepted the fact that they would go little
further.
Q. G16 "What is the highest position in the organization you think
you will ultimately achieve? What GS level?"
Q. G16 Ultimate Grade Ambition
D. Present Grade
GS 11&12
GS 13,14,15
GS
11&12
10
0
10
GS 13&14
24
11
35
GS 15+
9
14
23
43
25
68
75
-------
46. Hopefully agency and community goals are the same. Officially this
is usually so, however certain unwritten, or "hidden agenda" goals
of an agency, such as that it should grow, etc., may show consider-
ably more self interest.
47. Of course, to ensure an unidirectional coordinated policy, all plan-
ners should be aware of the same goals.
48. Senate Document 97, op. cit.
49. Water Resource Planning Act, PL89-80, August 1965.
50. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
51. N=70, Chi Square=11.0, 2 degrees of freedom, level of signif.=0.01.
52. N=70, Chi Square=5.35, 2 degrees of freedom, level of signif.=0.10.
53. N=69, Chi. Square=9.69, 2 degrees of freedom, level of signif .=0.01.
54. A good question is whether or not a detailed knowledge and under-
standing of agency goals should have been expected. At certain levels
it would be irrational for individuals to give the time to absorb de-
tails of bureau activities (Downs, op, cit.. p. 237-8). All that is
needed is acceptance of the broad viewpoint, or ideology, of the
agency. Are GS-11&12 planners of sufficient influence to require
more than such general orientation? The rationale for this study
makes just this point. Where any significant degree of influence
exists, or is potentially available, which is true for the planners
surveyed, comprehension of the entire goal structure is necessary.
55. Anthony Downs3 ££. cit., p. 223.
56. "Conservation" as used in its fullest sense, not just as in its
recent identification with the preservation-conservation movement.
57. It was not very clear whether this choice demonstrated a "true"
conservation philosophy, or was caused by identification with the
explanatory phrase "recycle resources" in the statement, which has
had so much media popularization recently.
58. As one planner pat it, "to be against that you would have to be
against motherhood and apple pie!" Questions, G126, G127, G128S and
G129 were, in general, all subject to the problem of planners giving
us the answers they felt were most acceptable today, or that we wanted
to hear, rather than what they really believed were important.
59, The National Environmental Teach-In,, or "Ecology Day" was held April
22, 1970, during the first week of our field interviews.
76
-------
60. A Gallup Poll taken at the same time as the survey indicated that
reducing pollution of air and water ranked second only behind crime
and ahead of several economic measures as the public's chief concern,
61. Using first choices only. (Table IV-7) (Notes Nos. 10, 11, 12.)
62. N = 69. Relationship not significant.
63. As was also found in Chapter VII, "Nature". See the discussion of
the Environment, and the "Nature and the Public" section.
64. As most of these answers followed the categories of G126, G127, the
emphasis on social goals given was probably more limited than that
actually held by the planners.
65. N-69, relationship not significant.
66. N=69, relationship not significant.
67. N=69, Chi Square=5.99, 2 degrees of freedom level of signif.=0.05.
68. N=53, Chi Square=6.37, 2 degrees of freedom level of signif.=0.05.
69. N=53, Chi Square=5.44, 2 degrees of freedom level of signif.=0.10.
70. N=53, Chi Square=9.11, 2 degrees of freedom level of signif.=0.02.
71. West—all. offices west of Dallas.
72. Location
Or G129 Overemphasized goals
Economic
\
Environmental
Social
73. Senate Document 97, op. cit., p. 2.
74. Water Resource Council guidelines, op. cit.
• 3.
75. "Executive" here denoting the Office of the President and Cabinet
level decision makers. The agency is below this.
76. No conclusive judgment as to which is more valid can be made. Each
operates under certain instances.
West
22
n
1
34
East/Midwest
South
8
8
3.
19
30
19
4
53
77
-------
77. The strategy chosen depends also on why the public is included. If
it is just done for appearances, or to expedite the plans., a minimum
involvement will be sought. If it is to provide the public a real
degree of control over the planning, any strategy with greater parti
cipation could be used.
78. A. Bruce Bishop, op. cit. , Chapter III.
79
A reality which predictably increased with age and experience. The
younger, less experienced men were still idealistic enough to believe
that the national good was paramount, while those over 40 and with
more than 5 years agency experience were far more likely to accept
a compromise or local control.
Q. G132 Goal Resolution
National
Control
. 80
Age
Years under 40 17
40 & over 8
A • 81
Agency experience
Years under 5 11
5 & over 14
25
Local
Control
19
22
5
16
41
36
30
16
50
66
,80. Relationship not significant
81. N=66, Chi Square=6.92, 1 degree of freedom, level of significance
= 0.01.
78
-------
CHAPTER V
SOCIO-PQLITICAL ENVIRONMENT
Planning has no intrinsic value. It is given meaning only through the
people it affects and by the way it determines their future. Without
reference to the social environment it serves, and by which in turn it
must be controlled, it is worthless.
The fundamental act of planning is to make decisions. As Simon26 pointed
out:
"... the process of decision does not come to an end when the general
purpose of an organization has been determined. The task of 'decid-
ing' pervades the entire administrative organization quite as much
as the task of 'doing'..."
Further, the range and type of decisions involved in planning are broad
and varied. A common distinction is that made between policy and adminis-
trative issues, although it is often difficult to clearly differentiate
the two. Administrative decisions always carry some policy implications,
but there is certainly some hierarchy of choice.
These factors raise a question that all planners must answer. Who should
make decisions? Who has the responsibility and the right to impose their
values on others?
It is an important choice for several reasons. It reveals to whom, and
for what reason, the individual gives his loyalty. The cdice is a pre-
requisite to the selection of a planning strategy, since it reflects the
planner's assessment of who makes the decisions, and the measure of control
available at the different levels. Acceptance of the ability and motiva-
tion of the various authorities will also be necessary.
There are many possible decision makers in water resources, the public,
the Congress, the President, administrative agencies, special interest
groups, state and local government, regional commissions and individual
planners. Four received particular study; the public, Congress, the
agencies, and the planner. Because of the current demands for greater
involvement of the general citzenry in planning which affects their wel-
fare, attitudes towards, and opinions about the public and their possible
role, received the most attention. A major omission was that too little
time was given to the decision functions of states and regional authorities.
The Public
Because of the frequent use of the phrase "the public," it is necessary
to establish just who this term connotes. Who is included in, or consti-
tutes, the public?3
79
-------
The majority (over 60%) felt that the public were expressly those people
within the region covered by the plan, or those directly affected by any
proposed project^. This would normally range up to the extent of a river
basin and include those who would benefit (or be penalized), individuals
interested in the project, and those who receive official notification of
the agency's proposals. Around half of the planners (the two groups were
not mutually exclusive) were less specific, defining the term to mean
"everybody," the general taxpayer, or simply all those outside government.
The ease or glibness with which these latter answers could be given dimin-
ishes the impact of their more general view. The image held was apparently
mostly that of a limited population, essentially those living in the re-
gion served by a particular planning office, and included individuals
rather than organized groups or the bureaucracy. The idea of serving all
of the people, or the nation as a whole, was not strongly held. The rela-
tive environment was statewide, rather than national in scope. The concern
felt probably represents the product of a pragmatic appraisal of just whose
needs the local office can hope to serve (and from whom it gains support
for its proposals), and the individual's natural parochialism.
The above was reinforced by the responses to two questions asking the plan-
ners to spell out the public groups or interests they would take account
ofl, and any they felt were not sufficiently considered^, during the plan-
ning process.
Geographically, the emphasis given was on regional, state and local or
city organizations. National agencies or interests were the first choice
of less than twenty per cent on either question. Of the groups which would
be included, those at the local level (city councils, irrigation and flood
control districts, businessmen and conservationists) were the most fre-
quently mentioned (44%). State agencies ranked second (31%) .
Planners' relative environments were restricted in more than just an areal
sense. Examining the same questions '^ for t^e function or type of inter-
ests seen as presently represented in planning, a strong emphasis on other
resource agencies was found. Over 80 per cent of the groups given were
part of the federal, state or local government structure. Only ten men
said that their primary contact was with organizations of private indivi-
duals, conservationists, taxpayers or ad hoc committees. Reinforcing this
point, the people whose views were given as being inadequately represented
were normally outside the bureaucracy (individual taxpayers (29%) and
informal, or ad hoc organizations (20%)). Nobody felt that any agency was
being omitted.
The indication is that within organized planning interests, there is a
limited, or closed, set of professionals involved, whose communication is
largely confined to one another. Without considerable resources or influence,
individuals and private groups would find it difficult to penetrate their
deliberations, much less modify their recommendations. Thus, though the
public being served is mainly composed of private individuals, it is not
their viewpoint which receives the majority of the planners' outward at-
tention, but that of their fellow bureaucrats^?.
80
-------
While sympathizing with the desire to conserve their efforts, it is ques-
tionable whether in today's context, limited public horizons geographi-
cally or by organization, are actually available to planners. They are
supposedly bound to consider the national economic good. More importantly,
the social and environmental influence of projects often goes beyond river
basin or state boundaries, and the need is for national (in the future,
perhaps even world wide) coordination of plans to ensure an effective ap-
proach to solving problems. The field planner's responsibility toward a
broader sphere, a multi-state, or national public, is more important now
than ever before.
Further, given current demands for more representative and publicly re-
sponsive plans, the need for informal and grassroots inputs independent
of institutional preconceptions and demands is growing. The reasons for
the planners apparent rejection of attempting a mass public contact goes
beyond its high cost and difficulty. They also reflect the generally low
opinions of the planners toward the possible contributions the public or
other nonprofessional decision makers can make to water resource plans.
Image of the Public
The attitudes held about the public (accepting this term to denote the
individual citizens of a state or region) were decidedly negative (Table
V-l).
TABLE V-l
4
Planners' Opinions of the Public
Unsure
Ability Agree /Maybe Disagree
a. Competent to make technical judgments? 12.9% 2.9% 84.3%
e. Well informed on water planning issues? 25.7 11.4 62.8
Objectivity
d. Not easily swayed by emotional arguments? 2.9 1.4 95.7
Motivation
b. Highly interested in public works? 55.7 8.6 35.7
f. Unselfish? 14.3 11.4 74.3
Structure
c. Cohesive over interests affecting their
welfare. 34.3 2.9 62.8
81
-------
The public's abilities were regarded as being very limited. Over four
fifths of the planners said that people generally lacked competence in
technical areas and nearly two thirds that they were unaware of the issues
involved in a planning decision. The implication of these attitudes is
that since there is little benefit to be gained by including the views of
those considered unable to understand the plans, the pressure to seek out
a public input is low.
The possible causes for such perceptions are two fold. The limited nature
and imperfections in the current methods used by the agencies to include
the public in planning273, and the consequently restricted contact between
the planner and individuals in the community, may have resulted in the plan-
ner developing a low estimation of their ability to help him. Secondly,
though the general information media today are highly efficient, there is
no guarantee that the public is, in fact, any more aware or competent than
previously. Part of the responsibility for any limitations in their abil-
ity, however, lies with the agencies, through their failure to fully use
the means available to give the public sufficient information or analysis
of project consequences upon which to base a worthwhile judgment.
Actually, a vicious cycle operates. The lower the planner's opinion of
the public, the less information they are given, the greater their inabil-
ity to comprehend plans and the lower their incentive to participate. Con-
sequently, public pressure to be heard is smaller, their frequency of con-
tact with the agency is reduced, as is their planning impact, and the lower
the planner's opinions of their views.
The only way to break out of such a spiral is to attempt to include their
views in plans while at the same time educating them about the planning
goals and consequences. It will be a hesitant and costly process. How-
ever, since the public was marginally felt to be interested in water re-
sources, their assimilation of such data, and feedback of opinion could
at least be considered probable, which is incentive enough to try. The
potential gains in the responsiveness of plans is high.
A possible obstacle to planners' acceptance of such an attempt is the low
opinion held of public objectivity. Their susceptibility to emotional,
nontechnical argument, was accepted without reservation by 60 per cent
of those sampled, and at least partially by all but three men^. Planners,
on the other hand, prefer to assume a neutral or independent position.
The mass of subjective analysis within a plan is condensed to provide a
numerical tradeoff, such as the benefit-cost ratio, whose influence is
assured by its endorsement by Congress. Yet, if the public (whose needs
are to be met) can be convinced of a project's worth by nonquantitative
arguments, then perhaps more emphasis on such issues is justified. Plan-
ners need to be shown that qualitative evaluations may be at least as
valuable as that which has frequently become an artificial numerical
exercise27^.
Compounding the problem of persuading planners of the value and practi-
cality of community involvement in water management was the view that the
public lacks organization. They felt that even when the community's own
welfare was directly involved, the public's cohesion, or singleness of
82
-------
purpose was low. The problem is how to get a coordinated viewpoint from
a heterogeneous public. Since they apparently represent no monolith of
opinion in the planners' eyes the pressure to include their viewpoint in
a plan is small.
Finally, although a majority conceded that the public were interested in
public works, they were also classed as being generally selfish, rather
than concerned about the general welfare4*28*29. Such perceptions may be
accurate, but they carry a negative connotation. They do not augur well
for planner or agency acceptance of community control of planning, espe-
cially since these perceptions apparently color planners' attitudes toward
different decision makers. It was evident that when positive motives were
attributed to the public, goal resolution was viewed as a local rather than
a national function and the ultimate decision on a plan as belonging to the
public, states or Congress, rather than the agency or the planner. Where
the people were considered uninterested, or selfish, then national or agency
or the planner. Where the people were considered uninterested, or selfish,
then national or agency control was desired^O (Table V-2).
TABLE V-2
Public Motivation versus_Decision Powers
,Q...S72b Public Interested in Works?
-
Q. G13231'32
Who should resolve
conflict between
national and local
goals?
<
National
Viewpoint
Local
Interests
Yes
8
_28
36
Unsure
4
2
6
No
13
11
24
25
41
66
Q,S72f Public Self Seeking
Q. S81f25'33
Who should
decide what
the best plan
is?
Planner/
Agency
Public/
Congress/
States
No
1
3.
10
Maybe
1
2
7
Yes
11
29
50
27
40
67
Underlined values are those that are larger than would have been
expected purely by chance.
83
-------
The evidence of a variation in these opinions among groups of planners
was contradictory. Younger men distrusted the public's motives more than
their seniors, but tended to accept their competence. The older, more
experienced and supervisory grade individuals believed the public was
interested, but were less sanguine about their ability (Table V-3).
TABLE V-3
Public Imaee Held ^versus Age
Motivation
D - Age34
Years Under 40
40 & over
D - Grade35'40
Planner GS-11 & 12
Supervisor GS-13,14,15
O £
D - Agency Experience
Years Less than 10
10 & over
, Grade
Q. S72b
Yes
39
15
24
•^••-•••••^••••^•••••^••••••i
22
JL7
16
23
and Experience
Public
Unsure
6
3
3
6
0
J5
1
4
Interested?
No
25
JJL
7
• • i r mi •! •
17_
8
11
12
Competency
D~Age37
Years Under 40
40 & over
•DO
D-Grade
Planner GS-11 & 12
Supervisor GS-13,14,15
39
D-Agency Experience
Years Less than 10
10 & over
Q. S72e
No
18
JJL
7
14
4
JJ.
7
Public
Unsure
8
1
3
2
1
.6
2
70
36
34
45
25
34
36
Ignorant?
Yes
44
20
.24
24
2Q
17
1Z
70
36
34
45
25
34
36
84
-------
The second^trend is easier to explain than the first. Engineering schools
now emphasize the role of, and possible gains from, community involvement
in planning, with a consequent acceptance among newer graduates of the
public s ability in this area. The older men have had less presure to
discard the professional's traditional mistrust for a layman's opinions.
The longer theeexposure to the limitations of normal communication channels,
hearings , public notices, etc., in generating usable public input into
planning, the greater the disillusion about public knowledge, or capability
to make a contribution. The idea that people today are, on the whole, bet-
ter educated, is probably stronger among the younger men who actually bene-
fited from the modern system.
It is more difficult to understand the reversal between groups in the atti-
tudes toward public motives, since the pressures mentioned above should
still be operative. Possibly, youth's common rejection and reevaluation
of society's values and political structures is carried over into a general
distrust of the public will by younger planners. Youth is usually activist
in outlook and, by comparison, may tend to view the majority of people as
passive or uninterested. Older planners have a longer perspective with
which to judge the public's influence, and probably tend to see it as aver-
aging out with a positive benefit, or at least as well intentioned.
Public Role
The attitudes expressed so far indicate that planners should prefer the
public's role within water management to be a limited one. Thus, the ini-
tial reaction to the issue of their inclusion in planning was surprising-*»^^.
Sixty per cent said that they felt that the public sbould be more involved^j
and about two thirds that they should be given the results of all alterna-
tives which are studied, not just one or two of the most desirable or
feasible!3.
However, it was clear that involving and informing the public did not con-
note control by them. The primary reason given for people to be included
was that it was part of their democratic right6. Society should know what
its government is doing, be aware of anything which affects its welfare,
and be informed on the purposes for which its taxes are intended (46%).
This motive leaves the individual in the passive role of recipient of the
planners' conclusions, rather than participant in their formulation. A
few had far more self interested motives. They saw direct public acceptance
or endorsement of a plan as the easiest way to expedite its passage through
Congress6. Public opinion was considered as a means of coercion rather than
as a source of information for the planner.
Only ten per cent of the group felt that more public involvement was neces-
sary because an input from the public could be useful to them, or because
the public's will should be considered.
Suggested methods given for achieving public participation made the lack
of power even more evident7. Just two men would have allowed the public
direct or partial control over planning, such as through referendums on
important questions, or the influence of lobbying organizations. Fifteen
85
-------
per cent said that public help should be sought, but only in an advisory
sense. People should give information, serve on committees, submit peti-
tions, answer opinion polls, and so forth, but should not interfere with
decisions. The biggest group (37%) thought that if current methods were
improved, or used more frequently (more hearings, public notices, etc.)
that this would adequately represent the community view.
At best, preference for a strategy of information or placation of the pub-
lic was indicated. Often they would be co-opted'2, an(j at WOrst, simply
manipulated^. The desire for public involvement was triggered by a.
desire to create better plans in only a few instances. Mostly the reaction
was to find the easiest way to fulfill a legal requirement or agency policy,
or to use the public as a means of expediting the plan.
When the issue of public direction of the planning process through the
exercise of decision making power was more directly faced", the separation
in the planners' minds between a general involvement and actual control
was made even stronger. Those who said the public should be more involved
were only marginally more likely to seek public decision making power'4.
Fifty seven per cent said that the public should not have a decision-
making function during the planning process^. Of the forty per cent who
would have allowed this, none gave methods which involved any direct con-
trol leaving the agencies. All saw public decisions as an advisory tech-
nique^. The most powerful influence conceded was the indirect leverage
possible by voters through their votes for, and letters to congressmen
(13%). Other means acceptable to planners were public statements at hear-
ings, response to agency questionnaires and committee service (24%). The
initiative was felt to belong to the agencies. The public was expected
to wait until being asked before they should make their views known'.
The rationale for limited public power was largely based on the opinion
that their competence was not sufficient for them to be given more respon-
sibility (44%)10>45. Others held the same view in terms of the necessity
for federal agency guidance of water planning to ensure uniform policy^•
Three men expressed the fear that if the general public was given more
control, only the opposition to agency proposals would be interested enough
to participate, and that progress would be stifled'7.
Another factor in the rejection of greater outside control was that most
planners (87%) felt that the public already possessed a degree of decision
making influence^. Again, however, its impact was mainly advisory (75%)
rather than directive-^. Commonly it was given as being exercised through
the imposition of pressure on elected representatives (46%). This lacks
immediate force, but at least demands public initiative. It is obvious
that one issue to be resolved in discussing community involvement in plan-
ning is just what degree of power should be relinquished.
It is this writer's personal feeling that given enough incentive and oppor-
tunity, people will get involved, and that the effort is valuable enough
to warrant the high information cost of real public participation's5 since
it is an exercise in democracy in its fullest sense'9. Further, many of
86
-------
the tradeoffs made in planning are so subjective that expertise is not the
only qualification for those who should arbitrate over them. Society or
its elected representatives, has the right to determine its own values.
Whether or not the public are in fact willing to make this effort is open
to question. Some surveys have shown that many claim to be ready to give
substantial time and effort to community programsSO. Planners, however,
are apparently reluctant to believe this, and it forms an important barrier
to their acceptance of public decision-making. The only way to overcome
such fears or confirm their validity is to experiment with the different
means available->l.
The desire for an increased public role was only weakly more manifest among
the younger, less experienced planners than in the group over forty years
old or with more than ten years agency service^. The younger planners
were far more likely to see limitations in current agency-public communica-
tion than their supervisors. There were no significant differences among
those accepting or rejecting public decision making. The greater strength
of the belief in public competency held by youth, overcame their own dis-
trust of public motives and the older planners' pragmatism. On the deci-
sion-making question, the effects of the conflicting attitudes held were
to cancel each other out.
Two other variations in these attitudes were of interest. Corps planners
were, on the whole, ambivalent (Table V-4) about more community involve-
ment, which could reflect the current sfeate of flux in this agency's
thinking. The evidence is that the Corps is in transition from a construc-
tion orientation, to a broader planning philosophy. BuRec planners tended
to accept a more traditional attitude limiting the lay input to plans.
FWQA, a young organization, without fully established modes of behavior,
were overwhelmingly in favor of the widest possible contributions to their
planning. In addition, men with the highest demonstrated awareness of the
legislation, were most likely to have a favorable view of increased public
involvement. Those without such knowledge were against it.
Congress
Because the public interest is involved, the planning of water projects
is inevitably a part of the political arena, regardless of planners' claims
to objectivity or neutrality. Since Congress has the ultimate power of
appropriation over federal water resource agencies, a planner's opinions
of Congress may affect his work as much as his attitudes toward the public
itself.
The general public does not normally hold "politics" in high esteem.
Usually the reaction is that political bargaining is somewhat underhand,
but nevertheless necessary. In water resources, the reputation of the
"pork-barrel" phenomenon is similarly tainted. Many view it as a mechanism
by which congressmen can promote favor with their local districts61, re-
gardless of cost to the nation as a whole. The outlook is seen as un-
avoidably parochial62 and selfish63.
87
-------
TABLE V-4
Increased Public Involvement in Planning versus Agency
and Knowledge of Legislation
c
Q. S68 "Should the public be more involved...?"
59
D - Agency
Corps
BuRec
FWQA
Q. G107
Knowledge of 0
legislation:
Number of
laws mentioned 4-7
Yes
42
24
7
jj.
2
i§
.?1
No
28
19
8
I
12
7
9
70
43
13
12
14
23
33
The planners' perceptions of Congress were more favorable than this. The
largest group (44%) attributed their interest in water planning to a genuine
desire to serve the interests of the nation, the public and their consti-
tuents!^. A few expressed a similar view, but couched it in the more spe-
cific terms of a desire to promote economic growth. Only around a quarter
saw their motives as "political: or mainly self interested, that is, to be
re-elected, to gain political power, or to be identified with a popular
cause. A number (18%) viewed the effort as a response to public or con-
stituency pressure. It was not clear, however, whether this was considered
primarily an act of self protection*^, or a demonstration of a desire to
serve those with real needs whose interests congressmen are elected to
protect. Both opinions were probably present.
In addition it was felt that Congress served a national constituency (45%)
rather than just regional or local interests (28%)1*. Many planners felt
the interests of congressmen were not simply parochial, but went well beyond
the welfare of their own districts.
In view of the common negative connotation to political decision making,
these attitudes were more positive than expected. Possibly planners wished
to vindicate the judgment of those setting the overall direction of their
work. Further, when asked whether or not their agency was involved with
"pork-barrel" projects, forty-five per cent flatly denied that any such
activity existed, and another 15 per cent said that it was extremely rare^A.
88
-------
Just over a third felt that there was any real truth to the "pork-barrel"
concept. The general view was that self-interest decisions are now rare
though the problem was more important earlier. The attitude within Congress
itself toward the desirability of projects has apparently changed in recent
years. Mainly because of the increased activity of the environmental lobby,
large water projects are no longer always considered to be an unalloyed good.
Thus, there has been a movement toward a broader consciousness on the part
of Congressional and other national decision makers, and the planners' per-
ceptions reflect this change.
One result of this moderate opinion of Congressional motives is that the
general attitude toward Congress' control over water development decisions
was very favorable. Most planners (84%) felt that Congress should have full,
or at least most, of the power to determine the direction of development^.
The primary reason given (43%) was that since Congress was elected to re-
present and protect the welfare of the people, they had the legal authority,
and the control over the public purse, with which to make such choices^,65.
Others (12%) saw in them the expertise, broad vision, and sensitivity to
public wishes necessary for those who should direct national planning ef-
forts. Three men also sought Congressional control as an effective control
over other development agencies and the Executive. A number (10%) were even
less idealistic. The reason they gave for Congress to make the ultimate
judgments was because there are no alternative decision makers with suffi-
cient authority to replace them. Those against Congressional power felt
that their decisions are too self interested (19%), that Congressmen are
no more qualified to judge the issues than the public (11%), or that better
alternative decision sources may be found in the states, local interests,
or in the executive branch (9%)16.
However, when the issue was restated, a more critical attitude emerged.
Nearly half said that water resource policy would be improved if the
decisions were taken out of the political arena, with an equal number oppos-
ing this view19. Those in favor mainly disliked "political" motives, such
as the need for re-election, log rolling, the pork barrel, etc. (34%)20.
Others felt that decisions made outside Congress would be more rational,
that the long term viewpoint would receive better attention, and that it
would be a more efficient process (7%).
Those who supported political decision making were most impressed by Congress'
ability to make valid choices (21%)20. They felt that Congress was respon-
sive to the public, that it held a national viewpoint, and that it ensured
that benefits accrued to the majority. Thirteen per cent took the pragmatic
view. If Congress didn't make the decisions, who else would? Even if there
were other arbitrators, there was no guarantee that the results would be
any better.
Only seven men had the perception to see that because resource allocation
is a political process, its arbitration belongs in the political arena.
Bargaining was seen by these men as the legitimate process by which politics
should be set. It was felt to be the best means to include the broadest
possible spectrum of interests in the ultimate direction of development.
89
-------
16 19
The shift of opinion in the responses to these two questions ' , apparently
indicates a separation in the minds of the planners between the institution
of Congress, and the political decision making process. The institution is
accepted as the legal source of policy, with a proven desire to serve the
public and the ability to allocate resources equitably. The process, how-
ever, is viewed with less trust, since it is both subjective and self
interested. The desire for a more objective system was strongly supported.
This dichotomy was weakly corroborated by the lack of a significant rela-
tionship between the two questions15' . Those who felt that Congress should
have all, or most of the decision power, were only very slightly more likely
to see political decision making as desirable, and vice versa"6.
The attitude toward the policy resulting from the political process varied
strongly from group to group (Table V-5). Men in the "planner" grades were
more in favor of attempts to rationalize decision making than their super-
visors. The higher the grade, the further men go beyond the technical tasks
of planning, and the greater the perception of the subjective nature of the
tradeoffs. The senior men show stronger acceptance of political bargaining
as a valid way to determine the direction of development. Planners, with
their much more limited horizons, do not as often see the overall structure
and significance of decisions and can remain more idealistic.
Corps and FWQA engineers were more satisfied with the policy resulting from
the political process than those from the BuRec. A possible explanation is
that the Corps has historically enjoyed strong support from Congress, whereas
the BuRec has been far more an arm of the Executive. Political bargaining
for projects has been of greater benefit to the Corps than other agencies,
and hence their acceptance of it. Reclamation depends heavily on local
support, and would be happier with an authorization system based on local
willingness to pay rather than having to rely on the collective judgment
of far-off and mainly non-involved politicians. FWQA has enjoyed the bene-
fits of the recent rise in environmental consciousness and its resulting
support by Congress.
Planners in the West were more likely to distrust the political arena than
those in the Northeast, Midwest and South?2. This was probably caused by
the agency bias, with BuRec entirely a Western group, strongly against
bargaining. However, the common distrust of Eastern politics and politi-
cians among Westerners may have had some weight.
An increasing understanding of the laws was accompanied by a belief in the
worth of the policy resulting from political decision making. Earlier, it
was shown that a similar trend indicated an increasing social awareness and
acceptance of the community's right to be involved in planning.
Congress-Agency Balance of Power
Congress establishes broad goals and policies by which federal water re-
source agencies are directed. It has the ultimate right to authorize pro-
jects and appropriate the money for their design and construction. Because
of its leverage, this role is jealously guarded by congressmen against
encroachment by the executive branch?-*. Yet, within the limits of policy,
90
-------
it is questionable whether or not ultimate authority of this type really
gives control over water development. Agencies and planners determine the
needs and alternatives studied, and usually reduce the final decision to
a choice between a restricted set of options, often just the ultimate go/
no go question. When alternatives are presented, they may serve essen-
tially only one end, and once project plans reach the authorization and the
appropriation stages, they possess a degree of momentum which is often
difficult to resist, or even divert.
TABLE V-5
Value of Political Decisions versus Grade. Location,
Agency and Knowledge of Legislation
0-S7j6 Would water policy be improved
if decisions were non-political?
68
D-Grade
Planner
Supervisor
69
D- Agency
70
D-Location
West--all
offices west
of and in-
cluding Dallas
and Ft. Worth
71
G107
Knowledge of
legislation.
Number of laws
mentioned.
^*«
GS-11&12
GS- 13 ,14 ,15
Corps
BuRec
FWQA
West
East, Midwest
and South
0
1-3
4-7
Miv^^^^^v^w^^^>wi^>^B^avw^B"«"*»*H'^*|v^
Yes & Maybe
35
11
8
19
12
4
15
10
19.
13
12
^atl^^i^^^^ffBB
14
IS
2
9
11
67
43
24
42
15
10
39
28
12
22
33
— ,. .— I lh 1 i "•""• -
91
-------
With regard to the freedom planners will display in selecting alternatives,
it is vital to know how much control they feel Congress actually exerts,
and what power they perceive as being in their own hands. Congress1 abil-
ity to authorize and appropriate money for projects was rated as having
the strongest influence on planning^7»18. Forty-three per cent felt that
it constituted complete control, arid another 39 per cent felt that, if not
quite all, most of the initiative belonged to Congress!7.
The primary mechanism of Congressional control was seen as being through
authorization and policy legislation (40%). Appropriations and fiscal
control were next, mentioned first by around 29 per cent, and overall over
half the sample acknowledged their importance^. Nearly a fifth, did not,
or could not, specify a method by which Congress.
Agency control also rated fairly high, but significantly less so than that
of Congress. A bare majority (54%) said that agencies wielded a high degree
of influence, but only one of this group felt that they could make any final
decisions^. A third rated agency power to direct water development as
only moderate and the remainder said that it was low and even non-existent.
Two primary management mechanisms were given as being operative. Agencies
can deliberately structure their recommendations to provide a certain plan-
ning direction (36%)24. or, they may control by default, that is, the
ultimate decision may be constrained by the many small planning choices and
interpretations made at all levels of the process, providing an inescapable
conclusion (30%). Other measures mentioned were the agency's authority
over a specific field of interest, their own political power, and the coor-
dination requirements now imposed on all groups.
A majority, nearly 60 per cent, saw definite limits to their exercise of
power. The major constraint was given as their inability to challenge the
demands of congressmen, or to refute purely political bargains (33%)'4.
Coordination regulations (13%) and their limited legal authority (11%) were
also felt to limit their autonomy.
In sum, both Congress and agency were conceded considerable power, but Con-
gress1 ultimate authority was generally viewed as being of greater impact
than the agencies' expert recommendations or ability to manipulate alter- ""
natives. However, a more important implication is that together these two
decision centers were felt to control most of the planning alternatives for
water development. Where the relation between them is a close one and they
share similar interests, as is especially true of the Corps, a matter for
concern is the difficulty of ensuring the accountability of all plans. As
Marshall7^ has shown, even the countervailing power of the President may
not provide an adequate adversary. It is a compelling argument for the
public, through locally representative groups or the states, to be given
sufficient resources to develop the expertise, to provide the system of
checks and balances which is the foundation of the U.S. government structure.
v ,
Agency Role
Most planners appeared satisfied with the existing distribution of influence
over water planning. Less than a third said that the agency should be given
more control over developmental.
92
-------
in their explanations, many (35%) were nonspecific, simply expressing the
feeling that current methods of control available to the agencies, and the
leverage they provide, are adequate for planning purposeS22. Others (16%)
thought that more power was irrelevant, since agencies enjoy only a limited
outlook and experience, and because their function should generally be
limited to one of non-directive service. Thirteen per cent wanted control
in the hands of the public, or their representatives in the state and fed-
eral legislatures and not with the agency.
The minority who did seek a greater role for their agency were divided by
two quite different motives. Sixteen per cent said that the planners'
expertise and knowledge of local affairs qualified them to determine direc-
tions. The remainder (15%) were chafing under their lack of autonomy, they
felt that the agency should decide what studies it would undertake, and
how its budget should be disbursed, without political interference.
These opinions were apparently generally held throughout the entire sample.
In particular, no differences between the agencies sampled were evident.
Decision Makers
Op to now, only the planners' general attitudes toward the social-political
environment have been investigated. This revealed that Congress was con-
ceded primary control over planning, that the agency was also seen to have
considerable influence, but apparently subordinate to Congress1, and that
the public was given a very limited decision role, except as a source of
information.
The planning process contains many types of decisions, ranging from the
choice of techniques of analysis and types of data used, through the
determination of needs and alternatives up to setting overall goals or
establishing the directions for development. Commonly, these are not
discrete choices, since each can have an effect on several other related
options. As an example, the final aims of a plan can be as strongly in-
fluenced through the projections of the needs to be met, or by the alter-
natives studied, as by the direct goals specified by law. Since planners
are making such decisions in various forms, their perceptions or opinions
of how some of those most frequently encountered are, and should be made,
were investigated25.
The selection of alternative decision makers was made broad, and included
the planner, his agency, Congress, the general public, state and local
groups and any combinations of them. Unfortunately, the separation be-
tween the planner and the agency was not made as clearly as it should have
been, and many men were confused as to the difference intended. (What was
sought was to divide those decisions which are largely part of agency rules,
manuals, established procedures, etc., from those that a planner makes
based on his professional training, initiative and personal judgment).
Thus, although the two were recorded separately, except where the Qiffer-
ences were extreme, they really should be considered as one identity. The
other sources were grouped into a multiple or coordinated set of decision
makers (see note to Table V-6), the general public or state and local
interests, and the U.S. Congress25,76.
93
-------
TABLE V-6
Decision Makers
,25
g. S8Q
Who ultimately decides?
a. Project economic
life
b. Economic/population
projections
ce Water needs
d« Alternatives
studied
e. The best plan
Q.S8125
Who should decide?
a. Water needs
b. Goals or objectives 19.4
c. Relative merits of
economics and
environment
d«, Alternatives
studied
e» The best plan
*
Planner
1
16.4%
L
23.9
35.8
40.3
29.8
34.3%
19.4
13.4
44.8
26.8
Agency*
61.7%
64.2
20.9
32.9
32.9
11.9%
13.4
13.4
14.9
13.4
Multiple
Decision
Maker**
0%
6.0
26.8
13.4
16.4
22.4%
16.4
11.9
22.4
19.4
Public/
States/
Locals
1.5%
1.5
12.0
6.0
7.5
28.4%
29.9
25.4
15.0
21.0
U.S.
Congress
14.9%
4.5
3.0
7.5
11.9
3.0%
20.9
34.4
3.0
19.4
Don't
Know
4.5%
0
1.5
0
1.5
0%
0
1.5
0
0
Agency - Planner's own agency or a single alternative agency, such as
the Bureau of the Budgets Office of Business Economics, Economic Re-
search Service, Water Resource Council, etc.
Multiple Decision Maker - Combinations of all, or some of above—
commonly planner or agency plus states and locals; Congress plus
states and locals; regional commissions and coordinating committees.
94
-------
As Table V-6 reveals, the choices of planning criteria and techniques were
mostly seen as being agency functions. The role of those outside the
bureaucracy received little recognition, beyond the small group who said
that Congress sets the criteria. While these perceptions of the importance
of the agencies' role in providing institutional guidelines are largely
valid, they nevertheless may undervalue Congress1 control of their opera-
ting criteria//. When it specifies a goal, Congress often establishes the
means and levels to gauge their attainment, as for example their require-
ment that for national economic good the benefit-cost ratio should exceed
unity, or that air and water quality standards should reach a particular
level by a certain
Within the planning task, decisions as to needs and alternatives were pri-
marily held to be the responsibility of the individual planner and his
agency. Outside, only the multiple decision maker group was felt to have
a place, and even there, many of these combinations also had a bureaucratic
focus^S. When the acceptability of this form of control was tested, there
was some shift to a desire for a broader input. The support for the plan-
ner's role was maintained (and even slightly increased on the choice of
alternatives) but the agency suffered, mainly to provide the public or
state and local interest with some influence. In neither of the decisions
on needs or alternatives was any significant perception of an existing or
future need for Congressional decisions indicated.
Two points can be noted. The planners' perceptions of their (and the
agencies') ability and right to control two of the central phases of plan-
ning were frequent enough to imply that they hold a greater degree of
power over the content of plans and their recommendations (especially in
relation to Congress) than previously admitted. (There was little or no
relationship between the general decision roles of the agency or Congress
given earlier!5,19,21j and their control of these specific choices.)
In spite of the apparent desire for a greater public voice in deciding on
the alternatives to be studied, planner (and agency) influence was still
held to be paramount. The same demand for an increased public involve-
ment was also shown previously when a majority said that while the alter-
natives released for general scrutiny were currently limited, the public
should have the right to know about every option examined*3. However,
while the public's claim to full knowledge was supported by 64 per cent
of the planners13, their decision rights were upheld by only 15 per cent.
Planner control on the other hand was sought by 45 per cent (60% with the
agency). Thus, once again, the degree of public involvement sought was
severely limited. The public can be informed (and even provide feedback)
but they should have little direct influence. The strategy chosen is
restricted to that of information or co-optation*2 >4J.
Looking beyond the analytic phase of planning, the approval of community
and Congressional control grew more pronounced. While existing power to
determine the final form of a plan was seen to belong mainly to the bureau-
cracy, the desire for a wider source of direction was quite evident. Even
here, however, the individual planner's role was strongly upheld.
95
-------
Only on the issue of the goals of development and the source of the over-
all emphasis given to plans was acceptance of, and a wish for, outside
control really dominant. Earlier it was shown that planners felt that
the agencies' long range objectives were chiefly established by Congress
or the President, and that local interests had the primary influence over
local or regional plans. Both rights were also upheld here. Public and
legislative control of goals and the nature of growth received the major-
ity support.
Two trends were clear from Table V-6. The more immediate the decision
to the planning process, the greater the existing and accepted role of
the planner and his agency. On broader and what were apparently consid-
ered as less direct issues, the wider the perceived decision environment.
These are logical and largely valid views. The public and its represen-
tatives should certainly set overall planning goals. However, as argued
in the previous chapter, a greater sense of the direct impact on plans of
the goals set outside the bureaucracy must also be developed by planners.
Further, a real public involvement in planning demands that they be given
a voice in some of the choices hitherto almost solely at the discretion
of professionals, such as the decisions on needs or alternatives.
In spite of the trend to seek a greater inclusion of the community and
its political institutions, the dominant single influence on plans re-
mained the planner. Since it was the agencies' positions which suffered
by comparison with the support for planners on most choices, the desire
was mainly to maintain the role of individual, rather than just the more
general bureaucratic control over plans. Together with the overall nega-
tive attitudes held toward the public's competency or motivation^, some-
what of an elitist outlook emerges. Thus, while planners were willing to
say that the public should be more involved, their general attitudes once
again belied this. The concern was apparently superficial, caused more
by the weight of current demands for recognition of the communities'
wishes in plans than by a real sense of a need for such inputs.
There were few major differences in these attitudes between the various
groups of planners. Certainly the potential for defined agency views,
given their differences in outlook expressed in Tables V-4 and V-5, were
largely unfulfilled except on the question of public control over the
alternatives studied?9. Here, Corps planners opposed such involvement,
while those in FWQA and BuRec supported a public input on alternatives.
A viewpoint that did emerge strongly was that on the broader issues the
supervisors proved readier to accept that those outside the bureaucracy
should establish planning goals and values, while those in the lower grades
tended to still view it as the right of the planner or agency (Table V-7).
The reason for the split is probably tied into the earlier finding that
supervisors also showed a greater recognition of the value of political
decision-making than their juniors (Table V-5). The underlying thread is
the role played by a grasp of the legislation. Supervisors knew more
about the laws (Chap. IV), and the higher such knowledge, the greater the
acceptance of the function of the political process (Table VI-5). Con-
sequent to such an understanding should be a willingness to allow society
96
-------
TABLE V-7
Decision Makers versus Grade, Knowledge
D
D
q
- Grade82
Planner GS-11 & 12
Supervisor GS-13,14,15
- Grade83
Planner GS-11 & 12
Supervisor GS- 13 ,14, 15
. G10784
Knowledge of 0
legislation: , „
Number of laws
mentioned. 4-7
Planner /Agency
Q. S81b Who
12
3
22
Q. S81c Who
betw
li
2
18
Q. S81e Who
on f
8
12
1
27
of Legislation
Q 1
Congress /Pub lie
25
should decide goals?
25
20
45
44
23
67
should decide
een objectives?
27
21
48
43
23
66
should decide
inal plan? 2 *
4
11
15
40
12
23
32
67
Q. S64 What alternatives should
be released to public?-^
.q
. G10785
Knowledge of 0
legislation ,o
Number of laws
mentioned, 4=7
t.
All
5
17
11
44
Limited Set
8
6
11
25
13
23
33
69
97
-------
to set its own goals or direction for growth. To further underline the
claim, as shown in Table V-7, the greater the number of laws, influencing
planning given, the more likely individuals were to seek.that the public
be given all the alternatives studied by the agencies, and more importantly,
to give Congress and the public the right to determine the final form of
the plans used.
Finally, as noted earlier, there was little direct connection between the
general attitudes toward the various decision-makers described in the
first part of the chapter, and the opinions held about these more specific
alternative roles. Neither were the planners' personal role preferences
reflected in their choice of decision-makers. However, predictably, the
control rights assigned within this group of tasks were strongly related
to each other. That is, those who felt that the planner or agency should
make any of these specific decisions, also tended to accord them control
over all the others. Thus, for example, respondents assigning bureaucratic
sources the power to determine needs, also were more likely to have them
deciding alternatives, the final plan, goals and the relative value of
different objectives*^, and so forth.
What is suggested is some confusion, or variance between planners' ex-
pressed views and their reactions when placed in an actual decision situa-
tion. As seen several times in this chapter, outward attitudes and the
real beliefs which determine behavior, are apparently often two different
things.
The need for more investigation of reactions and attitudes toward specific,
rather than generalized situations is indicated.
98
-------
QUESTION SUMMARY—CHAPTER V
1. Q. S60 "What public groups or interests do you take into account in
your planning?"
Function
Resource agencies
(Fed/State/Local) 81.4%
Special interest groups
(Conservation or
business) 10.0
Taxpayers/ad-hoc groups 2.9
Congress/State legislators 1.4
Independent research groups 1.4
No answer 2.9
Geography
National
Regional/State
Local (city,individual)
National, State orL.ocal
No answer
100.0%
17.1%
35.7
37.1
7.1
2.9
100.0%
N = 70
2. Q. S61 "Are there any groups or interests which are not adequately
represented?"
Function
General public/taxpayer
Special interests
Independent research
groups
None
28.6%
20.0
1.4
50.0%
50.0%
Geography
National 12.9%
Regional/State 4.3
Local 12.9
National, State, or Local 20.0
50.0%
100.0% N = 70
3. Q. S62 "Define what you mean when you use the phrase 'the public1?"
General taxpayer 50.0%
Those in project area 61.4%
Answers not mutually exclusive.
N = 70
4- Q. S72 "Using the five-point agree-disagree scale, would you say
that:" Mildly No
Mildly Unsure Disa- Disa- Ans-
Agree Agree ? gree_ gree wer
a. The public is competent to
make technical judgments? 4.3% 8.6% 2.9% 22.9% 61.4/.
-------
4.
(Cont.)
c. The public is highly cohe-
sive over interests affec-
ting their welfare?
17.1 17.1 2.9 15.7
60.0 35.7 1.4 1.4
d. The public is easily swayed
by emotional, nontechnical
arguments?
e. The public is generally
ignorant of the issues
involved in water planning? 37.1 25.7 10.0 17.1
D
47.1
1.4
NA
0
8.6 1.4
f. The public, is self-seeking? 48.6 25.7 8.6 4.3. 10.0 2.9
N = 70
5« Q. S68 "Do you think the public should be more involved in planning?"
Yes - 60%; Ambivalent - 1.4%; No - 38.6% N = 70
6. Q. S68 "Why?"
Yes/Amb ivalent
Democratic ideal 47.7%
Provide an input to plan 10.0
Need public acceptance to
expedite plan 5.7
No
Federal control needed 1.4%
Public not competent 20.0
Must work through organ-
izations, not the mass
public 1.4
Current methods adequate 15.7
61.4%
7. Q. S68 Yes - "How?"
Type of Action
Improve current methods 37.17o
Public advisory input,
no control 15.7
Public input, partial
control 2.9
No answer 5.7
People Involved
Mass public contact
Elite groups
No answer
61.4%
38.6%
N = 70
41.4%
14.3%
5.7
61.4%
8.
9.
Q. S69 "Should the general public have decision-making power during
the planning process?"
Yes - 40.6%; Amb iva lent /Don't Know - 2.9%; No - 56.5%
N = 69
Q. S69 Yes - "How?"
Method
Degree of Control
Respond to agency initiative Advisory/information input
17.4% /make wishes known 39.2%
100
-------
9.
10.
(Cont.)
Public initiative/
pressure
Some each, or either
No answer
13.0
8.7
1.4
40.67.
Partial or direct control 0
No answer 1.4
40.6%
Q. S69 No/Ambivalent - "Why not?"
Public incompetent 43.5%
Federal agency control
best 7.2
Only get opposition,
biased minority input 4.4
Current system adequate 2.9
No answer 1.4
59.4%
11. Q. S70 "Do they (the public) have any decision making power now?"
Yes - 86.8'%; No - 13.2% N = 68
12- Q. S70 Yes - "How?"
Method
Respond to agency
initiative
Public initiative
Both, respond and take
initiative
26.4%
54.5%
5.9
86.8%
Degree of Control
Advisory/information input
/make desires known 75.0%
Partial or direct control 11.8
86.8%
13. Q. S64 "In investigating a set of alternative solutions, which
agency policy (of the categories below) should be adopted?"
Q. S65 "What is your agency's current policy in releasing alterna-
tives to the public?"
S64 S65
a. No alternatives should be released, except the
one ultimately proposed by a plan
b. Only selected alternatives should be released
outside of the agency
c. All alternatives found to be feasible should
be made public
d. Only the feasible alternatives should be made
public, but all alternatives should be given
to Congress
1.4%
2.9
23.2
7.1%
24.6
14.5
7.2
2.9
101
-------
13. (Cont.)
e. The results of all alternatives which are
studied should be made public 63.6 39.2
f. Technically feasible alternatives made
public 1.4 1.4
g. Don't know 1.4 10.1
N = 69 100.0% 100.0%
14. Q. S73 "What do you think is Congress1 motive for their interest in
water resource development?"
Service/welfare of the public 43.5%
Political gain 24.6
Reaction to pressure 17.4
Economic growth/control 8.7
No motive, just competent to decide 4.4
No real interest at all 1.4
N = 69 100.0%
Constituency
National 45.0%
Regional and local 27.5
Self interest 27.5
100.0%
15• Q. S74 "Should Congress have direct control over water development
decisions?"
Yes - full control - 66.7%; Most control - 17.4%; Some control -
4.4%; No control - 11.6% N = 69
16. Q. S74 "Why?"
Yes/Most No/Most/Some
Represent, serve the Decisions too political 10.1%
public 43.4%
Expertise, sensitivity,
national viewpoint 11.6 Lack competence 11.6
Control agencies and Better alternative deci-
executive 4.4 sion makers exist 8.7
69.5% 30.4%
17. Q. 575 "How much direct control does Congress have over water de-
velopment decisions?"
All - 42.6%; Most -, 38.2%; Some - 10.3%; None - 1.5%; Dont know/
No Answer - 7.4% " N = 68
102
-------
Primary Secondary Total
Control Control
18. Q. S75 Type of Control by Congress.
Through authorization power/legislation
Through appropriations/fiscal control
Final decision only - agency controls
alternatives
Executive decisions more powerful
Reaction to pressure only
States, locals in control
No answer
19. Q. S76 "Do you think that water resource policy would be improved
if the decisions were taken out of the political arena?"
Yes - 48.5%; Ambivalent/maybe - 2.9%; No - 47.1%; Don't know - 1.5%
N = 68
39.7%
29.4
7.4
2.9
1.5
0
19.1
100.0%
5.9%
28.0
7.4
1.5
0
5.9
—
48.7%
45.6%
57.4
14.8
4.4
1.5
5.9
19.1
148.7%
20. Q. S76 Why?
Yes
Eliminate politics
More rational or effi-
cient planning and
decisions
Congress not competent
Funding process must
improve
No answer
33.8%
7.4
2.9
1.5
2.9
48.5%
No/Amb ivalent
Resource allocation/
bargaining is a poli-
tical decision 10.3%
Congress competent/
represents the public 20.6
No other decision maker/
policy not changed by
different decision
source 13.2
Politics gives widest
diversity of opinion 4.4
Must avoid agency autonomy 1.5
50.0%
21- Q. S77 "Should your agency have more control than it does now over
water development decisions?"
Yes - 31.9%; No - 62.3%; Don't know - 5.8%
22. Q. S77 Why?
Yes
Best qualified/knowledge
of local needs 15.9%
More autonomy on budget.
studies needed
10.3
No/Don't Know
Need public control
(Congress, states,
public)
Agency limited, should
be service oriented
N = 69
13.1%
15.9
103
-------
Remove political influence 4.4% Status quo adequate 34.8
Need super agency 1.4 No answer 4.4
31.97. 69.17.
23. Q. S77a "How much control does the agency have over water develop-
ment decisions?"
High - 53.67.; Moderate/some - 33.37.; Low/None - 8.77.; Don't know/
no answer - 4.47. N = 69
24. Q. S77a "What type of control do they have now?"
Controls
Through recommendations 36.2%
Through planning decisions/interpretations 30.4
Control over specific responsibilities 10.1
Through agency's political power 7.3
Through coordination requirements 5.8
None - act as public servant 1.4
No answer 8.7
N = 69 100.07.
Limits on control
Political constraints 33.3%
Coordination requirements 13.1
Limited legal authority/autonomy 11.6
Ability of agency hierarchy 1.4
No answer 40.6
N - 69 100.0%
104
-------
25. Q» S80 "Who ultimately decides?"
Q, S81 "Who should decide?"
Planner
o
d
? 00
Single
Alternative
Agency
"The economic Life of
S80 16.4%
S81 Not as!
1
54.2%
c.ed
7.5%
Multiple
Decision
Makers
a proji
0
r— 1
oj ,cn
0) o a,
w o d
CJ h-J O
4J ^|
cn eg o
3Ct"
o :
State
Interests
0
Local
Interests
'°
"The type of economic and population projections
S80 23.9
S81 Not asl
47.8
<;ed
16.4
6.0
'0-'
1.5
"What the water needs of the basin are"
S80 35.8
S81 34.3
19.4
11.9
1.5
0
26.8
22.4
1.5
3.0
4.5
6.0
"Which alternatives will be studied"
S80 40.3
S81 44.8
31.4
13.4
1.5
1.5
13.4
22.4
"What the best plan is"
S80 29.8
S81 26.8
31.4
11.9
1.5
1.5
16.4
19.4
1.5
4.5
1.5
1.5
3.0
0
4.5
6.0
"What the goals or objectives of developr
S80 No ask(
S81 19.4
-d
11.9
1.5
16.4
1.5
"The relative importance between s
and environmental enhancement"
S8Q Not as!
S8J. 13.4
ced
11.9
1.5
11.9
Single alternative agencies
QBE, ERS, and
3.0
7.5
uch go;
4.5
0
3.0
7.5
1.5
4.5
1.5
4.5
Genera 1
Public
1.5%
U. S.
Congress
14.9%
t
i to use"
0
3.0
11.9
0
6.0
0
9.0
nent will be"
8.0
3 Is as e
3.0
17.9
economic
14.9
4.5
3.0
3.0
7.5
3.0
11.9
19.4
20.9
-. effici
34.4
4-1
o a
Q fc^I
4.5%
0
1.5
0
0
0
1.5
0
0
ency
1.5
mentioned were: The Water Resource Counc
the Budget Bureau.
Multiple decision makers were: combinations of all or airy of the abov
commonly agency plus the state and local interests, or Congress plus
state and local interests, regional commissions and coordinating
committees. N = 67
105
-------
NOTES--CHAPTER V
26. Simon, Herbert A., Administrative Behavior, The Free Press, New York,
1957, p. 1.
27. Not an unexpected result. It represents a preference for efficiency.
Planners have limited time and must concentrate their attention where
they feel it. will be most effectively spent. Other government groups,
because they are organized, represent a legal viewpoint, and have ex-
pertise, are an obvious choice.
27a. For instance, in Q. S63 half of the planners felt that the current
public hearing system was an inadequate method of communication with
the public.
27b. A number of planners expressed similar views, calling for a revision
of current economic analysis methods. Several said that the B/C ratio
could be manipulated to satisfy whatever goal the planner wished to
meet. One result of the overemphasis on B/C methods over other means
of project evaluation has been that it has come to be viewed simply
as an obstacle to be surmounted to ensure a plan's acceptance, rather
than as an indication of the project's contribution of a certain type
of benefit. Used properly, without the pressure to artificially in-
flate benefits, etc., and placed on an equal footing with social,
environmental and political analyses in determining the project's
worth, its value could be re-established.
28. Probably an accurate assessment. Few people are truly altruistic.
Self interest is the commonest, and most effective reason for an in-
dividual to become,involved in community problems. However, rela-
ting the two variables (S72(b) and 72(f)), there was a slight ten-
dency for those who saw the public as interested to also view them
as unselfish, and vice-versa. Similarly, those who said the public
were ignorant (S72(c)) also said they were self seeking. The im-
pression given is that the statement of S72(f) is viewed negatively
rather than as a simple statement of fact.
29. A very similar mixture of attitudes is expressed in Chapter VII,
"Nature". In giving their opinions of the public's attitude toward
current environmental problems (N50(a) and N50(b)) most planners said
that the public was generally concerned about nature and that they
would be willing to make some sacrifices to save natural resources
from destruction. However, the commitment was not felt to be very
fundamental, the public considered as unwilling to accept direct or
significant costs, or to become involved beyond very direct and sel-
fish interests.
30. The other attitudes toward the public were not as strongly related to
the planners' opinions about decision making, or were too lopsided
to enable a meaningful analysis to be made. More discussion of the
effect of perceptions of the public on decision making is given in
the later analysis.
106
-------
31. N = 66, Chi Square=8.57, 2 degrees freedom, level of signif. = 0.02.
32. A similar trend occurred between S72(f) and 0132. Those judging the
public selfzsh felt that goals should be controlled by na ional'in-
terests, while those viewing the public as unselfish/felt local
interests should dominate.
33. N=67, Chi Square=6.70, 2 degrees of freedom, level of signif.=0.05.
34. N=70, Chi Square=6.873 2 degrees freedom, level of signif.=0.05.
35. N=70, Chi Square=4.54, 2 degrees freedom, level of signif.=0.10.
36. N=70, Relationship not significant.
37. N=70, Relationship not significant.
38. N=70, Chi Square=5.12, 2 degrees of freedom, level of signif.=0.10.
39. N=70, Chi Square=5.11, 2 degrees of freedom, level of signif.=0.10.
40. Similarly with S72(f). The supervisors thought that the public were
unselfish, the planners tended to the opinion that they were selfish.
41. This general feeling was corroborated by the response to S61, where
50% also felt that certain public interests were insufficiently
considered during the planning process.
42. Edmund M. Burke, .op., cit.. pp. 287, 291-2.
43. Sherry R. Arnstein, op. cit,, pp. 216-217.
44.
Q. S68 Public more involved?
Q. S69
Should public have No
decision making
power? Yes
Relationship not significant.
I
45. Reinforcing the impression given in S72(a), where 84% said the public
was generally incompetent^. Also in the reasons given for saying the
public should not be more involved, 20% also claimed public incom-
petency .
107
Yes
22
20
42
No
ii
8
27
41
28
69
-------
46. Even stronger among the reasons given for no increased public in-
volvement in S68.
47. Although specifically given by only three men in this instance, this
general comment was frequently heard during the entire public in-
volvement section.
48. Anthony Downs, op. cit., p. 237-238.
49. Herbert A. Simon, op. £it., p. 54.
50. Gene E. Willeke, ££. cit., p. 81.
51. As certain agencies, notably the Corps, is attempting to do.
Q. S68 Should public oe
52.
D - Age
53
Years:
D - Agency Service"*
Years:
Under 40
40 & over
Under 10
10 & over
more involved in planning
Yes
24
1.8
25
17
42
No
12
M
9
12
26
36
34
34
36
70
53. Relation not significant.
54. N=70, Chi Square=4.01, 1 degree freedom, level of signif.=0.05.
* CL.S65 Current Policy on the
release of alternatives to public
D
D
D
- Age Years: Under 40
40 & over
- Grade
Planner GS-11&12
GS- 13, 14, 15
53
- Agency Ex£erience
Years Under 10
10 & over
All
9
_18
12
15
10
17
27
Limited
Set
23
12
16
9
12
16
35
Don't
Know
4
3
_6
1
1
2
7
36
33
44
25
34
35
69
108
-------
56. N=69, Chi Squared. 48, 2 degrees freedom, level of signif .=0.05.
57. N=69, Chi Square=7.50, 2 degrees freedom, level of signif .=0.05.
58. Relationship not significant.
59. N=70, Chi Square=6.44, 2 degrees of freedom, level of signif .=0.05.
60. N=70, Chi Square=15.29s 2 degrees of freedom, level of signif .=0.001,
61. Hubert Marshall, o£.. cit., pp. 295-297.
62. Marshall points out that the relative weakness of American political
parties means that the individual congressman is more directly ac-
countable to the voters, rather than the party for support, forcing
this local, self interested outlook. Of course to be thus account-
able also has the advantage that the individual voter has a greater
degree of control over the actions of government, which compensates
for any inefficiencies and the1 fewer opportunities for a congress-
man to demonstrate a statesmanlike outlook.
63. Even if the project's economic worth is suspect, it will often still
be promoted, since it is the appearance of effort, not just the re-
sult, which will gain the support.
64. Q. 78 "Your agency is sometimes accused of being a pork barrel
agency. What is your response to this type of criticism?"
True - 9.2%; Partially, sometimes true - 27.8%; Very rarely true -
65
66.
14.8%; Not true - 44.5%; Don't know - 3.7%.
*FWQA planners were not asked this question
N = 54
Essentially., viewing the congressman as a trustee rather than a dele-
gate. A trustee is one who can use his own initiative to judge, and
bargain for, what he feels are worthwhile ends. A delegate, on the
other hand, seeks only to transmit and work for the strict wishes of
his constituents. (Marshall - "Rational Choice in Water Resource
Planning" - ref. note 75.)
fi.i_s24 "Should Congress have direct control
over water development decisions?"
Q. S76
67
"Would policy be
improved it taken
from the political
arena?"
'
Yes/
Maybe
No
Yes
28
22
57
Limited/
None
2
3
10
35
32
67
109
-------
67. Relationship not significant. (Actually., S74 was too lopsided to
give a really meaningful cross tabulation.)
68. N=679 Chi Square=4.015 1 degree freedom, level of signif.=0.05.
69. N=67, Chi Square=6.3, 2 degrees freedom, level of signif.=0.05.
70. N=67, Chi Square=4.18, 1 degree freedom, level of signif.=0.05.
71. N=67, Chi Square=8.27, 2 degrees freedom, level of signif.=0.02.
72. West - San Francisco, Portland, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Bil-
lings, Boulder City, Denver, Dallas, Ft. Worth.
Midwest - Chicago, Omaha9 Detroit.
South - Clarleston, New Orleans.
Northeast - Boston, Baltimore.
73. Senator A. Ellender, "The Role of Congress in Water Resource Develop-
ment" , Congressional Record - Senate.. June 5, 1967, pp. 14665-14666.
74. A possible lack of understanding of some of the basic processes by
which Congress operates in regard to public works was indicated by
the confusion a number of planners exhibited between authorization
and appropriation. Several, thought that they were essentially the
same thing. This problem may have been due in part to the differences
between the authorization procedures of the two major agencies--
Corps and BuRec.
75. Hubert Marshall, "Rational Choice in Water Resource Planning", Chap-
ter 22, Economics and Public Policy in Water Resource Development.,
ed., Smith & Castle, Iowa State Univ. Press, 1964, pp. 412-416.
76. In analysis, normally the division used was simply between the planner
plus agency choices and those outside the bureaucracy, which summed
the multiple decision maker, the public, states and locals and the
Congress. The difference sought was between an elite decision source
and one which included a broader spectrum of society, or at least
attempted to do so.
77. The lack of recognition of the role of legislation, as opposed to
agency regulations, in controlling planning, was also demonstrated
in the discussion of goals. Several planners actually commented that
they saw little relationship between planning and legislation. See
discussion of Q. G107, Chapter IV, "Planning Objectives".
78. Of course the agencies may help Congress to develop such standards
but much of it comes from the staff work of their own committees,
executive task forces, commission recommendations, etc.
79. Greatest support for a public role in developing alternatives came
from FWQA, and less strongly BuRec planners. Corps planners tended
to oppose such an input.
110
-------
_Q_. S81d Who should decide alterna-
D - Agency
80
Corps
BuRec
FWQA
tives studied?
Planner/
Agency
30
7
'3
40
Congress/
Public76'81
11
8
8
27
41
15
11
67
Thus those in the FWQA backed up their expressed wish for a greater
public involvement (Table V-4) with a direct means of control. Corps
planners were ambivalent about the public involvement, and were also
unwilling to accept directions from outside. BuRec opposed involve-
ment in general, but perhaps because of its need for local support
and willingness to pay for its proposals, were more likely to accept
local input to the alternatives studied.
80. N=67, Chi Square=8.96, 2 degrees of freedom, level of signif.=0.02.
81. Congress/Publie - includes U.S. Congress, Public, States, Locals,
and multiple decision makers - all those outside bureaucracy.1'-'
82. N=675 Chi Square=4.93., 1 degree of freedom, level of signif.=0.05.
83. N=66, Chi Square=4.79, 1 degree of freedom, level of signif.=0.05.
84. N=67, Chi Square=9.33s 2 degrees of freedom, level of signif.=0.01.
85. N=69, Chi Square=4.75a 2 degrees of freedom, level of signif.=0.10.
86. Q. S81a Who should decide needs?
J llll^
Who should
decide plan-
ning alter-
natives?
S81e88
Who should
decide final-
plan?
. .~». _
Planner /Agency Congress /Pub lie
31 36
Planner/
'Agency ' ' 24 16
Congress/
Public81 7 20
Planner/
Agency 12 . 8
Congress/
Public 12 28.
67
40
27
27
40
111
-------
86. (Cont.)
QQ
nSSlb
•*%VAmllllllMmMMH*
Who should
decide goals?
O.S81c9°
Who decides
relative
values?
Planner/
Agency
Congress/
Public
Planner/
Agency
Congress/
Public
P/A
il
14
11
18
C/P
5
11
5
30
22
45
18
48
87. N=67, Chi Square=6.22, 1 degree freedom, level of signif.=0.02.
88. N=67, Chi. Square=9.00, 1 degree freedom, level of signif.=0.01.
89. N=67, Chi Square=10.88, 1 degree freedom, level of signif.=0.001.
90. N=66, Chi Square=5.02, 1 degree freedom, level of signif.=0.05.
112
-------
CHAPTER VI
TIME
Planning works with time. It attempts to both anticipate the problems of
and create a future state. It deals in potentials rather than facts, but
develops its images primarily from the examples and trends of the past.
It thus must cope with the fallibility of historical records plus the in-
evitable errors of prediction. Such difficulties may cause planners to
be conservative in their forecasts (usually in the over-reactive sense).
These difficulties do not change the fact that planning, since it assumes
the existence of a future, is an optimistic endeavor.
A planner's preconceptions or images of the future will help determine
how he plans, because they control what he considers as relevant alter-
natives. The United States has a growth oriented culture which has been
reflected in water planning by the apparent assumption that tomorrow's
world will simply be a larger version of today's, and further, that this
is a desirable end. Together with the forces created by water's "unique-
ness," the result has been facilities whose capacities were based on their
maximum potential usage rather than on a free market demand, or as is now
suggested, a change pattern designed to provide regional, environmental
or social benefits.
The possibility of a totally different future, unrelated to existing
society, is usually ignored. Yet, as Fabun^3 has postulated, the world
of twenty or thirty years hence may be as unlike 1970 as was the world of
one or even two hundred years ago. Technology could take a quantum jump,
or just continue to expand at an exponential rate, national priorities
may be changed, even growth trends reversed, or the world devastated
by nuclear warfare. Actually, assuming a peaceful alternative, the only
way dramatic change in growth patterns and customs can be prevented will
be through inertia or reluctance of political and economic systems to
accept and adapt to them. This could result from the cumulative effect
of a lack of flexibility in individual thinking and capacity to change.
Simple reliance on the lessons of the past cannot fully prepare men for
such possibilities.
It is difficult to plan for a changed world. The projection of needs
must be made by intuitive rather than trend based methods1^. The degree
of initiative and foresight required is high. Few planners are truly
innovative. Most men rely on the vision of others or on fixed procedures
to guide their work.
A balance must be struck. Its nature will depend heavily on the time
horizons chosen. For horizons of 5-20 years, greater dependence on the
momentum of past patterns is probably acceptable. The longer the^time
horizon the more innovative the images must become. The more rapid the
rate of change, the more limited the planning period and the greater the
urgency of planning.
113
-------
This section is an attempt to find out where this balance lay for the
planners sampled.
Reference State
A planner's reference state, that is, where his primary attention lies,
and whose possibilities determine his motivation, should be in the future.
This viewpoint is strengthened because Americans generally are future
oriented, emphasizing growth and anticipating that things will get better
rather than worse. Most are proud of not being bound by tradition, the
past is not held to be good just because it is past. Few, are content
simply with the present^.
Just over two thirds of the planners (68%) were of the opinion that they
were more influenced by the needs of the future than by the way things
were done in the past-'-. However, twenty-four per cent, an unexpectedly
large minority, said that past experience was more important, and another
8 per cent that both future and past were equal or that they were unsure
about which was more influential. Five men in the majority also conceded
that past directed thinking was a significant force personally or in the
agency.
The number of men in the latter categories was surprising tor two reasons.
The question was a poor one, emotionally loaded towards a choice for the
future. Given the image of professionals possessing and using a high
degree of initiative, it involved a concession on the planners' part to
admit to working mainly according to fixed roles or precedent!**. In
addition, this bias should have been reinforced by the broader weight of
the prevailing cultural ethic.
The evidence was not strong enough to refute the original expectation.
The planners basically identified with the future. However, it was cer-
tainly demonstrated that perceived future needs were not the only influence
on their outlook. The results even suggest that if the investigation had
been made indirectly, avoiding the predisposition actually .induced, that
a greater overt reliance on past methods could have been fqund.
Another facet of the minority answer was that it showed a certain pragma-
tism. Planners must consider both the future and past history and exper-
ience. A number were honest, or realistic enough, to recognize that for
them, the latter was the more powerful force.
The degree of pragmatism in the planners' time horizons was .more clearly
shown by the sixty-six per cent who said that their personal or private
concern was with the present or near future (56% in the latter)2. Just a
third chose a longer "future" image, and only one man claimed to be pri-
marily motivated by the distant future. Nobody expressed any thought for
the past. The apparent view was that immediate problems control, the past
is gone, and any remaining problem is too far away to allow it to be a
major worry.
114
-------
Tvo rival hypotheses relating age, grade and experience to the indicated
reference state were postulated. One was that the older the individual,
the more frequently he would have already achieved his goals and the greater
would be his exposure to the agency's procedures and experience. Thus, the
more likely his reference state would have been the present or the past.
The second was that because a younger man would be less sure of his own
ground and would still be in the socializing or developing period of his
agency experience, the greater the possibility of a dependence on past
methods. Neither hypothesis received significant support, although the
second appeared more possible17. If such processes do occur, the conflic-
ting trends largely nullified each other.
No variation in the length of time horizons by age or experience was found.
A planner's time orientation was apparently not a function of agency social-
ization or personal longevity, but came from some more fundamental source
of reference.
Outlook
Since the very nature of their task expresses a belief in the existence and
worth of the future, it was expected that to a greater or lesser degree, the
planners would display the same optimism. Both in a general and specific
sense, this was found to be true.
Seventy-seven per cent of the sample regarded themselves as from moderately
to highly optimistic about the future of mankind, while only twenty-two
per cent showed some pessimism^.
Two primary reasons were given for hope . A strong belief exists in man's
ability to solve the problems which he faces (32%). This was viewed as a
combination of technical capability and progress; an increasing knowledge
of and control over the environment; and man's innate flexibility and re-
sourcefulness, or adaptability to survive rapid and extreme changes in his
surroundings. The other major cause for optimism was that many of the
planenrs (25%) were confident of man's basic motivation; they felt that
man was learning from past mistakes; that his awareness of problems and
the need for new types of solutions was growing; that youth was returning
to the "real" values of life; and that man's overwhelming self preservation
or survival instinct would direct him to change if all else failed. They
said that while man might suffer, he would survive.
A smaller group (10%) relied on historical precedent. Their position was
that mankind has had many challenges and often faced disaster, but has
always surmounted them and continued to progress in spite of and in fact
because of them. A few claimed that the world's problems were not as criti-
WWO.UOC \f J- U4fcW*"» **• *• *•»" •»**.»-—.-—— — - -
cal as they are publicly held to be, and that the rate of environmental
destruction has slowed down sufficiently to ensure a better world^-0. 0
Others
UtaO^iL U\>» L.^WII. J.J.6HU W ^**vw *»*• *f*r »• « — *
were optimistic either because of a personal credo that hope was necessary,
or because of a religious belief that man yet had a destiny to fulfill.
115
-------
The main sources of pessimism (19%) were given as the world-wide problems
of war, nuclear weaponry, overpopulation, environmental destruction, and
pestilence. Several felt that social trends, such as "moral decay," in-
creasing urban unrest, the rise in crime, and parental permissiveness would
also lead to ultimate disaster. Others saw little hope without a shift in
national priorities from emphasis on strictly economic ends to social or
environmental goals, and an increasing public desire to cooperate and at-
tempt to understand the needs and wishes of others. An equal number felt
that future problems would stem from man's inability to solve his current
difficulties, because his planning and technology were insufficient in both
scope and growth.
It was expected that those expressing a general optimism would be future
oriented and have increasingly farsighted horizons. While the first assump-
tion generally held (Table VI-1), the second had mixed support. Planners
who felt that their personal or private concern was mainly with the present
tended to be pessimistic, and those with the near future, optimistic. How-
ever, the men who looked toward the future, or distant future, leaned more
heavily toward pessimism than might have been expected. A possible explan-
ation can be found in the reasons given for doubt about the future. The
major sources of potential catastrophy are the result of long term processes.
Thus, while the planners did not see disaster in the short term, it was
apparently easier to lose hope about distant prospects.
TABLE VI-1
Outlook versus Time Orientation
Q. T135
Outlook
0. T143(a)19
More influenced
by the future or
the past?
Q.T143(b)2°
Personal or
private concern
directed?
Future
Equal or?
Past
•*
Present
Near future
Future and
distant
future
Pessimistic
6
2
j>
14
1
3
8
14
Optimistic
16*
3
9
48
3
11
13
47
42
5
15
62
6
34
21
61
116
-------
More specific influences on the planners' outlook were also investigated.
Here too, the reaction was strongly optimistic. Seventy seven per cent
felt that the United States had sufficient natural resources to fulfill its
needs for the foreseeable future5, although a number noted that certain com-
modities could be in short supply and that imports of some goods are already
necessary. In addition, eighty-eight per cent were confident that the coun-
try was not presently water short6. A somewhat smaller majority, sixty per
cent also felt that the country would not lack water in the future7. How-
ever, the number of those showing some caution about the more distant pros-
pects was noteworthy. Twenty-five per cent did think that water shortages
would occur, and twelve per cent that shortage was at least possible. Again,
it was the long-term view which caused concern.
The main reasons given for this confidence, or the conditions by which it
was justified8, were that good planning and management (39%), and/or new
water supply technology (36%), would be effective enough to solve any pro-
blems . The need for population control also received support (16%). Nearly
a quarter of the group said that problems would occur, but that they would
not be national in scope, affecting only particular regions. A few were
concerned by the existing and potential exploitation of resources and by
their misallocation because of overemphasis on purely economic considera-
tions. There was little apparent awareness of the change which has taken
place from the historical or frontier exploitation of unlimited resources,
to the current need to conserve a finite and decreasing quantity of raw
materials.
A common claim is that youth is the optimistic force in the world, with
increasing disillusion occurring with age and exposure to problems. In
this case the general outlook showed little correlation with age or agency
service. On specific issues, there was a faint indication that the reverse
was true. The more experienced, supervisory grade planners were more likely
to say that the U.S. had sufficient resources or would not be water short.
Very little difference by age was found, though again, on the resource fu-
ture, older planners were slightly more optimistic21. A possible explana-
tion is that actually new planners come into the agencies with an outlook
jaundiced by the current publicity about environmental problems. Those
who have been working for some time have assimilated the agency views,
which often hold that the concern is overemphasized. Surprisingly, there
were no significant regional differences in future outlook on the issue of
potential water shortages.
Length of the Future
Water resource projects usually have a long physical life, usually 50 to
100 years. Estimates of project effects for these periods must be made.
Typically, the agencies use these horizons for their economic analysis,
despite criticism based on the indeterminacy of distant future events.
We have seen that planners are confident of the future over short horizons
and feel their principal concerns are in the near future. It is not sur-
prising that they expressed a preference for short term analyses (Table VI-2)
117
-------
Q.T140
TABLE VI-2
9
Planners' Time Horizons
"How far into the future can we reliably predict:"
Years
0-9 10=19 20-29
Don't
30-100+ Know
Population?
Water needs?
Economic Growth?
Social Change?
7.2%
7.2
14.5
46.4
30.5%
29.0
26.2
31.9
42.0%
36.2
34.8
8.7
20.3%
26.2
18.7
7.2
0%
1.4
5.8
5.8
N = 69
Less than one fifth felt that reliable predictions of population, economic
growth or social change could be expected beyond 25 years, and only a quar-
ter felt that water needs forecasts could be reliable beyond 30 years. Over
a third felt that a period of 20 to 29 years would be satisfactory for pro-
jections of population, water needs and growth, while for predicting social
change, nearly half restricted the horizon for a reliable estimate to less
than 10 years. Planning terms of 50 to 100 years received less than 15 per
cent support in any category.
No relationships between the optimism of the planner and his views on the
lengths of any of the predictions were found. There were indications that
supervisors and long-term planners would prefer shorter forecast periods
for population, water needs and the economy. The less experienced men were
more likely to accept the long planning horizons (Table VI-3).
Interestingly the preferred forecast horizons for population, water needs
or economic conditions were not significantly related to the perceptions
of how far social trends could be extrapolated. Apparently planners have
not thought about the relation of social change and water resource
development.
Urgency
The priority attributed to their agencies' functions may have na important
impact on two aspects of the planners' work. It could help determine the
rapidity of the response to needs or demands. It should also reveal some
aspects of the individual's basic sense of involvement.
118
-------
TABLE VI-3
Length of Populajy^n^r^ectlon_ver^jjLs__Grade and Experience
Q. T140a Population. Projection (years)
27
25
D-Grade
Planner GS-11 6c 12
Supervisor GS-13 ,, 14 , 1.5
26
D°Agency Experience
Years Less than 10
10 & over
0-19
1.3
11
26
8
JJ3
26
20- 100+
.32
11
43
2£
17
43
4.5
24
69
34
35
69
Most planners felt that there was considerable immediacy to the regular
programs of their agencies. Sixty-nine per cent said that they ranged
from very urgent, or urgent, to somewhat urgent (51% upwards of urgent),
while only one man saw no urgency in his workl°. The level of commitment
to the current aims of federal water policy and the obligation imposed by
the need to prevent delays in its fulfillment that this revealed was thus
quite high. There were several possible reasons for this outlook.
A major one is the place accorded to water and environmental programs among
other national issues. As was shown in Chapter IV when given a direct
choice, the aim of improving the environment received more support than
strict economic goals. A 1970 Gallup poll also suggested that nationally,
the reduction of, air and water pollution was ranked as the second most im-
portant concern behind only crime. It exceeded education, poverty, racial
tension and Viet Nam as an issue.
Secondly, the planners' limited horizons and distrust of distant events
indicated that they saw a high rate of change in the direction of national
and local progress, particularly in social patterns. Rapid change demands
immediate action or at least creates pressures in this direction.
Finally the urgency felt could demonstrate the operation of an agency ter-
ritorial imperative. The programs may be seen as being important because
they are expressions of, and necessary to the agencies integrity and
growth. Thus, the idea goes that: "if we don't do this job, somebody else
will just have to do it, and will get the authority and budget it involved.
Support for this possibility is mixed. While 69 per cent accepted the
existence of agency rivalrieS28, OBly 32 per cent admitted that this could
result in overemphasis of the agency's own viewpoint or self interest .
119
-------
TABLE VI-4
Urgency of Programs versus Emotional Involvement,
Environmental Urgency and Acceptance of Overbuilding
O.T141
Urgency of agency programs
f\ 'D 1 "7
AC. Jt-J*_Ljfr'llJjlL
Degree of Personal High
involvement felt
Low
32
a*£45
Environment urgency Yes /maybe
-10 year deadline?
No .
33
Overbuild projects now? Yes
Depends/
No
High
45
34
11
22
20
12
18
Moderate
9
1
3
1
8
6
3
Low
12
4
JJ
6
6
5
I
68
46
22
34
34
40
28
30
The extent of an individual's personal or private involvement in his work
was also reflected in the degree of urgency felt. The men who were most
highly concerned about the success or failure of their plans also had the
highest sense of a need for haste (Table VI-4). A strong commitment to the
agency and its policy destroys some of a planner's objectivity but increases
his desire to give service as directly as possible.
!
The priority given to water resources was confirmed by the responses to two
other questions.
As will be discussed in Chap. VII, a surprisingly large group of planners
agreed with (41%), or at least did not dispute (9%), the extreme viewpoint
that environmental problems are so urgent that solutions must be provided
within ten years if the world is to survive.
Fifty-nine per cent also agreed that it was important to build projects
which have capacities far beyond the requirements to meet existing needsll.
The major reasons given were predicated on the assumption that growth to
utilize the entire installed capacity would occur either naturally or gener-
ated by the project, and thus it was best to be prepared for the ultimate
120
-------
eventuality, regardless of present costs (31%)12. Other men-justified this
view on the grounds of economy of scale (12%) or through the flexibility and
reliability an oversized project would provide (12%). Five men saw it as
a matter of need to fully exploit the limited sites and resources available.
Only 35/£ said that overbuilding was not justified (the remaining four men
felt that it depended on the project envisaged) because it foreclosed on
future options and flexibility (16%) or that it would not give an economical
development (15%). Two men saw it taking money away from higher priority
needs.
Table VI-4 makes two points clear. The perceived urgency of government water
programs is closely tied to the more general concern about the entire environ-
ment. Water planning carries a central role in improving the environment.
A sense of haste helps to overcome good planning practice. The planners
expressing urgency were more likely to accept overbuilding of projects re-
gardless of other factors, offering the possibility for the waste of resources,
Image of the Future
The purpose of this chapter was to describe the future world planners envis-
age, because this image will help control their contributions to its direc-
tion and substance.
The picture held is a conservative one. The horizons are short. Little
change in the existing patterns of growth is expected before the turn of the
century. Optimism about the near future and the availability of resources
is strong. All problems to be faced are considered solvable by better man-
agement through current institutions and the application of existing tech-
nology. No evidence of an awareness of a need for, or the possibility of
change in the direction of society was given.
The reaction to and planning for such a future can be expected to be cautious.
The approach indicated is an incremental one. The pressure for a major shift
in goals from within the agencies should be small. Since problems are viewed
merely as extensions of existing trends, there is little incentive to seek
out entirely new, solutions or planning methods.
This appraisal may be a realistic one, but it indicates a lack of any sti-
mulation to change. It may even cause the image to be a self-fulfilling
prophecy and actually result in the compounding of existing problems.
Larger difficulties cannot always be solved by a sheer multiplication of the
means of solution. Although it may involve planners in areas never before
considered, their efforts must go beyond the purely technical or economic
answers. Problems can also be overcome by the elimination of their sources,
or at the other extreme, by shifting the recipients of their ill effects
outside the area of influence.
121
-------
QUESTION SUMMARY—CHAPTER VI
1. Q. T143(a) "As a planner, would you say you are more influenced by
the needs of the future or by the way things have been done in the
past?
Future
Future now3 was past
oriented
Futurej but would switch
if supervisor did
59.7%
4.8
1.6
67.7%
Fast
Past, unfortunately
Past, as if office/
agency
Both equal
Don ' t know
N = 62
16.1%
4.8
3.2
24.1%
6.6%
1.6%
100.0%
2. Q. T143(b) "Along the scale, Distant Past/Past/Recent Past/Present/
Near Future/Future/Distant Future, where would you say your personal
or private concern is directed?"
Distant Past - 0%; Past - 0%; Recent Past - 0%; Present - 9.8%; Near
Future - 55.8%; Future - 32.8%; Distant Future - 1.6%.
N = 61 . .
3. Q. T135 "How would you rate your outlook on the future of mankind?"
Very pessimistic - 1.47<>; Pessimistic - 10.1%; Moderately Pessimistic
- 10.1%; Very optimistic - 8,7%; Optimistic - 50.8; Moderately Opti-
mistic - 17o4%; Neutral - 1.4%. N = 69
4. Q. T136 "What are your major reasons for this outlook?"
<
Pessimism
Force of circumstances, world's problems (war, over popula-
tion, damaged environment, moral decay, etc.) 14.5%
Priorities wrong/nation and man lacks the desire or will to
change/selfish outlook 4.4
Inability to solve problems 4.4
Limited resources 2.9
26.2%
Optimism
Man's technical abilities will overcome all problems 31.87o
Man's awareness/learning./motivation/are all high 24.6
Historical precedent ,, 10.1
Problems not as critical as claimed 4.4
Religious beliefs, personal credo 2.9
N = 69 73.87e
122 ~"
-------
5- ft'*"* "Would you say the U.S. has sufficient natural resources to
tultill its needs for the foreseeable future?"
i ./72;5%; YeSs Wlth reservati°ns - 4.4%; No, not in the long term
- i.4/.| No, already use imports - 4.4%; No - 17.1% N = 69
6. Q. T138 "Do you believe the U.S. is presently a water short nation?"
Yes - 11.6%; No - 88.4% N = 69
7. Q. T139 "How about in the future?" (water short?)
Yes -24.6%; Maybe - 11.6%; In long term only - 1.4%; Not for humans
N = 69
- 1.4/0; No - 59.5%; No answer - 1.4
8. Comments on T137, T138, T139.
Good planning and/or management of resources will be needed 39.1%
Technology (desalting, waste-water reclamation, interbasin
transfers, rainfall augmentation, etc.) needed and will
solve problems 36.2%
Population control will be necessary 15.9%
Agency and public cooperation/awareness will solve problems 7.2%
Regional problems will occur, but no general national
shortages
Problems are, and will be caused by excess resource use
Problems will be caused by lack of money and economic
pressures
Uniqueness of water may cause problems
9. Q. T140 "How far into the future can we reliably predict;"
Years
23.2%
10.1%
5.8%
1.4%
N = 69
Population?
Water
needs?
Economic
growth?
Social
change? 8.
1
0%
0
0
7
1-4
0%
0
2.9
15.9
5-9
7.2%
7.2
11.6
21.8
10-14
20.3%
18.8
18.8
29.0
15-19
10.2%
10.2
7.2
2.9
20-29
42.0%
36.2
34.8
8.7
30-49
10.2%
10.2
4.4
5.8
50-99
7.2%
11.6
8.7
1.4
100+
2.9%
4.4
5.8
0
Don't
Know
0%
1.4
5.8
5.8
10. Q. T141 "How urgent are the regular programs of your agency
711
Very urgent - 13.2%; Urgent - 33.8%; All urgent, some very urgent - 4.4%;
Somewhat urgent - 17.6%; Some are, some are not urgent - 13.3%; Not
very urgent - 16.2%; Not urgent at all - 1.4% N = 68
123
-------
11. Q. T142 "Do you believe that it is important to build projects now
which have capacities far beyond the requirements for existing needs?"
Yes - 58.8%; Depends on the type - 5.9%; No - 35.3%.
12• Q. T142 "Why?" (Build big now)
Yes
Growth assumed
Economy
Reliability/
flexibility
Limited resources
Build for size,, not
contingency
30.9%
11.8
11.8
7.3
1.5
63.3%
No
Flexibility/maintain
options
Economy
Water needs priority
low
No answer
N = 68
N = 68
16.2%
14.7
2.9
33.8%
2.9%
124
-------
NOTES "CHAPTER VI
13. Don Fabuns The Dynamics of Change,, Prentice-Hall, 1967.
14. Peter w. Whitford., _o£. c..lt.. pp. 8-9.
15. Florence R. Kluckhohn, ojj. cit., pp. 348-349.
16. Because of the challenge involved in 1143(a), the strength of the
unpopular position was one piece of evidence confirming the inter-
viewers confidence in the honesty of the planners' responses, and
attempt at self analysis.
17.
Q .1143 (a) Reference
Future Ambivalent
D - Age
Years
D - Grade
Planner
Supervisor
D - Agency Experience
Years
Less than 40
40 and over
GS-11 & 12
GS- 13,14,15
Less than 10
10 and over
23
19
27
15
20
.22
42
1
4
3
2
2
1
5
State
Past
10
5
11
4
9
6
15
34
28
41
21
31
31
62
No relationship is significant.
18, A similar outlook was expressed by 31% of the planners in their com-
ments on Q. N45, Chapter VII, "Nature".
19. N=62, Chi Square=5.12, 2 degrees of freedom, level of signif.=0.10.
20. N=61, Chi Square=0.103 2 degrees of freedom, level of signif.=0.01.
21. Q.I 13.7 Sufficient Natural Resources?
Yes
53
22
D - Age/Z
Years Less than 40 25
Over 40 28
No
16
11
5
69
36
33
125
-------
D - Agency Experience
Years Less than 10
10 and over
D - Grade
23
Planner GS-11
Supervisor GS-13,
&
14
12
,15
23
30
31
22
1139 Water short
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Grade
•UMB^BH^BM^
24
Planner GS-11
Supervisor GS-13,
Relationships not
N=69,
N=69,
N=69S
N=69,
The r
Chi
Chi
Chi
Chi
Square=3
Square=5
Square=3
Square=4
&
14
12
,15
Yes
11
2
17
Maybe
6
3
9
11
5
14
2
34
35
45
24
in the future?
No
24
ifi
42
45
23
69
significant.
.37,
.233
.25,
.59,
elationships with
1
2
1
1
degree
degrees
degree
degree
freedom,
freedom,
freedom.
freedom,
signifance leva 1=0. 10.
signifance level=0.10.
level of
level of
signif. =0.10.
signif .=0.05.
water need and economic proiections were
28.
29.
30.
similar but not quite as strong.
Q. 120 "Is there really a sense of rivalry between water resource
agencies?"
Yes - 59.4%; Yes, but justified/acceptable - 10.2%.
No - 29.0%; Don't know = 1.4%. N = 69
Q. 122 "Some critics here accused your agency of using 'tunnel
vision', that is, you look at solutions which will benefit your own
(construction) program. Do you think this criticism is justified?"
Yes - 31.9%: Partly - 10.2%; No - 56.5%, Don't know - 1.4%. N » 69
Q» P27 "Would you comment on your level of emotional involvement in
the success or failure of the plans you work on?"
High or somewhat involved
Neutral or objective
Disillusioned
67.1%
31.4%
1.4%
31.
32.
33.
N = 70
N=68, Chi Square=8.18, 2 degrees freedom, level of signif.=0.02.
N=68, Chi Square = 7.25, 2 degrees of freedom, level of signif. « 0.05.
N=68, relationship not significant.
126
-------
CHAPTER VII
NATURE
Invariably, ^planning for water resources confronts men with the need to
modify and^"improve" natural systems to make them more compatible with
man. Traditionally, this was done under the philosophy that men's actions
were insignificant compared to the resources being developed, and in the
belief that anything that aided man's physical or economic well being was
good.
Neither nature" nor "environment" is a simple concept. Both words are
value laden, have different meanings for different people, and change in
meaning for the individual as he faces varying situations33. Thus, it is
important to find out exactly what planners consider these words to des-
cribe, in order to give meaning to their opinions and attitudes about
nature's influence on, and relationship to man. The breadth of the image
held could control the range of alternatives examined in relation to the
environment.
O /
Webster's Dictionary gives nature many descriptions, ranging from "the
sum total of all things in time and space," through more limited versions
such as "the primitive state of man" or "the natural (non-artificial)
scenery, including the plants and animals that are part of it," to its
use as a reference to the "quality" of an object. Environment is likewise
defined as concisely as "a surrounding," or as broadly as "all conditions,
circumstances and influences surrounding and affecting the development of
an organism or group of organisms.
Two questions were asked to gain an insight into the planners' definitions
of these concepts^-*3.
The nature image, given by nearly half of the sample was a qualitative
description, such as "virgin areas," "the natural landscapt," "non-polluted
areas," and even "the complex interrenationships of an ecologic system."
Forty-three per cent gave a simple description, without any value weight-
ing, such as "wildlife, fish and birds," "trees and forests," "mountains,"
etc. Of the remainder, five people (7%) equated nature with the "total"
environment and two gave parks, or a human centered activity, such as
hunting or fishing1. From a probe to elicit whether or not their images
contained man, 54 per cent said that it did not, 36 per cent said that it
did, 7 per cent that there could be a few men in it, and two planners
included primitive but not modern man2. Apart from one individual, who
mentioned nature's quiet and solitude, nobody really exhibited a meta-
physical ideal, such as describing nature as a place for spiritual renewal,
for personal reflection or as a "touchstone" for fundamental truthsJ°.
127
-------
The typical image of nature is a moderate and fairly pragmatic one, as was
expected of men who came mainly from an engineering background. It contains
visible and tangible features or objects36, refers to conditions prior to
the intrusion of western man, and rarely goes beyond a limited or control-
lable sphere3^. The value descriptions used were mild, demonstrating some
of the common subjective associations of nature (harmony, purity, reality)
and contained some feeling of the influence of the traditional, or frontier
ideals of man confronting the wilderness, with its challenge and potential.
Remarkably, only three times was water, once in the form of rivers and
streams^, and twice as the ocean, given as a principal sort of the image.
Possibly, this was because the major focus of their planning seemed too
obvious to mention, or perhaps because of its centrality to their work,
planners no longer view water as a truly natural substance. A preconception
carried into the study was that most planners would see nature and the en-
vironment as essentially the same thing. However, as shown, only five
people gave their image of nature in environmental terms. A major omission
was the lack of any mention of natural forces, such as earthquakes, hurri-
canes, tides, etc. It could be that these are assumed to be beyond man's
influence or as temporary events and thus are not seen as a normal part of
nature.
3 39
The majority of the definitions of environment ' were similarly down to
earth, and limited in breadth. A division was made between concepts which
contained only the physical surroundings of man, both natural and man-made,
and those which subsumed the physical within the total social and economic
world^O, including the psychological as well as the physical influences on
the individual. Sixty-three per cent saw environment purely in its physical
sense with the remainder giving it the broader more esoteric connotation^.
What apparently interests planners is not an all encompassing abstraction,
but those aspects of water and its related resources, both natural and
artificial, which have environmental impact, and would be affected by
agency programs. Interestingly, there is a relationship between agency
and environmental perception. Corps planners saw environment mainly in
physical terms, the FWQA and BuRec, increasingly in its broader sense
(Table VII-1) .
TABLE VII-1
41
Agency versus Environmental Perceptions
Q. N46
Physical Surroundings
Physical Surroundings
plus Social Influences
Corps
J32
11
FWQA
6
6_
BuRec
6
9_
44
26
43 12 15 70
*Underlined values are those larger than would be expected if the
relationship was due only to chance.
128
-------
There were also faint indications at a low level of significance that the
wider image is a function of office location, it being more frequently given
by Western42 planners.
A common claim in the current discussions of environmental problems, is that
ecological damage caused by man has given rise to problems so severe and
urgent that if extreme measures are not taken now, the world, or at least
man and many of the higher species, could be doomed to extinction43. If
this is true, it would indicate a need for a radical shift in planning
priorities. Such a statement5 was received with skepticism by the planners,
although perhaps not as strongly as expected, with exactly half disagreeing,
and only 10 per cent in complete agreement. Forty-one per cent did give at
least some credence to such a radical viewpoint. This was offset to some
extent by the most frequent comment, that while the problems are very urgent
the time limit is too short (33%)5a Or that the problems are just not that
critical (31%). Other disclaimers were that the planners did not hold a
doomsday view, that technology would prevail, or that they were not expert,
did not know enough to judge properly. In view of recent publicity of the
population crisis, it is surprising that only four men mentioned it as a
prime cause of any disaster.
The fact that nearly two thirds (62%) only mildly agreed or disagreed, or
were undecided, may indicate a large section of opinion which is swinging,
or waiting for more evidence upon which to decide. It reflects a major
aspect of environment discussed later, a feeling of confusion because few
hard facts are available and so little is known or understood upon which
planning or economic tradeoffs and engineering decisions can be based.
A hypothesis which received no support from either question was that the
younger men would be more likely to exhibit an awareness of the social impli-
cations of water planning or to see the problems as more urgent than their
seniors. The different environmental perceptions were evenly spread among
all age and demographic groups.
A number of other dimensions were explored to give more depth to the nature
image4'^. Only 36 per cent felt that current understanding of the long range
consequences of man's changes on nature was adequate to good. Two thirds
described it as from very poor to limited, with the weight at the bottom of
the scale4. This reaction demonstrates a healthy awareness among planners
that the results of their planning for natural systems cannot always be
predicted44. Hopefully this should ensure a cautious approach to their
work, but planning has not often been as careful as such a low state of
knowledge would demand. One reason is that demands for action usually
outweigh the need for caution. Another could be that natural side effects
are mostly considered of minor impact and to have no economic significance.
The reasons why knowledge is seen as very limited seem to be threefold. It
is the first indication of a deep sense of frustration exhibited by many
planners in discussing the deficiencies of project evaluation techniques
(particularly the benefit-cost ratio) for handling intangible factors (often
nature based) . There was a common feeling that if more were known about
129
-------
nature, rules and techniques enabling quantifiable measures could be devel-
oped^ . Secondly, the answer demonstrates that the current weight of eco-
logic and preservationist criticism of their work has. to a greater or lesser
degree, convinced planners that they know very little^". Finally, there is
the traditional aura or sense of mystery surrounding nature (primitive, com-
plex, even spiritual) that gives it some of its value in men's eyes, making
it something to be enjoyed and coped with, but never to be fully understood.
The reaction to a number of commonly heard statements about nature was in-
structive". Most planners feel that nature is robust and self healing, but
apparently in contradiction, that it also has a delicate balance. There was
some indication that those who said nature had a delicate balance were more
prone to see it as being less robust-^. While 60 per cent strongly agreed
that the balance was a delicate one, only 49 per cent strongly agreed that
nature was robust^. For the remainder who considered nature as both robust
and delicately balanced, the apparent image is a system which can easily be
disturbed, but which has the strength to make a full or partial recovery.
Fifty-nine per cent disagreed that untouched nature or unspoiled environment
was abundant in the U.S., mainly in the more extreme category. Just 17 per
cent fully agreed that nature was abundant, meaning that as many as four
fifths of the sample had some doubts about the level of available resources
of this type, reflecting the pervasiveness of man's influence on nature.
Less than a quarter felt that nature was to some degree a hostile force,
with 63 per cent strongly opposing this view, which again demonstrated that
major natural disasters were not really considered part of nature. Although
a minority had man in their image of nature, 96 per cent agreed that man was
a part of nature. This would tend to follow the popular concept that while
man is an animal, yet through his reasoning powers, he occupies a special
position in nature's scheme of things. Thus in planning for nature per se,
man is not included except as the reason for and recipient of the effects of
the changes.
The final part of this series was designed to elicit the planners' feelings
about the morality of man's manipulation of nature. Planning seeks to alter
nature for man's benefit, and presumably the justification of a need has
been indicated. Surprisingly then^l, planners split very evenly on this
question, just under a half agreed to some extent that man had the right to
control nature, but 53 per cent felt that he did not6. In fact, 40 per cent
strongly disagreed with this viewpoint. A possible reason is that many
planners feel that not enough is known about nature to give them the right
to control all other things. There was a positive and significant relation-
ship (Table VII-2) which indicates that those who felt that knowledge was
low were against man's control, while those who thought it was high felt
that man should be able to direct the future of other species. The briefer
a planner's experience the less likely he is to feel that man should control
nature, and vice versa. Weaker relationships showed that older planners or
those at higher grade level also felt man should have control. There was
some indication that Western and Northeastern planners were doubtful about
the morality of man's total management of other species, while those from
the South and Midwest held the opposite view (Table VII-2). One might
130
-------
TABLE VI1>2
M2?Jli^y_o|Jlajrs_C^n^r^l_oyer Nature versus Knowledge of Nature.
Age, Grade and Agency Spr^iro
6
Q. N39f Man has the right of con-
trol over all living species
q. N3853
Knowledge of Man's High
consequences of
Nature Low
D - Age54
Years Under 40
40 & over
D - Grade
Planner GS-11. & 1.2
Supervisor GS- 13 ,14, 15
D - Agency Service'
Years Under 10
10 & over
D - Location
West plus Northeast
South plus Midwest
Agree
31
1652
15
14
12
18
11
10
21
19
12
Unsure
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
I
2
2
0
Disagree
37
9
18
22
15
12
10
24
13
11
6
70
25
45
36
34
45
25
34
36
52
18
expect those from the West to show this viewpoint, with their greater contact
with the wilderness regions of the United States, but it is more difficult to
explain the Northeastern reaction. Perhaps because they see so little of
nature which is not affected by or under man's control that this has caused
an overreact!ve desire for the natural way of things. The response of the
shorter service, younger men, in this case confirms the preconception that
youth would be associated with greater environmental awareness, and would
have less apparent desire for material solutions to problems. The longer
the service, the more planners absorb the agency's viewpoint, which for the
Corps and BuRec, focuses on construction solutions and thus has a man domi-
nant philosophy.
131
-------
An alternate explanation for the strength of those against man's dominance
(not verified by this survey), is that it reflects the growing concern
about the number of species seriously threatened or otherwise damaged by
man's activities, with the result that man's control is seen as harmful
and therefore no longer desirable. Less worthy, but yet another possibil-
ity, is that the planners gave the type of response on this question that
they felt was socially acceptable. (However, other questions which were
considerably more personally challenging apparently elicited very frank
responses and demonstrated the desire of the interviewees not to give
agency viewpoint answers, but as close to their real feelings as possible.)
In Chapter II, the complex nature of water, and some of the problems and
concepts men have of it were mentioned. To round out this discussion of
the planners' images of nature, some of their beliefs about water were
explored.
They were asked whether they felt water was primarily a market commodity,
or a unique good with a special value not measurable in terms of price'.
Nearly eighty per cent put water in the special value category while just
sixteen per cent saw it as a marketable good. Asked to agree or disagree
with the statement that "water as a necessity for life should be free to
all men," a bare majority, 56 per cent, disagreed (49% strongly), while
40 per cent supported this viewpoint (31% strongly). Both answers show
that planners definitely question the economists' view that water be
treated like other factors of production". In doing so they also support
Bruner and Farris'->9 concepts of a prevailing "conventional wisdom" in
water philosophy. They show an agreement with the idea that price is an
unsuitable allocative factor in water administration, and that demand
aspects are relatively unimportant.
Two other questions in this series add to these concepts. Eighty-seven
per cent said that water is a central factor in determining economic growth
and 83 per cent held the viewpoint that the highest use of water is to
serve the physical needs of man**. These answers point to acceptance of a
third aspect of the "conventional wisdom," which is that an increase in
water supply is a necessary if not sufficient answer to water problems.
The latter response also shows that for planners, water has its greatest
importance only through its association with human activity. The aware-
ness that water has a "use," or is central to the maintenance of an im-
mense number of natural processes and the survival of all animal species,
many of which are beyond man's needs or control, is either missing or
relegated to a position of secondary importance^.
Together with the earlier response that planners did not view nature as a
hostile force, a general picture of water and nature is indicated. They
are viewed as simply resources which if not used by man would be wasted or
useless. Evidence of the "special" character of water and some of the
highly emotional beliefs giving rise to many of the externalities which
make its efficient allocation so difficult is clear. The importance of
water as a key element in human development is a very strong image.
132
-------
A major omission in rounding out this picture was our failure to assess
planners beliefs in the relative importance of water versus other natural
resources in determining man's welfare.
Man versus Nature
Earlier, the claims by psychologists of the potential importance of man's
perceived relationship to nature in terms of his opinions and behavior in
other situations were noted61. The attempt to examine these attitudes was
somewhat less than successful, due to the multi-dimensionality of the
probes used9. In her examination of value differences in five dissimilar
cultures, Kluckhohn held that in America, with its history of conquering
all natural and man-made obstacles that impede progress, a "Man commands
Nature" position should be expected. Also, since our interviews were with
engineers and planners in agencies which have demonstrated their ability
to solve most physical problems, the hypothesis that the men sampled would
have a "Man over Nature" attitude seemed an obvious one.
However, in response to the statement that "man has the potential ability
to control world wide natural phenomena such as earthquakes and hurricanes,"
69 per cent disagreed (59% strongly) with only 27 per cent showing some
level of agreement9. With a more limited concept, that "man has learned
to change and control nature enough so that he can coexist with it with
low damage or risk to either," a bare majority (53%) said that this was
possible, and only a third without qualifications. Forty per cent felt
that man does not even have this power9. Thus, the indicated viewpoint
is just the opposite to that hypothesized. Planners apparently feel that
nature dominates man.
It is important, however, to relate these perceptions to the images of
nature. Not one man included in his description of nature the comparatively
rare geophysical outbursts used to determine the possible extreme limits to
man's control. It was suggested that the reason for this was that, be-
cause they are seen as beyond his powers, man places them in a special
category, something different from the normal nature considerations of
planning. After all, "nature" is commonly seen as something to be pro-
tected, or as a source of resources to be used for man's benefit. Plan-
ning for earthquakes, hurricanes, etc., is done in an entirely different
framework, on a contingency basis as a self-protective measure, without
thought being given to productively using or harnessing these forces, or
that man's efforts could interfere with their contribution to a natural
process or cycle62,63. The responses received, that earthquakes, etc.,
are beyond even man's potential abilities, while man can coexist with
nature, tend to bear out the existence of this dichotomy. However, even
at the lesser, or at least, more usual degree of control implied by "co-
existence" and "minimum damage," the outlook demonstrated is cautious and
limited. One reason could be the low understanding of nature that is felt
to exist6^. Another is methodological, the statement used9 requires an
assessment along two dimensions, the ability to coexist and the amount^of
damage or risk involved65, thus causing some possible confusion. A third
possibility is that because it is a more subtle process than the direct
133
-------
confrontation of natural forces, coexistence was actually seen as implying
a much higher degree of environmental control than originally envisioned
in designing the survey.
Unfortunately, only one question attempted to assess, albeit indirectly,
planners' perceptions of their influence on the structure and operations of
major biological systems. The reaction to the statement that "man can
presently change nature on a world-wide scale, but cannot always predeter-
mine the changes that will occur," was that 79 per cent agreed (59% strong-
ly), with only 16 per cent disagreeing^. Because the statement had two
quite different dimensions, the meaning of this response is confused. How-
ever, where full agreement was given, without apparent questions being
raised, it can probably be assumed that the respondents felt that both sec-
tions were valid. Man can influence world-^wide ecosystems"", and man does
not understand or is not able to predict the results of his efforts^?. If
this is so, for the first time, this gives a definite majority (nearly 60%)
that sees man with a significant degree of power over some aspects of his
environment. The image that is emerging is that man can disrupt or damage
natural cycles and equilibria, but that he cannot per se control the forces
constituting them.
There were also definite signs of a basic confusion between control over the
biological and physical aspects of nature and between water and other natural
resources.
Table VII-3 gives some demonstration of the type of control or effects that
were envisioned.
TABLE VII-3 '
Man's Influence on Nature
N43
10
Examples of man's major positive
contributions to nature
N4411
Examples of man's major negative
effects on nature
None 20.0%
12
Man centered, economic 28.6
Benefits man and nature 12.9
Rehabilitation of damage 17.1
Nature centered 21.4
None 1.4%
12
Resource exploitation 20.0
Human failings, limitations 2.9
Lack of planning, foresight 5.7
Types and descriptions of
damage^ 70.0
N = 70
100.0%
N = 70
100.0%
134
-------
Supporting the idea of man's having had mainly a damaging influence, one in
five felt man had done nothing to help nature at all, with 17 per cent giv-
ing rehabilitation measures as a positive act on man's part. About 41 per
cent felt that in helping himself, man had contributed to nature in some
sense, which fits in well with the higher number who said man was a part of
nature, and also, with the contention that planners see nature's value only
in its function as a source of resources for man's use. Ecologists might
also argue that such "aids" as biological manipulation are not an unalloyed
good, since they tend to reduce species diversity and thus lower the sta-
bility of the ecosystems involved. Only a fifth of the sample saw a purely
positive contribution to nature from man. But even here, that contribution
was simply to set it aside, or protect it from further changes by man.
Most of the negative examples reflected the growing awareness and concern
about such environmental damage as air and water pollution, garbage and
the destruction caused by engineering works (dams, highways, etc.). The
remainder were not just based on the physical expressions of man's damage
to nature, but on the underlying motivations and failings giving rise to
them. This is important, because it demonstrates some awareness that there
is a need to go beyond our present reliance on a "technological fix" to
meet the problems being faced.
None of these answers really alters the initial impressions given. These
are that planners do not feel that man can dominate nature, rather they see
nature's forces being beyond his powers, with man only in a position to
destroy or disrupt its processes, or at best, to be able to restore nature
to something approaching its original form before man's interference. Such
an outlook has considerable significance for policy makers in designing or
considering possible alternative environmental enhancement measures. It
implies that programs can expect a definite upper level of achievement, or
point of diminishing returns, beyond which efforts would simply be a waste
of resources, money, time, and manpower. It means doing what can practi-
cally be done, and accepting any losses thereafter.
Very little difference in these attitudes among the various groups of plan-
ners was discernible, although there was an indication that the more exper-
ienced a planner becomes, the more likely he is to have lost any earlier
enthusiasms he might have had about man's abilities (Table VII-4). The
longer the man has been in planning, and to a lesser degree, the higher the
grade, the more likely he is to agree that man cannot control natural forces.
TABLE VII-4
9
Service as a Planner versus Man's Perceived Ability versus Nature
Q. N42a Man has the potential ability to control
worldwide natural phenomena ...
68
D - Planning Service
Years Under 10
10 & over
Agree
14
5
19
Undecided
0
.3
3
Disagree
24
24
48
38
32
70
135
-------
The existence of relationships between the perceptions of man's abilities
versus nature and his other attitudes were not very clear or consistent.
For instance, it was expected that those who felt that man can control
nature, would be more likely to favor such projects as the major interbasin
water transfers. However, this was not so. A majority of planners (71%)
were in favor of transfers and there were no significant relationships be-
tween that opinion and the perceived ability to coexist with or control
natural forces-",69.
There were indications, on the other hand, that those who had the greatest
confidence in their own powers as decision makers or felt that they had a
directive rather than simply a service role as planners, were more likely
to rate man's abilities higher than nature's (Table VII-5). It is interest-
ing to note that these planners also tended to be more likely to be opti-
mistic in outlook than their counterparts.
The probable reason for these associations is quite apart from any real
nature connotation. Those who feel that man dominates nature are directive
in outlook, are optimistic and show more positive or assertive personali-
ties than those who feel that their job is to serve the public, who feel
dominated by nature, or are gloomy by choice. The evidence is not really
strong enough to consider our measures of the man versus nature perceptions
as good indices of personality type, though better designed ones might
do so.
Man and Nature
A frequent argument for the preservation of as much nature as possible in
an untouched state, is that experience and contact with nature provides a
valuable contribution to the health and physical and spiritual welfare
of individuals. Thoreau saw nature as the source of his inspiration and
as a refuge from the "follies" of society'-'. As environmental activist
David Brower puts it, it is "places where ... we perceive instead of just
looking, where we learn to listen a little and talk less, where we consider
our beginnings, and our beyondings, where we learn to absorb, and to re-
spect, and remember."'6 Others describe wilderness as "a benchmark or
touchstone," "a place for new perspectives," and talk of its value "to
individual men (as opposed to mankind) as balm, quiet, solitude . . . ,"
a place "to catch a breath."
Very little evidence of such feeling was exhibited in the planners * images
of nature. Yet, because of the emotional weight of these claims, and
since they are normally raised by the most severe and vociferous critics
of government environmental policy, an exploration of some of these more
metaphysical dimensions of nature was attempted.
In view of its greater emotional appeal and the prevailing climate of pub-
lic opinion about nature, a strong preference for natural over man-made
beauty (60% versus 4%) was demonstrated^. However, a large proportion
(36%), classed themselves as ambivalent. More revealing were the reasons
justifying these answers. The most frequent reasons given for preferring
136
-------
TABLE VII-5
Man
versus Nature Against Role
q. N42a Man has the
control woi
Q. S81e7°
Who should
decide what
the best
plan is?
Q0 S81d72
Who should
decide al-
ternatives
to s tudy 1
Q. P2573
Present role
as a planner
Q. T13574
General
out look
Planner/
Agency
Congress/
Public/
States, etc.
Q
Planner/
Agency
Others71
Directive
Non-directive
Optimistic
Pessimistic
Agree
11
6
18
. N42c Mi
Agree
28
8
36
IP.
27
37,
5
36
Perceptions
i potential ability to _
:ld wide natural phenomena
Undecided
0
3
Disagree
15
11
46
27
40
67
9
m can coexist with nature
Undecided
1
4
3
2
5
JL
0
5
Disagree
11
16
27
3
15
28
17
JJL
28
40
27
67
16
54
70
53
16
69
137
-------
natural beauty were that it is irreplaceable, unique, or beyond man's abil-
ities to duplicate (27%), and because it is aesthetically better, its
beauty is complete or balanced (19%)15. A few spoke of its timelessness
in creation and its ability to endure beyond man's efforts. Only five men
gave as their argument that nature provides a deeper quality of experience,
or that it has spiritual overtones. Of those ambivalent or for man-made
beauty, the principal reason given was that man can improve on nature, with
man-made objects or structures (reservoirs, buildings, bridges, etc.) being
able to enhance nature rather than detract from it (11%). Other answers
were that man's art, actions (ballet), etc. are beautiful, that there is
order and utility in man's works, and that a man's creativity is a growing
thing, while nature's is a static quality. On balance, reflecting the gen-
eral nature over man opinions discussed earlier, the most impressive aspect
of natural beauty was apparently that it is something that man cannot better,
or control, or replace". Again, very little evidence of other than a
fairly pragmatic outlook was revealed.
Similar attitudes were shown about the value of wilderness ' . Sixty-nine
per cent felt that the gains of the preservation of a wild river outweighed
the losses, with 16 per cent placing them in balance or ambivalent. Sixteen
per cent said that the losses are greater than the gains-'-'. The major gains
given were the preservation of "nature," such as wildlife habitat or ecologi-
cal systems, maintaining the "natural laboratory," and wilderness regions
(30%), and that the destruction of natural, or unique, beauty (24%) was
prevented-^. Thirteen per cent saw wilderness areas as providing for the
future, some in terms of leaving areas to show the way the country used to
be, a historical record, and others, more practically, to ensure future
pure water supplies. Eleven per cent gave the benefit of wilderness as its
use for recreation or sports. Spiritual or vicarious values were mentioned
by only a few, 10 per cent talking of psychic renewal, or of the vicarious
benefits of simply knowing that such areas are available for enjoyment
whether or not the opportunity to get to them is available. Another 19 per
cent also gave metaphysical benefits as a secondary gain. The total of 29
per cent is the highest percentage on any one question directly demonstrating
these perceptions.
The biggest single group saw the major disbenefit of a wild river as the
economic or monetary one (69%)^. The prevention of all beneficial uses
other than limited recreation and losing the opportunities for developing
water supply, power, irrigation, etc., were mentioned. Other losses seen
were the elimination of mass recreation opportunities (wild rivers providing
for an elite usage) and the ability to prevent damaging floods, to enhance
the flow regime by control, or to provide more beauty in the form of a
reservoir.
Finally, the issue of whether or not the value of a wild river is affected
by structures in their headwaters was raised-*- . Seventy per cent said that
the value was affected, the remainder that it was not. From those in the
majority, a fairly even division of opinion emerged. Twenty-one per cent
said that the value was raised, since flows became more regular, 23 per
138
-------
cent felt that the quality was decreased, and 26 per cent were ambivalent,
with the change depending on the river, the type of development, or the
level of control. (If too severe, the value drops; if it just regulates or
smooths the flows, the river can be enhanced.)
This last probe gives more insight into the planners' perceptions of man
versus nature. In this specific case, nearly half felt that man can, at
least in some instances, improve on nature, and nearly another third didn't
see that structures would decrease its value. This is a somewhat higher
opinion of man's abilities than was displayed in other areas, particularly
the evidence that only a fifth saw man's chief influence as a destructive
one. The probable explanation is that these planners are familiar with the
type of control that can be exercised on water and have much more defined
ideas as to what constitutes good or bad effects. It certainly points to
a need for a tighter definition of the aspect of nature against which man's
powers are being assessed in order to get meaningful results. The evidence
of our specific case of man versus hurricanes and earthquakes may be con-
sidered fairly valid. Other levels of control, atmospheric control, eco-
system influence, etc., need more detailed examination.
There is little evidence to contradict the earlier assertion that, overall,
the metaphysical values given to nature are quite low. At the very least,
it shows that planners are not generally willing to verbalize such beliefs,
if they do hold them. This may be due to a natural embarrassment at ex-
posing some of their basic faith. It may show an unwillingness to intro-
duce emotion into decisions about engineering works. It may be a dedica-
tion to economic goals. Whatever the reason, it implies that when faced
with claims of this type, the planner will probably publicly discount or
reject them. While emotional appeals may be a viable tactic for environ-
mental groups to use in public, when placing their arguments before the
agencies a definite change in direction is called for. The argument that
will persuade planners needs to point out the specific tradeoffs between
different alternatives and to provide as much factual or economically
based evidence as is possible. Some groups, notably the Sierra Club, ap-
pear to be increasingly aware of this fact.
The down-to-earth, practical view of nature as a source of economic and
"useful" resources persists. The tradeoff, as in the wild rivers question,
is seen largely between the economic values and preservation. The reasons
for simple protection are mixed and do not provide a direct counter to
the monetary losses. All the motives (to maintain ecosystems, preserve
beauty, to provide for our descendants, supply recreational opportunities,
etc.) are important, but they each apply to a different degree in differ-
ent cases. None have the immediate weight of economics. If the demand
for a priority ranking or some form of uniform tradeoff procedure could be
met, much of the confusion characterizing both the planners' views on
nature and the agencies' enforcement of the laws concerning the environ-
ment might be eliminated. One possible method to do this was suggested
by Willeke^S. It is the use of opinion sampling techniques to determine
regional or local priorities . Another approach would be to hold public
referendums on alternatives. This is not only more expensive, but gives
answers only after major value judgments have been made.
139
-------
Nature and the Public
Much of the pressure on agencies for environmental preservation comes
directly from the public. The public view is often that planners simply
shrug off public demands as being uninformed, too emotional, or based on
verbal but not genuine concern. The planners were thus asked to assess
their feelings about the public.
The initial reaction was quite positive, 53 per cent said that they though,t
that most people were concerned about preserving nature1", and 59 per centj
that the public would be willing to make some sacrifices to save the natu-
ral resources21. Unfortunately, the comments were more cynical^1' . Am-,
plifying the first answer, only six men felt that people were highly
motivated, or had purely unselfish concerns. Thirty per cent said that
publicity had been responsible for arousing the public or that the public
viewpoint was dramatized by the media, letters, demonstrations, etc., withr-
out a genuine public awareness of the problems or costs. Another 11 per
cent (27% if secondary comments were included) said that the concern was
limited or was felt only by those who perceived they would be directly
affected; that it resulted from the fear of ultimate destruction; what
could be lost to mankind in terms of recreation, sports, etc.; or that it
didn't go as far as man being willing to reduce his standard of living.
A few saw the issue simply as an emotional response, as a "motherhood and
flag" case20.
The comments of those giving a purely negative response were similar.
Twenty-four per cent said that people were selfish, concerned only with
economic or material goals, that they would not make sacrifices, or that
for the public short-term gains outweighed long-term losses. Sixteen per
cent claimed the public didn't understand or realize what would be lost,
or that because the majority are city dwellers, they don't have the oppor-
tunity to use or appreciate nature anyway20.
On the issue of public willingness to sacrifice, only a few saw a genuine
concern. Just three men felt the public would accept a higher tax burden,
bond issues, or forego development. The largest number, 30 per cent,
claimed that any sacrifice would have to be limited to indirect means (e.g.
through taxes) and that few people would accept the necessity for direct,
out-of-pocket payments, a drop in living standard, or the reduced use of
automobiles. Another 19 per cent said that the public would pay if
directly affected, but that the extent of the payment would vary by the
extent they would be hurt. Ten per cent saw need for continual pressures
on the public to keep them concerned22.
These responses indicate that while the planners felt that they should show
trust in and concern for the public, their real feelings are that people
aren't really aware of the problems or willing to pay, and that when called
upon for action, they will be recalcitrant^. Thus a feeling of mutual dis-
trust between planner and public apparently exists, which must be overcome
if the planning for people and nature is to coincide.
140
-------
Summary of Attitudes
The evidence so far has been of a pragmatic, middle-of-the-road outlook,
partly the result of engineers' natural caution about subjective analysis
and partly because nature is felt not to be well understood. Nature is not
seen as abundant or very stable, yet is considered robust. Man occupies a
special position, of nature, yet not in it. Water has a number of unique
qualities in these men's eyes. It is essential to life. It should not
(even cannot) be allocated according to the normal forces of the market-
place. Yet the value of water and of nature in general, is largely attrib-
uted to its contribution of resources to man. Major geophysical forces are
seen as beyond human powers, but man's disruptive effect on biosystems and
his ability to enhance limited natural features, such as rivers, are given
more credence. There was an apparent unwillingness, directly, to express
nature's possible benefits in terms of psychic gains, or to see environment
as more than a physical phenomenon. The planners appeared to distrust the
public's depth of commitment to nature, while conceding at least a super-
ficial concern.
Policy
The remaining aspect of this analysis of attitudes towards nature which can
be considered in the light of the foregoing opinions, is the question of
the direction that planners feel should be followed by national environ-
mental policy.
The above is a complex'and somewhat confused picture, but no more so than
exists elsewhere. A Congressional White Paper^O, preceding the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969^1 stated:
"We live in a period of social and technological revolution in
which man's ability to manipulate the processes of nature for
his own economic and social purposes is increasing at a rate
which his forebears would find frightening . . . the effects on
man himself of the changes he has wrought in the balance of
great natural forces . . . are at best dimly perceived, and not
at all well understood."
In the same colloquium, an argument arose over the state of the art of
ecology. Some scientists claimed it had already established enough basic
principles to guide industry and government, others felt that its studies
were still in the formative stage°2.
Concerning the value of man's relationship with his environment, some
scientists would go much further than the men in our sample. For example:
"... the way man deals with the environment is basic to his
behavior. For psychological growth, stimulation and contact
are sought and welcomed . . . there is a link between complex
environments and creative personalities . . ."83
141
-------
To add still more to their problems, the planners' attitude that water is
a unique, non-economic good, is severely challenged by a number of econo-
mists, such as Hirschliefer°4. He feels that it should be distributed,
along with other basic resources, according to strictly economic criteria.
The caution already shown in their opinions, the profusion of ideas and
the conflicts in policy demands8^ are further emphasized by the policy
directions actually chosen by the planners (Table VII-6).
TABLE VII-6
23
Preferred National Policy withJRespect to Nature
Primarily nature over man 25.7%
Balance - compromise 55.7%
Primarily man over nature 18.6%
100.0% N = 70
Most of the planners did not want to stop development, but neither did they
want to make too many irrevocable decisions. Man's needs must be balanced
against nature's. Where losses have occurred, they must be accepted, but
without doing too much more to untouched areas without more knowledge.
Man must begin to recognize the need for recycling of natural resources
and to evaluate the tradeoff between the long-term needs of nature versus
the comparatively short-term welfare of men. At least a part of nature
must be allowed to survive.
A quarter, the ultra-cautious, wanted to put nature first. Man's impact
must be minimized. The environment and nature must be protected, kept
healthy and robust, and even given priority over man while more study is
made to find out what is equitable and safe. The remainder were most con-
cerned with man. They felt that nature must serve man; that nothing
should inhibit man's survival and progress. Nature must be controlled.
A striking feature of this choice is that it was seemingly unrelated to
the images discussed previously. It was expected that those who would opt
for a man over nature or even a balanced policy would be more likely to
consider nature as robust, non-delicate and hostile. Resources would be
seen as abundant and the environmental crisis as less urgent. The image
of environment would be a physical one, and water would be seen as a unique
good in its relation to man's survival. The morality of man's control over
nature would be unquestioned and a preference for man-made, or ambivalence
over natural beauty was expected. Man's works would be viewed as enhancing
nature, since it helps man. Man would be seen as relatively strong with
respect to nature. Only one of these expectations, the preference for
man-made beauty showed a significant relationship. A very weak indication
had those with a man over nature policy outlook giving man the moral right
to control other species (Table VII-7).
142
-------
TABLE VII-7
Planners' Preferred Nature Policy
versus Imafte and DpmnpmpMrs
86
Q. N47
Which is worth
more,, natural
or man=made
beauty?
87
Q. N39f
Man has the right
of control over
all other living
species.
88
Years
89
D-Time in Grade
Years
90
D-Agencv Service
Years
91
D-Location
Natural
Ambivalent
Man-made
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Under 30
30-40
40-50
50 & over
0-3
3+
Under 10
over 10
West, Midwest
South
Northeast
Q. N4Q Nature - Policy Choice
Nature
over man
18
13
5
0
7
0
11
3
2
4
4
9
9
9
9
I3.
4
1
Ba lance
39
25
14
0
15
2
22
12,
11
11
5
2JL
18
22
17
22
8
9
Man over
nature
13
4
6
3
9
0
4
1
4
1
2
2
11
3
12
7
6
0
70
42
25
3
31 ,
2
37
1.4
22
18
16
32
38
34
36
42
18
10
143
-------
The most probable reasons for this seemingly confused picture is uncertainty
We were asking planners to articulate ideas and formulate positions on con-
cepts about which they had given little thought, if they had considered
them at all92. The complex of personal beliefs and perceptions surrounding
nature are so subjective that inconsistencies are inevitable. These fac-
tors alone would greatly reduce the possibility of a coherent picture.
Secondly, some of the hypotheses we formulated were tenuous, based more on
our own biases than reality. Thirdly, faced with a complex problem, the
natural instinct is to choose the middle path. With the majority doing
this, the direction and meaning of the relationship of this attitude to
others is complicated.
Some of our preconceptions about the variations in policy attitude among
the different groups of planners did receive some support (Table VII-7).
The longer a man had served, the longer he had been in grade, the older
men, all tended to prefer a man dominates nature policy. Another test also
showed geographic variation, the planners of the West choosing a nature
policy, the Northeast a balance, and the South and Midwest a man dominant
position. There was no apparent variation in the preferred policy between
the different agencies.
Finally, it is instructive to consider the differences between the pre-
ferred policy, the policy that the planners feel is actually being imple-
mented (Table VII-8), and the policy as set down by Congress in 1969".
TABLE VII-8
24
Planners Perceptions of Present Nature Policy
Primarily Nature over Man 18.6%
Balance - compromise 35.7%
Primarily Man over Nature 22.9%
None - limited policy 22.9%
100.0% N = 70
The major difference between the preferred (Table VII-6) and actual policy
choices of the planners is that over a fifth felt that there was little or
no defined policy. Some said that the government was doing nothing, some
that the policy was that of laissez-faire or benign neglect, and others
that while there is a good deal of lip service, little or nothing is accom-
plished. The shift occurred mainly from those who preferred a balanced
policy, but there were also losses from the nature dominant faction.
The largest single viewpoint saw government taking a compromise position.
The most frequent comment was that things are changing, that while nature
used to be exploited, a balanced or even protectionist stance is now taken.
The extremes offset each other. The number of planners who said that we
still exploit and abuse nature, about equalled those who felt that things
144
-------
were actually going too far towards preservation, that we are currently
over-reacting or over-compensating against development.
Thus, some cynicism about current policies was demonstrated, with the more
idealistic nature centered and balanced preferences being discarded for a
more pragmatic reality. The large number who saw no policy at all, may
reflect confusion about which of the many laws is applicable, a questioning
of the motivation behind these laws, or even a lack of knowledge of the
content, or existence of the laws themselves9^.
However, a comprehensive policy statement does exist , which applies to
all federal agencies, and should be understood by planners, particularly
those in water resources. In fact, when asked to discuss the laws that
had influenced the quality of planning over the last ten or twenty years,
only a third of our sample mentioned this act, and just five men said that
they considered it to be one of the most important pieces of legislation
of this period9^.
The policy set down largely agrees with the compromise (and mixed) view-
point desired by the majority of planners. In part, it states:
"To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and
enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote ef-
forts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment
or biosphere, and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to en-
rich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural re-
sources important to the Nation; . . . assure for all Americans
safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally
pleasing surroundings . . . attain the widest possible range of
beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk or
health to safety . . . preserve historic, cultural and natural
aspects of our natural heritage, and maintain wherever possible,
an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual
choice . . . achieve a balance between population and resource use
which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of
life's amenities ..."
"... Congress recognizes that each person has a fundamental
and inalienable right to a healthful environment, and that each
person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation
and enhancement of the environment."
This act places man first, but wants to protect the options of both the
man and nature dominant factions. Man must live, but nature must be pro-
tected. Survival must be coupled with the achievement of a high quality of
life. Nature is viewed both as a resource and as having a value beyond
that of a mere resource. It states that men have a right to a good en-
vironment, but makes it clear that this is not cost-free. Public sacri-
fice and willingness to pay are declared to be necessary.
It appears that the motivations of both the Congress and the planners are
basically the same but both are subject to similar irreconcilable demands
and conflicts.
145
-------
The question that remains is whether or not the direction of the actual
policy as enacted is as perceived by the planners. This is more difficult,
perhaps impossible to answer without the specific evidence of a series of
case studies. That the approach is changing is unquestionable. In a
recent draft of a new environmental policy proposed for the Corps' , the
following appeared:
"... accord environmental aspects full weight in decision-
making along with social, economic and technical considera-
tions, and consider the environmental aspirations, needs, and
preferences of the public, its elected and appointed officials
and organizations and environmental interests."
The power of the preservationist lobby has been consistently demonstrated
over the last few years in the concessions forced from the agencies in
modifying, or delaying projects. However, in other instances, development
interests have had enough weight to overcome environmental opposition.
The common lack of appreciation that a policy exists at all points to two
possibilities. One is that those planners have never been confronted
with these issues in their planning and thus have felt no need to find out
what the official agency viewpoint is. The other is that the agencies need
to conduct an educational program within their planning staffs to demon-
strate what their environmental policies are, what laws are applicable,
how they should be interpreted and applied and what division of responsibil-
ity exists. It is not enough to conduct seminars among the supervisors of
the planning divisions if the information does not filter down to the
working level'".
Water Quality
The most rapidly growing environmental issue in water planning is that
raised by the problems of water pollution. This provides a relevant topic
for an examination of planner reaction to, and opinion about, possible
actions with regard to a specific aspect of the environment, and how this
relates to attitudes toward nature in general.
The primary problem was overwhelmingly seen as coming from untreated
municipal and industrial sewage. Four-fifths of the planners mentioned
both of these sources with an equal division as to which of the two was
considered most important2^. Other frequently given causes of pollution
were sediments (22%), nutrients from the fertilizers in agricultural run-
off (21%), and salinity, both natural and man induced (from oil drilling,
overpumping, and agricultural flows)2^. In addition, solid wastes, gar-
bage, oil spills, feedlot runoff, pesticides, hot water, acid mine drain-
age, radioactivity, mercury, dredging soils, and the effluent from private
boats, were mentioned. This was a fairly complete listing, but below
the first choice, it was probably ordered in importance by the frequency
of the men's contact with the particular problems rather than by how
truly potentially damaging the pollution sources are.
146
-------
In line with their generally pragmatic outlook on nature, a majority,
60 per cent, refused to be stampeded by the weight of publicity, viewing
present water quality problems as somewhat less than serious, or as still
being within reasonable bounds26. However, the largest single group
stayed right in the middle, 47 per cent choosing the latter of these two
categories.
Opinion as to what the future situation might be was fairly evenly split,
just over half holding that water pollution would be a less pressing dif-
ficulty in the future, or at least not get worse, and the remainder that
it would become more critical27. An interesting facet of these answers
was that 18 per cent saw an impending change in the severity of this prob-
lem in about 5-10 years. Eleven men said that it would continue to increase
for this period, then begin to fall, while one man took the opposite view,
a decrease followed by an eventual increase. Regardless of the direction
of change, the view that the next ten years will be very important, even
a crisis period, in terms of man's relationship to environment, is very
extensively held among these federal planners as well as in much of the
ecological literature.
The main reason (40%) given for seeing a diminishing problem was the opin-
ion that current efforts, with new institutional and legal solutions, will
be effective2**. Three people saw hope simply in today's climate of in-
creasing public awareness, and two said that better technology and physical
methods will be adequate. The primary cause for predicting an increasingly
difficult task was that the problems are felt to be increasing at a faster
rate than the development of solutions. Chiefly, the accelerating demands
on facilities made by the growth in population are considered to be out-
stripping the building of corrective works. Another 13 per cent stated
that pollution could not be eliminated until genuine motivation and effort
are expended by the agencies. These people felt that so far insufficient
money, men and resources are being allocated to the water quality field2".
While the assessment of the present situation was evenly spread through the
three agencies and the various planners, there were marked differences in
opinion about the future of the problem between these groups (see Table
VII-9). The younger men, the GS-11 and 12 planners (as opposed to their
supervisors) and the less experienced men, were more likely to see future
problems as growing, as being more serious. This perception of insuffi-
cient current effort and even distrust of their agencies' motivations
apparently reflects some of the greater concern for nature shown by this
same group in opting for a more nature centered approach to national
policy. The agency differences showed that Corps planners tended to
downplay any increase in the problem, BuRec planners gave it unexpected
weight, while those in FWQA, who are most responsible in this field and
could be expected to give the best estimate of its future, were ambiva-
lent, unsure about its eventual direction.
Opinions in this specific area of environmental planning were related to
the planners' general views about nature on one other question. As might
be foreseen, those who were confident that man has the ability to coexist
147
-------
TABLE VII-9
Assessment of Water Pollution Problem
versus Aee. Grade. Service. Aeencv. Perceived Ability versus Nature
D
D
D
D
Q.
^^£_
A J-00
- Age
Years Less than 40
Over 40
r J 101
- Grade
Planner GS-11 & 12
Supervisor GS-13,14,15
102
- Planning Service
Years Up to 10
Over 10
103
- Agency
Corps
BuRec
FWQA
N42c104
Man has learned Yes
to change and ?
control nature
enough to coexist No
with it
N53 Problem of
mf^^mfH^
in future
water pollution
will be:27
More Less serious
serious or unchanged
32
22
10
15.
7
23
9
15
ii
.6
13
1
16
36
14
22
19
11
14
22
26
4
6
24
1
11
Q.
Q.
N42c105
Man has learned Yes
to coexist ... ?
No
N52 At present
pollution
68
36
32
44
24
37
31
41
15
12
37
4
27
the water „,
, , . 2o
problem is:
Serious Within
or very reasonable bounds
serious or not serious
11
1
JL5
27
26_
3
12
41
37
4
27
68
148
-------
with nature were more likely to downgrade both the current situation and
any possible increase in the magnitude of pollution in the future106
(Table VII-9). This adds weight to an earlier generalization, which was
that to examine attitudes toward nature for predicting planning behavior,
it is necessary to confine attention to specific topics rather than to
project from a generalized viewpoint.
In their day to day work on water quality control, planners must find
answers to such problems as those caused by the constraints, legal or
otherwise, that they encounter within their own agencies, how to quantify
or trade off intangible benefits, and how and to whom to allocate the
considerable costs involved.
The constraints on pollution control efforts were largely seen as being
caused by limited legal authority available to the agencies (55%)29. Such
factors as a lack of effective legislation107, political interference and
inability to combat special interest pressures, an over-dependence on state
and local cooperation10^, and lack of adequate enforcement powers to punish
offenders were all raised. The contribution to the potential growth in
pollution problems because insufficient resources, money, men, data, and
technology, are being allocated to the task was again raised (18%). A
typical complaint was that they were never able to assemble enough evi-
dence against a pollution offender to enable prosecution in a court of law
and that even if they could, the agency was unlikely to press the issue
that far. Five men complained that the agencies lack the dedication or
motivation to really grapple with the issues10^. The difficulty is that
the Corps and FWQA, particularly, are in the position of having to depend
on local cooperation to ensure the viability of most of their programs,
while also having the responsibility to punish the same people for water
quality violations. This dilemma points to the need to separate develop-
ment and planning programs from the enforcement function. The Environmental
Protection Administration could be a vehicle for such an approach, though
as presently set up it serves all functions. Recent reemphasis of the
Corps' authority under the Refuse Act of 1899110 leaves it also as planner,
constructor, and enforcer.
The inadequacy of the benefit-cost ratio as a measure of project worth is
given some emphasis in the water quality field. Fifty-four per cent of
the sample said that pollution control could not be justified using the
existing benefit-cost approach, or without some means by which the benefits
could be quantified30. Several men commented that the benefit-cost ratio
was wrong for water quality, that it simply provided a means to justify a
project, not to evaluate its worth. Others held that the alternative cost
method as presently used to evaluate benefits where they cannot be directly
evaluated, cannot, and should not be applied to water quality planning
since it doesn't fully estimate the value of the improvements especially
for health and human safety.
Finally, the fundamental question of "who should pay," which is so diffi-
cult to answer in environmental planning because of the problem of allo-
cating costs according to benefits was raised31. The most popular response
149
-------
was the quick reaction, "the polluter of course." Second ranked was the •
general public, followed by the consumers, industries, the federal govern-
ment and lastly local communities and interests. The most frequent qual-
ifier to this choice was that it doesn't matter who pays directly, since-
the costs will eventually be passed to the public (28%)32. Others made
the point that although the polluter should pay, the first problem was to
identify who it is. If this cannot be done then there is no recourse but
to go directly to the taxpayer.
Thus, it turns out that for the planners, the really important implication
of this question actually is not "who should pay"; most of them accepted
that the cost will finally be borne by the public. The crucial issue is
the means by which this transfer should be made. The future of public ac-
ceptance of water quality programs may well hinge on whether or not the
public sees itself as being directly penalized, as through tax increases,
bond issues, or fines for illegal dumping, or makes the payment indirectly,
through the increased cost of goods and services. As demonstrated earlier,
the planner felt that the latter course is more likely to be acceptable
than the direct out-of-pocket payment concept, since the public's concern
for the environment was seen largely as a superficial thing, without
genuine depth.
From the industry standpoint, although the question and initial conclusion
may be the same, the ultimate means desired, as pointed out in a recent
business review article in "Newsweek "m are probably different. Their
question was:
"Should the cleanup be paid for only by the company, or at least
in part by a tax assessment?"
And the answer:
"One way or another of course the public will pay, either in
higher prices for industries' products, or in some form of
taxes. Given the choice, most businessmen would probably
prefer to be subsidized for their pollution control out of the
public purse rather than their customers' pockets—and until
the issues are clearer, to spend as little as possible."
For industry, the more direct penalty would be the smaller volume of busi-
ness caused by higher prices, thus the taxation route is preferred.
Among the planners some ambivalence existed. About 56 per cent gave the
initial reaction that the "polluter" or "industries" should pay, indicat-
ing the feeling that business should not only have to clean up its own
mess, but should also pay for it itself, without transferring this cost
to the general public. For municipalities, this would mean payment for
quality control by the local government through area and task specific bond
issues or taxes. The remainder generally accepted that the problem is too
widespread and complex to assign responsibility to any specific group of
individuals and favored a direct payment by the public or financing
150
-------
through the federal government. Several advocated that the source of
this revenue should be in the form of increased prices rather than
through general taxation. One suggestion was that if the taxation
method were used, it should be levied regionally according to the pollu-
tion loads. Others favored a nationally uniform program, ensuring equal
costs to all.
151
-------
QUESTION SUMMARY--CHAPTER VII
!•• Q. N37 "One of the popular issues of today is a concern for nature.
When you hear the word nature, what image comes to mind?"
Descriptions of features 42.9%
Qualitative descriptions 47.1
Human centered activitiy 1.4
Environment 7.1
Objects 1.4
100.0% N = 70
2« Q. N37 "With or without man?"
^
With man - 35.7%; With a few men - 7.1%; Without modern man - 2.9%;
Without man - 54.3% , N = 70
3» Q. N46 "Would you tell us how you would define the environment?"
Physical, tangibles only 52.9%
Physical, tangibles plus noise,
odors, etc. 5.7
Physical, tangible and intangible
and quality 4.7
62.9%
Physical plus interaction with
other men 7.17<,
Physical plus social world 8.6
Physical plus social and economic
world 4.3
Physical plus social, economic,
aesthetic, religious world 17.1
37.1% N = 70
4. Q. N38 "How would you describe our state of knowledge about the
long range consequences of man's changes on nature?"
Very poor 20.0% Moderate 10.0%
Poor 28.6 Moderate and rising 4.3
Poor but increasing 12.9 Fairly good 10.0
Know enough to realize Fairly good and rising 5.7
limitations 2.9 Good to very good 5.7
64.3% 35.7%
N = 70
152
-------
5. Q« N45 "Some ecologists claim that the problems of the environment
are so urgent that solutions must be found within the next decade
if we are to survive. How nearly do you agree with this viewpoint?"
Agree - 10.0%; Somewhat agree - 31.4%; Undecided - 8.6%; Mildly
disagree - 22.9%; Disagree 27.1% N = 70
6- Q« N39 "Would you agree or disagree with the following statements
about nature?"
Mildly Unsure Mildly Disa-
Agree Agree ? Disa- gree
gree
a. In most cases3 nature is
robust and self healing. 48.6% 27.1% 0% 11.4% 12.9%
b. Unspoiled environment or
untouched nature presently
is abundant in the U.S. 17.1 20.0 4.3 18.6 40.0
c. The "balance of nature" is
a delicate one. 60.0 10.0 5.7 14.3 10.0
d. Man is a part of nature. 91.4 4.3 1.4 0 2.9
e. Nature is essentially a
hostile force. 10.0 14.3 4.3 8.6 62.9
f. Man has the right of control
over all other living species 27.1 17.1 2.9 12.9 40.0
N = 70
Q. NIOOa "Which of the following two statements most nearly describes
your feelings about water?"
a. Water is a commodity which should be treated just as any
other marketable good. 16.07»
b. Water is a unique good with a special value which cannot
be measured just in terms of it's price. 79.6
No answer 4.4
N = 69 100.0%
*
Cpp.iraents pn *:-g
5?T.Time limit too arbitrary jz.y/
Problem urgent but not critical 31.4
Don't hold doomsday view 14.3
Insufficient knowledge to judge 10.0
Some irreversible changes have already occurred 8.6
Man and technology will prevail 7.1
Over-population a major problem 5.7
Miscellaneous - non urgency ^«3
153
-------
8. Q. NIOQb "Would you agree or disagree that:"
Mildly Unsure Mildly Disa-
Agree Agree ? Disagree gree
a. Waters as a necessity for
life, should be free to
all men? 32.4% 8.7% 1.5% 7.2% 49.3%
b. Water is a central factor
in determining economic
growth? 82.4 7.2 0 5.9 4.4
c. The highest use of water
is for it to serve the
physical needs of man? 61.8 23.5 5.9 5.9 2.9
N = 68
9. Q. N42 "Regarding man's ability to control nature, would you agree
or disagree with the following statements?"
Mildly Unsure Mildly Disa-
Agree Agree ? Disagree gree
a. Man has the potential
ability to control world-
wide natural phenomena
such as earthquakes or
hurricanes. 17.1% 10.0% 4.3% 10.0% 58.6%
b. Man can presently change
nature on a world-wide
scale but cannot always
predetermine the changes
that will occur. 58.6 20.0 5.7 4.3 11.4
c. Man has learned to change
and control nature enough
so that he can coexist
with it with low damage
or risk to either. 32.9 20.0 7.1 15.7 24.3
d. Man can seldom do more
than defend himself
against natural disaster. 34.3 15.7 1.4 24.3 24.3
N = 70
10 • Q- N43 "Give a few examples of what you feel are man's major positive
contributions to nature."
None 20.0%
Man-centered/economic 28.6
Benefits to man and nature 12.9
Rehabilitate damages 17.1
Nature centered 21.4
100.0% N = 70
154
-------
11. Q. N44 "Give a few examples of what you feel are man's major
negative effects on nature."
1.4%
Resource exploitation 20.0
Human failings /limitations 2.9
Lack of planning/foresight 5.7
Types and descriptions of damage 70.0
100.0% N = 70
12. Q. N43 Man centered—flood control dams, water supply systems,
recreation facilities, air conditioning, etc.
Man and nature--biological management, birth control, water
and soil conservation, etc.
Rehabilitation--clean up pollution, erosion control, refores-
tation, etc.
Nature—wildlife preserves, parks, wilderness areas, etc.
Q. N44 Human failings—war, social ills, political motives.
Damage—air and water pollution, garbage, pesticides, side
effects of engineering, etc.
Exploitation--overcutting forests, overmining, etc.
13. Q. 106b "What is your opinion about the use of large scale interbasin
water transfers?"
In favor of transfers 30.8%
Conditionally in favor 40.0 (Protection of donor
Ambivalent 9.2 basins guaranteed)
Opposed 20.0
100.0% N = 65
14. Q. N47 "In your opinion, what is worth more, natural or man-made
beauty?"
Natural - 60.0%; Ambivalent - 35.7%; Man-made - 4.3% N = 70
15. Q. N47 "In what way?" (Is natural beauty worth more?)
Natural Man-made/Ambivalent
Irreplaceable/unique/man Man can improve on
cannot duplicate nature 27.1% nature 11.4A
Aesthetic quality-balanced Man's creations—art,
/diverse/complete 18.6 sports—are beautiful 2.9
Depth or quality of the
experience 7.1 No answer
Timelessness 4.3
Useful !-4
No answer 1-4
N = 70
60.0%
155
-------
16. Q. N48a "What in your opinion is gained and lost when a river is
preserved as a "wild river"?
Gains Losses
Preserve nature/ Economic/monetary 68.67,
ecolo§y . . 38'6% Mass recreation use
Preserve beauty 24.3 restricted to elite 10.0
Save for future 12.9 Damage control/flow
, / . . . ,„ „ enhancement 10.0
Spiritual/vicarious gains 10.U
_ .T , None 11.4
Recreation use 11.4
None 2.9 N - 70 100.0%
N = 70 100.0%
17. Q. N48b "Do the gains outweigh the losses or vice-versa?"
Gains over losses 68.6%
Ambivalent/don't know 15.7
Losses over gains 15.7
100.0% N = 70
Q. N49 "Do you think the value of a wild river is affected by a few
dams in the headwaters?"
Yes - 70.0%; No - 28.6%; No answer - 1.4% N = 70
"Does the value go up or down?"
Value increases 15.7%
Up, more regular flows decrease peaks and increase
low flows 5.7
Value increases (total) 21.4%
Depends on the extent of regulation 15.7
Depends on the particular river 5.7
Depends on the type of development 2.9
Gains balance losses 1.4
Ambivalent (total) 25.7%
Value decreases 22.9%
156
-------
19. Q. N50a "Do you believe that most of the people in this country
are concerned about preserving nature?"
Yes - 52.9%; Don't know/Ambivalent - 4.3%; No - 42.9%
N = 70
20. Q. N50a
Yes - Why?
Evidence of media/results
of publicity
Limited motivation,
selfish concerns
People highly motivated,
unselfish
Emotional response
30.0%
11.4
8.6
4.3
54.3%
No - Why not?
People selfish, economi-
cally oriented 24.3%
Lack of appreciation or
understanding of nature 15.7
No answer
40.0%
5.7%
N = 70
21. Q. N50b "Would you say the general public is willing to make some
sacrifices to save our natural resources?"
Yes - 58.6%; Don't know/Ambivalent - 1.4%; No - 40.(
22. Q. N50b "Comment"
N = 70
Yes
Limited or indirect
sacrifices only 22.9%
Depends on specific case,
extent of involvement 7.1
Rising/need continual
reminders 2.9
Will accept bond issues,
taxes, etc. 4.3
37.1%
No
Unaware of problem
Limited, no direct loss
Depends on specific case
Inflexible
No answer
8.6%
7.1
S.o
1.4
25.U
37.1%
N = 70
23. Q. N40 "What do you believe should be the national policy with re-
spect to nature?"
Primarily nature over man
Balance, compromise
Primarily man over nature
Humanitarian
25 „ 7%
55.7
17.1
1.4
100.0%
N = 70
24. Q. N41 "What is the actual policy being followed now?"
Primarily nature over man 18.6%
Balance - compromise 35.7
Primarily man over nature 21.4
157
-------
24. (Cont.)
Humanitarian 1.
None - limited policy 22.
100.
47,
9
0%
25. Q. N51 "What are the major forms of water pollution
Municipal/untreated human wastes
Industrial wastes
Sediments
Nutrients - agricultural runoff
Salinity - irrigation return flows
Salinity - from drilling/over pumping
Feed lot runoff
Solid wastes/debris
Oil spills /leakage
Thermal
Acid mine drainage
Natural salinity
Pesticides
Boating wastes (commercial and private)
Depletion of streamflow
Radioactive wastes
Mercury
Dredging activity
/
N = 68
Primary
Source
39.7%
38.2
2.9
2.9
7.3
0
2.9
1.5.
1.5
0
1.5
0
1.5
0
0
0
0
0
100.07,
in your
Other
Sources
42.67,
36.8
19.1
17.6
8.8
11.8
13.2
13.2
11.8
11.8
10.4
10.4
5.9
4.4
2.9
1.5
1.5
1.5
225. 27o
N = 70
region?"
Total
82.37,
75.0
22.0
20.5
16.1
11.8
16.1
14.7
13.3
11.8
11.8
10.4
7.3
4.4
2.9
1.5
1.5
1.5
325.27,
26. Q. N52 "Would you say that at present the problem of water pollution
is very serious, still within reasonable bounds or not serious?
Very serious - 19.17,; Serious - 20.67,; Still reasonable - 47.17,;
Not very serious -13.27, N = 68
27. Q. N53 "Will the problem become more or less serious in the future?"
More serious - 45.67,; More in long run, even if temporarily decreases
- 1.57,; No change - 1.57,; Less serious in long run, but higher for
5-10 years - 16.17,; Less serious - 35.37, N = 68
28. Q. N53 "Why?" (Problems increase or decrease?)
Increase Decrease
Growth of problems greater Institutional/legal s olu-
than supply of solutions 36.87, tions powerful 39.77,
Lack of effort, desire 13.2 Indirect solutions, gen-
Technical inability 1.5 eral public concern 4.4
Technology 2.9
51.57,
No answer 1.57, N = 68
158
47.07,
-------
29. Q. N54b "In controlling pollution, what would you say that your
agency's major constraint is?"
Lack of authority or power 54.570
Lack of resources 17.6
Lack of motivation 7.4
Restrictive benefit evaluation rules 4.4
No constraints 4.4
No answer 11.7
100.07. N = 68
30. Q. N55 "Can pollution control be justified using benefit-cost
analysis?"
Yes - 39.7%; Conditional, only if benefits can be quantified - 5.97,;
No - Not with present B/C methods - 17.67=; No - 30,97=; Don't know -
5.97=. N = 68
31. Q. N56 "Who should pay for pollution control?"
Primary Secondary
Choice Choice Total
Polluter 50.07= 4.47« 54.57=
General Public 22.1 11.8 33.9
Consumers 11.8 11.8 23.6
Industries 5.9 14.7 20.6
Federal Government 4.4 22.1 26.5
Local Communities 2.9 16.2 19.1
Local Interests 2.9 4.4 7.3
N = 68 100.07= 85.47, 185.47=
32. Q. N56 Comments.
No matter who pays .directly the public will eventually bear
the cost. 28.07=
Polluter should be charged if identifiable., otherwise
general taxpayer. 16.2
Prefer cost passed to public through the cost of goods
rather than by taxation. 10«3
Industries should not be able to pass the cost to the public 2.9
Need a nationally uniform program. 2°9
Levy tax according to pollution load. 1-5
159
-------
NOTES—CHAPTER VII
33.. E.g.j an individual may have quite a different concept of nature as
he hikes through a wilderness area, to that exhibited by his actions
as a businessman or even as a householder.
34. Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1.966.
35. So commonly part of very idealistic descriptions. For instance, see
articles by David and Kenneth Brower in The Environmental Handbook.
ed. Garrett DeBell, Ballantine, 1970.
36. Only four men gave something as abstract as a systems concept, not
just containing objects but emphasizing the relationships between
various forces, or components of ecologic systems. Nobody mentioned
intangibles such as odors, perceptions of heat and cold, etc., al-
though one man did talk of the absence of noise.
37. Again, the objects were largely tangible. Only 5 men gave all en-
compassing, world wide images. Nobody mentioned the sun, or the
universal type of concept quoted by Webster's.
38. Although 19 did mention streams as a secondary part of their image.
39. All the definitions given are listed in Appendix 3, to give an idea
of the range of concepts exhibited.
40. If even a limited perception of this broader environment was exhibited
the individual was given the latter classification.
41. N=70, Chi Square=6.67, 2 degrees of freedom, 0.05 significance level.
42. Western locations defined as being all offices west of and including
Dallas/Fort Worth.
43. A viewpoint seen both in the popular press and from some very eminent
ecologists, e.g. Paul Erhlich, Barry Commoner, etc.
44. The answers to Q. N42b supports this view. The statement was made
that "Man can presently change nature on a world wide scale, but
cannot always predetermine the changes that will occur." 797» of
the respondents "strongly agreed", or just "agreed" to that view-
point. This was a poor question, containing two dimensions, the
world wide influence, and more knowledge, which confused the response.
A strong agreement however, without any apparent doubts being ex-
pressed, should indicate that both dimensions were agreed with. 59%
exhibited an answer of that strength, again demonstrating fairly
well the low confidence planners have in man's knowledge of the broad
sweep of nature.
45, 46, 47. Omitted.
160
-------
48.
49,
50.
More knowledge is not the only prerequisite to the quantification of
nature's benefits and costs. Knowledge doesn't necessarily remove
value connotations, and usually exposes even more. Certain things-"
beauty, the value to life of contact with nature, etc., can never be
equitably compared unless everybody shares the same beliefs, has a
common experience, etc. Even when numbers are assigned to aesthetics
as Leopold has attempted to do, this does not provide the dollar val-
ues, but only comparative statistics along a few dimensions. Those
chosen as important, must be subjectively assigned. (Luna B. Leopold,
"Quantitative Comparison of some Aesthetic Factors Among Rivers",
Geological Survey Circular 620. Washington. D.C., 1969.
There has probably been an overreaction here in their enthusiasm to
be heard and to make their case. The ecologists have to an extent,
failed in their task, because too many have been simply destructive,
rather than constructive in their criticism. They have torn projects
apart without providing the necessary alternatives to fill the vacuum,
The time has come to show planners how to achieve some of society's
goals and still meet ecological standards.
Q.N39c Nature has a delicate balance
Q. N39a
Agree
34
1£
49
Disagree
16
1
17
50 '
16
66
Nature is robust.
Agree
Disagree
N=66, Chi Square=2.94, 1 degree of freedom, level of signif.=0.10.
51. It is a surprise, mainly because the Judeo-Christian ethic, which is
the predominant belief code in the United States, gives man "dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the
cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that
creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis, Chapter 1, verse 26, Holy Bible,
King James Version.)
52. Values underlined are those in the major categories that are higher
than expected.
53. N=70, Chi Square=6.61, 2 degrees freedom, level of signif.=0.05.
54. N=70, Chi Square=3.56, 2 degrees freedom, relationship not significant.
55. N=70, Chi Square=5.34s 2 degrees of freedom, level of signif.=0.10.
56. N=70, Chi Swuare=9.12, 2 degrees freedom, level of signif.=0.02.
161
-------
57. N=70S Chi Square=5.18, 2 degrees of freedom, level of signif.=0.10.
58. Hirschliefer, _e_t al., ££. cit.
59. J. Bruner and M. Farris, op. cit.
60. Indeed, one planner said, "You gain nothing by turning water loose
and Letting it go unused into the ocean."
61. F. R. Kluckhohn, ££. cit.
62. One limited example is that flood control dams on certain rivers,
while saving lives, have also prevented the annual deposition of
highly fertile silt deposits in the delta areas, and have altered
or destroyed traditional agricultural patterns.
63. An attempt to assess the merely self protective reaction to natural
forces, was made with Q. N42(d)„ which asked for agreement with the
statement that "man can seldom do more than defend himself against
natural disaster.'! The response received was inconclusive, 34.3%
agreed, 15.7% somewhat agreed, 1.47o gave no answer, 24.37. mildly
disagreed, and 24.37o disagreed (N=70). Some confusion was evident
among the respondents when given this question. However, the stronger
opinions (34% to 24%)tend to support the concept, with the overall
viewpoint apparently evenly split.
64. There is a weak, but not significant relationship between Q. N38. the
amount of knowledge of nature felt to be available and Q. N42(c).
Q_.__N42r Man has the ability to coexist with nature
0. N38
Agree
15
22
37
?
3
2
5
Disagree
7
11
28
25
45
70
Knowledge of Nature
High
Low
65. Although the two dimensions are not as different in effect as those
°f Q. N42(b) dismissed earlier. Coexistence implies that interference
is small.
il
.J.
66. As demonstrated by the spread of pesticide residues throughout the
food chains of the oceans, etc.
67. This is supported by the negative view of man's understanding of
nature demonstrated in Q. N38. Again, since knowledge of the proces-
ses is seen to be lacking, this supports the view that control is
low, since control without knowledge is difficult. Knowledge, how-
ever, is not a necessary prerequisite to disruption.
162
-------
68. N=70, Chi Square-6.80, 2 degrees freedom, level of signif.=0.05.
69. 0. lOb^h^Ufifs nf lav-era ooe.1^ J-j 1 • ___.. . ,-
Q. N42(a)
Man can control
hurricanes, etc.
Agree
?
Disagree
Q. N42(c)
Man can coexist
with nature.
Agree
o
Disagree
Favor
8
1
11
20
10
3
7
20
Condition-
ally favor
5
1
20
26
10
1
15
26
Ambiv-
alent
0
0
6
6
4
0
2
6
Against
3
0
10
13
9
0
4
13
16
2
47
65
33
4
28
65
70. N=67, Chi Square=8.36, 2 degrees freedom, level of signif.=0.02.
71. The division of decision makers is between the planner and/or his
agency and a combination of other decision makers such as Congress,
states, locals, groups such as basin commissions, the public, etc.
72. N=67, Chi Square=10.02, 2 degrees freedom, level of signif.=0.01.
73. N=70, Chi Square=6.62, 2 degrees freedom, level of signif.=0.05.
74. N=69, Chi Square=7.33, 2 degrees freedom, level of signif.=0.05.
75. Carl Bode (Ed.), The Portable Thoreau, Viking Press, 1969.
76. David Brower, "A Time for Sarsparilla", in The Environmental Hand-
book, ed. Garret:de Bell, Ballantine, 1970.
77. Timelessness, aesthetic perfection, etc., are just other ways of
saying that a process or object is beyond man's powers.
78. Gene E. Willeke, o£. cit.
79. A Gallup Poll made in January 1971 disputed the planners' perceptions,
Taken for the National Wildlife Federation, it found that 51 per cent
163
-------
were "deeply concerned" about the effects of air pollution, water.
pollution3 soil erosion and wildlife destruction. About one-third
were "somewhat concerned" and 12 per cent were "not very concerned".
Air and water pollution were ranked as the two most pressing pro-
blems, in that order. Seventy-five per cent (including sixty-three
per cent of those with incomes under $5,000) indicated a willingness
to 'pay additional taxes, if they were earmarked for conservation.
Six in ten persons said they would be willing to serve on committees
if asked to do so. (AWRA Newsletter, mid-1970)
80. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Astronautics,
Congressional White Paper on "A National Policy for the Environment",
90th Congress, 2nd Sess., Serial T, October 1968, p. I,
81. U.S. Senate Report No. 91-296, "National Environmental Policy Act of
1969", (S1075), 91st Cong., 1st Sess. July, 1969.
82. Cong. White Paper, og, cit_,, p. 4,5.
83. Amos Rapoport and Robert E. Kantor, "Complexity and Ambiguity in
Environmental Design", Journal American Institute of Planners, Vol.
33, No. 4S July 1967, p. 214.
84. Hirschliefer, jet; a_l., op. cit., pp. 4,5 and Chapter 2.
85. From the Congressional White Paper: "If America is to create a care-
fully designed, healthful and balanced environment, we must (1) Find
equitable ways of charging for environmental abuses within the tra-
ditional freemarket economy; (2) Obtain adequate ecological guidance
on the character and impact of environmental change; (2) Where cor-
porate resource development does not preserve environmental values,
then consider the extension of governmental controls in the larger
public interest; (4) Coordinate the government agency activities
which share with industry the dominant influence in shaping our en-
vironment; and (5) Establish judicial procedures so that the indi-
vidual rights to a productive and high quality environment can be
assured." '
86. N=70, Chi Square=16.28, 4 degrees freedom, level of signif.-0.01.
87. N=70, Relationship not significant.
88. N=70, Chi Square=11.95, 6 degrees freedom, level of signif.=0.10.
89. N=70, Chi Square=5.99, 2 degrees freedom, level of signif.=0.05.
90. N=70, Relationship not significant.
91. N=70, Chi Square=8.15, 4 degrees freedom, level of signif.=0.10.
164
-------
92. There were a number of comments to this effect. One man even felt
that undergoing the questionnaire was more a learning experience for
him than it was for us,
93. Environmental Policy Act of 1969, op. clt.
94. This is quite possible. When asked to name the laws of the last 10-
20 years significantly affecting planning, 20% could give none at
all (Q= G107).
95. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, _op_. cit.
96. Q. G107 "Has there been any legislation in the past 10-20 years
which has significantly changed the quality of water resource plan-
ning?" See Chapter IV, "Planning Objectives".
97. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. "Environ-
mental Policy for the Civil Works Program of the Corps of Engineers",
August, 1970.
98. It was demonstrated before that knowledge of laws is much higher among
supervisors than those in the planning grades GS-11,12. See Chapter
IV, "Planning Objectives".
100. N=68, Chi Square 4.93, 1 degree freedom, level of signif.=0.05.
101. N=68, Chi Square 3.72, 1 degree freedoms level of signif.=0.10.
102. N=68, Chi Square 6.52, 1 degree freedom, level of signif.=0.02.
103. N=68, Chi Square 6.01, 2 degrees freedom, level of signif.=0.05.
104. N=68, Chi Square 4.93, 2 degrees freedom, level of signif.=0.10.
105. N=68, Chi Square=4.65, 2 degrees freedom, level of signif.=0.10.
106. Along our other dimension of man versus nature, the potential ability
to control geophysical phenomena (Q. N42a)3 no such relationship
was found, which reinforces the special status given to this facet
of nature.
107. No lack of general legislation was seen, just effective legislation.
108. FWQA Planners particularly complained about the fact that they have
interstate waters authority but very limited powers within the states
themselves.
109. Including those who gave it as a second choice, a total of nearly 20%
of the sample voiced this doubt.
165
-------
110. The 1899 Refuse Act prohibits discharges into navigable waterways
without a permit from the Corps. It .was recently given new life by
Rep. Henry Reuss (Dem.-Wle.), San Francisco Chronicle, December 24,
1970, p. 1.
111. "Pollution: Puffery or Progress?", Newsweek. Dec. 28, 1970, Business
and Finance Section, pp. 49-51.
166
-------
CHAPTER VIII
-»
PHILOSOPHY AND CONCLUSIONS
This study was undertaken to attempt to describe the planning philosophies
of a sample of federal water resource planners. No uniquely identifiable
outlook emerged and the overall image was somewhat confusing. Many plan-
ners had apparently never attempted, nor had an opportunity, to give form
to their basic beliefs. Often the survey seemed to be as much a learning
process for the interviewees as it was for the researchers. Nevertheless,
there were some characteristic beliefs common to a majority of planners
and two primary planning emphases were evident.
View of Nature
Most planners' images of nature and the environment were pragmatic, rarely
going beyond physical attributes. Nature and water were valued for their
contribution to man in terms of their resource potential rather than for
the metaphysical benefits they may provide or the broader ecological func-
tions served. There was uncertainty about man's understanding of, and
ability to, influence nature, and except in a limited sphere his efforts
were frequently held to be merely destructive. Planners were aware of
current environmental problems but generally considered them manageable.
The policy sought was for a non-panic, balanced approach, reflecting both
a common sense outlook and the necessity to compromise because of the
difficulties of having to arbitrate between conflicting demands for pre-
servation and development.
Because nature is a subjective issue, it may be impossible and even un-
necessary to expect a coherent outlook on its value to man. There is,
however, a need to develop techniques to enable planners to more clearly
illuminate the environmental-economic trade-offs in their plans. It is
important that methods be flexible and that agency planners be aware of
their limitations, so that the danger of imposing an additional value
structure on, or obstacle to the planning process is avoided. Some of
the confusion and feelings of inadequacy could be eliminated by exposing
all planners and engineers to the basic principles of ecology. Certainly
ecology is better understood and can furnish more information about man's
influence on natural systems than most engineers realize.
View of the Future
The future world envisioned by planners is a conservative one. The hori-
zons are generally less than twenty-five years, far shorter than the
agencies' planning periods. However, little change in the pattern of
growth is expected and optimism about the availability of resources is
strong. Existing technology and institutions are seen as being adequate
to meet most future problems.
167
-------
This is a satisfied, non-demanding view, leading to an incremental approach
to problems. Planners see their task simply as meeting the demands of an
expansion of the present situation. There is little awareness that resources
are now limited and no apparent sense of a need to change the current re-
liance on "growth for growth's sake." If more imaginative approaches are
not sought, current planning may simply exacerbate today's environmental
and social problems. Since distant futures must be planned for, despite
the planners' distrust of long projections, there is an indicated need for
wider use of forecasting methods which are sensitive to changes in major
parameters and give contingency limits or forecast ranges of demand under
a variety of possible decision sequences, rather than simply relying on a
single value prediction.
Planning Roles
The differences between planners are most evident in the concepts of their
own role, or function, which were summarized in their definitions of a
planning philosophy (Appendix 3c). About four in seven saw themselves as
technical consultants whose primary responsibility is to develop projects.
Their focus is on the means rather than the goals. They work to satisfy
specific local needs over the demands of broader national objectives.
This does not imply that their work is responsive to the public, since
influential local interests may have very limited concerns. These plan-
ners maintain their right to make value judgments by virtue of their posi-
tion or expertise, or because of perceived incompetence of the public.
They wish to involve outside interests on an informational level, but
just to expedite or give legitimacy to their proposals.
A second group of planners were more aware of the full function of planning.
Their interests lay in the plan's achievements and in demonstrating the
consequences of alternative actions. They were more willing to accept a
broader set of interests and to allow a more significant community involve-
ment in developing plans. Their approach appeared more; likely to be broadly
responsive to social, physical and economic needs.
The differences between these groups is close to that between a technocratic
(elitist) outlook and that of the professional technologist. Part of the
explanation for the two views is undoubtedly the traditional agency, orien-
tation to the first position, as opposed to the growth in consciousness of
the need for a more comprehensive planning approach. Many planners, or at
least men in what are considered planning positions, are actually doing an
engineering task. This is a necessary role, but it should not be confused
with the goal interpreting responsibility of planning.
iThe need for long-range, broadly integrated plans which ensure that state
and regional proposals consider national and even world-wide interests,
social and environmental as well as economic goals has never been greater.
The limited outlook demonstrated by many of those interviewed would be ac-
ceptable for state agencies but is no longer a prerogative of federal
planners.
168
-------
The federal agencies are in the logical position to carry out long-range,
independent planning. Planners should be freed from the constraints of
;providing projects as the solution to all needs by separating their role
from the design and construction activities of the agencies. Because
there is potential for the development of an elite and for coercion of the
public in such a situation, the individual's responsibility to maintain
a service motivation and his need for a social conscience is increased.
Goals
The planners' knowledge of the laws and understanding of the goals con-
trolling their agencies' functions was poor. Awareness of the social
impact of water resource projects and the need to include social consider-
ations in what has hitherto been seen largely as a technical task was
almost non-existent. However, it was evident that knowledge of goals and
exposure to planning done under a multi-objective approach was accompanied
by a growing social consciousness.
Thus, before planning in the sense discussed above can be made effective
and responsive the planners must be given greater exposure to the general
concepts of planning and its implications for society and education in
the area of agency goals, legislation and policy. Agencies should en-
courage more men to undertake university;studies in multidisciplinary
programs. In-house courses on the laws and goals governing the agency,
how these laws are interpreted in policy directives and the process by
which plans move from initiation to authorization and appropriation
should be required for all members of a planning team. Programs to give;
potential supervisors an overall view of the agency should be emphasized.
The effectiveness of educational efforts could be multiplied by requiring
men who attend periodic planning seminars or university programs to relay
new ideas to their colleagues through seminars, papers, memoranda, etc.
This process would not only disseminate new concepts, but would help the
individual to maintain his own interest and crystallize his thoughts. The
opportunity to refresh ideas should also be available through a "sabbatical
leave" plan. Even "reverse" sabbaticals could be encouraged, by which
professors and doctoral students in university planning programs could be
brought into the field offices of the agencies, both to give the academics
some understanding of the practical requirements of plans and to enable a
wider spectrum of agency personnel to be exposed to newer ideas and con-
cepts. Such ideas are expensive and time consuming, but these costs must
be borne if planning is to be improved.
Public Involvement
It was clear that the planners did not hold very high opinions of the pub-
lic's competence and ability to aid their plans. Many planners demon-
strated something of an elitist outlook. Public involvement was^desired
primarily as a means to expedite final acceptance of the planner's ideas,
not to ensure the responsiveness of his plans. The public was to be co-
opted. (This of course may be considered as a first step toward a better
public role since at one time the agencies did not even have to make this
effort, but it does not go far enough and such attitudes must not be
allowed to become formalized.)
169
-------
A point for planners to consider is that given the subjectivity of many
of their decisions, they may be no more, and perhaps less, qualified than
the public to make certain choices. Society must have the right to set
its own values. The public should not have to wait until planners seek
their response before they participate. An informed and involved public
can help ensure the accountability of government plans.
To increase the responsiveness of plans, planners must be convinced of
the value of contributions by the public. Increased confrontation of the
planners and the public is essential. The evidence is that planners who
have been exposed to efforts to involve the community are more likely to ,
accept public control or political arbitration of plans. Such attempts
should be increased through the use of public forums, referendums on major
issues and opinion surveys together with planning workshops, local govern-
ment and citizen group meetings. Public education programs to give laymen
an understanding of the planners' problems and the confidence and incen-
tive to propose their own ideas must also go forward.
Attitude Variations by Age
There were sufficient differences between the views of the younger and
older planners to indicate a shift in priorities away from economic goals.
However, young planners were not less, and often more, distrustful of
public motives and the political process than their seniors. Their know-
ledge and understanding of the principles and laws governing planning were
more limited than older men or those in higher grades. Thus more emphasis
on multi-disciplinary planning education in engineering schools is needed
to supplement agency in-house training programs. Greater emphasis should
be given to economics, political science, ecology and descriptions of the
various models and requirements of the planning process.
Agency Differences
On the whole, few differences between agencies were found. Planners'
personal philosophies do not necessarily follow their agencies' priorities.
An "Ideal" Philosophy
A logical question raised by a study such as this is whether an "ideal"
planning philosophy can be developed and used as a criterion to assess
the potentialities of men to be planners. A primary attribute would be
flexibility and willingness to accept new values. To prevent vacillation
an individual should balance flexibility with confidence in his own ability,
but be willing to accept the responsibility for his decisions. He should
understand the neature of planning and the part it should play within
society. Planners should believe in the rights of people, or their repre-
sentatives, to influence plans which will affect their lives. A multidie-
ciplinary education, with a major in water resource engineering, economics
or ecology, and strong emphasis in the social sciences and law should
provide a good, but not essential, background. Further exploration into
attitudes might lead to the construction of an "aptitude test" for potential
planners. An initial attempt at such a series of scales is shown in
Appendix 5.
170
-------
Further Research
There are several other areas fo* further research aimed at better under-
standing the planning process that have grown out of this study.
A similar survey should be repeated in four or five years to see whether
current changes within agencies are reflected in a change in outlook by
their planners and to assist in assessing the effectiveness of training
programs.
Specific studies of four issues are needed. Are planners' goal structures
and understanding of agency laws and policy actually as limited as this
survey seems to indicate? How can planners acceptance of public partici-
pation be enhanced, and what methods of public input would provide planners
with the most assistance? How are planners' attitudes actually translated
into decisions? Planners' behavior in actual decision situations needs
to be examed. On this last question, a case history approach is needed,
tracing the effects of various individual decisions made throughout a
project's development. A more defined set of scales with respect to
nature should be developed since the general abstraction of "nature" was
not found to be very predictive of attitudes toward specific features of
the environment or opinions about an acceptable national policy.
It would be useful to compare the attitudes of federal, state and local
planners. The State role in water planning is increasing and it would be
interesting to know whether local planners have attitudes simil|ar to federal
level planners.
Similar surveys of planners in fields other than water resources might also
be useful in understanding planners' attitudes and possibility in relating
attitude patterns to education.
171
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books and Periodicals
Allport, Gordon W., "Attitudesj' In Handbook of Social Psychology. E. M.
Murchison (ed.), Clark Univ. Press, 1935.
» Pattern and Growth in Personality. Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
New York, 1961.
» p- E. Vernon and G. Lindzey, A Study of Values, Boston, Houghton
Miflin Co., 1960.
Arnstein, Sherry R., "A Ladder of Citizen Participation", AIP Journal.
Vdl. 35, No. 4, July, 1969.
Banfield, Edward C., "The Use and Limitations of Metropolitan Planning
in Massachusetts", Paper presented at the Fifth Working Conference
on Regional Planning and Regional Development, Joint Center for Urban
Studies, Metropolitan Area Planning Council, June 1965.
, Political Influence. The Free Press, New York, 1961.
Bishop, A. B., "Socio-Economic and Community Factors in Planning Urban
Freeways," Ph.D. dissertation, EEP-33, Civil Engineering Department,
Stanford University, Oct., 1969.
Blau, Peter M., and Richard Scott, Forma 1 Organizations. Chandler Pub-
lishing Co., 1962.
Bode, Carl (ed.), The Portable Thoreau, Viking Press, 1969.
Bolan, Richard S., "Emerging Views of Planning", Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, Vol. 33, No. 4, July 1967.
Braybook, David, and Charles Lindblom, A Strategy of Decision, The Free
Press, New York, 1963.
Brower, David, "A Time for Sarsparilla", in The Environmental Handbook.
Garrett DeBell (ed.), Ballantine, 1970.
Bruner, John M. and Martin T. Farris, "The Conventional Wisdom in Water
Philosophy", Water Resources Bulletin, AWRA. Vol. 5, No. 4, Dec.,
1969.
Burke, Edmund M., "A Ladder of Citizen Participation", AIP Journal. Vol.
34, No. 5, Sept. 1968.
Cooper, J. B., and J. L. McGaugh, "Attitude and Related Concepts", in
Attitudes, Jahoda and Warren (eds.), Penguin, 1966.
173
-------
DeBellj Garrett (ed.)s The Environmental Handbook, Ballantine, 1970.
Doobs Leonard W., "The Behavior of Attitudes", in Martin Fishbein (ed.),
Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurements. John Wiley and Sons,
1967.
Downs, Anthony3 Inside Bureaucracy, Little Brown Co., 1967.
Ellender, Senator A., "The Role of Congress in Water Resource Development",
Congressional Record - Senate, June 5, 1967,
Etzioni, Amatais Modern Organizations, Prentice Hall, 1964.
Evan, William M.j "The Engineering Professional — A Cross Cultural Analysis",
in The Engineers and the Social System., Perruci and Gerstl (eds.),
John Wiley & Sons, 1969.
Fabun, Don, The Dynamics of Change., Prentice Hall, 1967.
Fishbein3 Martin, Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement, John Wiley
& Sons, 1967.
Gilliam, Harold, "The Spaceship Earth is on a Collision Course", San Fran-
cisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle, This World, Aug. 9, 1970.
Havelick, Spenser W., "Attitudes Held by Water Influentials About Major
Obstacles in Establishing Institutional Arrangements in an Urbanized
River Basin", Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1967.
Hessel, Daryl L., "Water Resource Needs and Problems in Southeastern
Michigan—"An Opinion Survey Conducted Among County Supervisors",
M.S. Thesis, University of Michigan, 1967.
, i
Hirschliefer, Jack, J. C. DeHaven, and J. W. Milliman, Water Supply-
Economics a Technology and Policy, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960.
Jahoda, Marie,, and Neil Warren (eds), Attitudes, Penguin, 1966.
Kluckhohn, Florence R., "Dominant and Variant Value Orientations", in
Kluckhohn and N. A. Murray (eds.), Personality in Nature. Society
and Culture, A. Knopf, 1953.
Kneese, Allen V., and Stephen C. Smith, Water Research, Resources for
the Future, Johns Hopkins Press, 1966.
LaPiere, Richard T., "Attitudes versus Actions", in Martin Fishbein (ed.),
0£. CLt.
Leopold, Luna B., "Quantitative Comparison of Some Aesthetic Factors
Among Rivers", Geological Survey Circular 620, Washington, D.C. 1969.
174
-------
Lindblom, Charles E.s "The Science of Muddling Through", Public Adminis-
tration Review. Vol. XIX, Spring 1959.
Linsley, Ray K., "Workshop for Water Planners, Alternatives in Water Man-
agement", Stanford University and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EEP-32,
Civil Engineering Dept., Stanford Univ., Dec. 1968.
Maass, Arthur A., Muddy Waters: The Army Engineers and the Nation's Rivers,
Harvard Univ. Press, 1951.
.> ejt aj.., Design of Water Resource Systems, Harvard Univ. Press,
Cambridge, 1962.
Marshall, Hubert, "Rational Choice in Water Resource Planning", in Econo-
mics and Public Policy in Water Resource Development, Smith and
Castle (eds.), Iowa State Univ. Press, 1964.
_, "Politics and Efficiency in Water Development", in Water Research,,
Kneese and Smith (eds.), Johns Hopkins Press, 1966.
Merton, Robert K., Social Theory and Social Structure, Glencoe Free Press,
1957.
Mogulof, Mervin, "A Coalition to Adversity: Citizen Participation in Three
Federal Programs", AIP Journal., Vol. 35, No. 4, July, 1969.
Newsweek. "Pollution: Puffery or Progress?", Dec. 8, 1970.
Perucci, Robert,and Joel E. Gerstl, The Engineers and the Social System,
John Wiley & Sons, 1969.
Prandy, Kenneth, Professional Employees—A Study of Scientists and Engi-
neers . Faber & Faber, 1965.
Rapoport, Amos, arid Robert E. Kantor , "Complexity and Ambiguity in En-
vironmental Design", AIP Journal, Vol. 33, No. 4, July, 1967.
Rein, Martin, "Social Planning, The Search for Legitimacy",, AIP Journal.
Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969.
Sawyer, R. N., and T. E. Harbaugh, "A Methodology for the Construction of
Attitude Measuring Instruments", Water Resources Bull.., AWRA, Vol. 6,
No. 3, May-June, 1970.
Savas, E. S., "Cybernetics in City Hall", Science, Vol. 168, May 29, 1970.
Sewell, W. R. D., "Water Resource Planning—Changes in the Approach to
Water Management in the United States", Proceedings of a Summer In-
stitute in Water Resources, Utah State Univ., Vol. IV, 1966.
175
-------
Siegel, Sidney, Non-Parametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.
McGraw-Hill, 1956.
Simon, Herbert, Administrative Behavior, The Free Press, New York, 1957.
Tolley, G. S., "Reclamation's Influence on the Rest of Agriculture",
Land Economics, Vol. XXXV, No. 2, May 1959.
Web_sterJis^New_J2_Q.t.h Century Dictionary,, 2nd Ed., 1966.
Werner, Robert R.,"An Investigation of the Employment of Multiple Objec-
tives in Water Resource Planning",Ph.D. Thesis, South Dakota State
Univ., 1968.
Whitford, Peters W., "Forecasting Demand for Urban Water Supply", Ph.D.
Dissertation, EEP-36, Civil Engineering Dept., Stanford Univ., 1970.
Willeke, Gene E., "Effects of Water Pollution in San Francisco Bay", Ph.D.
Dissertation, EEP-29, Civil Engineering Dept., Stanford Univ., Oct.
1969.
Zajonicj R. B., "Balance, Congruity and Dissonance", in Jahoda & Warren
(eds.), ££. cit.
176
-------
Government and Institutional Documents
Appalachian Regional Development Act, 79 Stat. 5, 1965.
National Academy of Sciences, "Water and Choice in the Colorado Basin",
NAS-ARC, Pws. 1689, NAS, Washington, D.C., 1968.
Subcommittee on Benefits and Costs, Report to the Federal Interagency
River Basin Committee, Proposed Practices for Economic Analysis of
River Basin Projects. Washington, D.C., 1950.
Susquehanna River Basin Study, Working Paper, Planning Objectives, May 1968.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, "Environ-
mental Policy for the Civil Works Program of the Corps of Engineers",
Aug., 1970.
U. S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Astronautics,
Congressional White Paper on "A National Policy for the Environment",
90th Congress, 2nd Sess., Serial T, Oct. 1968.
U. S. Senate Report No. 91-296, "National Environmental Policy Act of
1969", (S1075), 91st Congress, 1st Sess., July, 1969.
U. S. President's Water Resource Council, Policies. Standards and Proce-
dures in the Formation, Evaluation and Review of Plans for Use and
Development of Water and Related Land Resources, Senate Document
No. 97, 87th Congress, 2nd Sess., May 1962.
Water Resource Council, Policies and Procedures in Flan Formulation and
Evaluation of Water and Related Land Resources Projects. July, 1968.
Water Resource Planning Act, PL 89-90, 79 Stat. 244 (1965)
177
-------
APPENDIX la
269- Philosophy of Water Resource Planning Autumn. 1969
Significant Determinants of a Waiter Planner's Behavior
The planner's attitudes towards:
A. Individuals or groups in society
1. the public, society itself
2. The government (type - republicanism or parliamentary/
power and ability to rule?)
3. The planner's own agency
4. Other agencies
5. Independent groups (preservationist Societies, developers,
farmers, etc.)
6. Other disciplines
7. The decision makers
8. His supervisors
9. His peers (professional groups, etc.)
10. His subordinates
B. Societal characteristics
1. The political process (resource allocation, water plan-
ning decision tnaking)
2. Agency structure
3. The planning process (within agency)
4. Federalism
C» Policies (planning procedures, criteria)
I. National goals
2. Regional or local goals (economic development, interbasin
transfers, etc.)
3. Economics (B/C etc., finances?)
4. Common good (well being of the people)
5. Water law
D. Issues
1. Nature (the environment)
2. Water (unique good?)
3. Pollution
4. Social problems
5. Aesthetics
E. Personal orientations
1. The future
2. Integrity (convictions)
3. Personal achievement (self)
4. Responsibility (personal)
5. Urgency
6. Conflict
7 . Innovation
179
-------
8. Change
9. Relevant environment
10- Advocacy
11. Personal role
12. Personal efficacy
F. Constraints
1. Money
2. Technology
3. Regulations (by the book planning)
4. Communication
5. Knowledge (information)
180
-------
APPENDIX Ib
CE 269; Philosophy of Water Resources Planning Winter. 1970
Tentative Outline of Aspects of Planning
I. Technical Aspects
A. Methods
1. Systems Approach
a. Mathematical
b. Non-mathematical
2. When should plan be reviewed?
3. Frequency of plan review
4. Evaluation of plan after project and/or plan constructed
B. Criteria and Data
1. Sensitivity of data
a. Technical data
b. Non-technical data
2. Criteria for measurement of costs, benefits, needs, etc.
C. System Requirements
1. Future form of society
2. Effects of changing technology
D. Planning constraints
1. Data
2. Time
3. People
4. Money
5. Technical limitations
II. Socio-Political Aspects
A. Decisions
1. What is a decision?
2. Is there a decision maker?
3. Who are decision makers?
4 Who should be decision makers?
5. Hierarchies of decision. (What kind of decisions I)
b'. How to decide what is a technical question.
B. Who accepts plan?
C. Disposition of current authority
D. Conflict resolution
E. Pluralism vs. Elitism
F. Type of Institution
G Policy - constraint or enabling.
H! Financial feasibility (institutional factors)
III. Philosophic Aspects
A. Who should plan?
1. Person
2. Institution
181
-------
B. _Who does planner represent?
1. National objectives
2. Regional objectives
3. Preservation of environment
4. Well-being
5. Selfish interests
C. Needs, Values, Beliefs
1. National
2. Planner
3. Roles and segments of society
D. Objectives of Planning
1. Investment
2. Service
E. Process of setting objectives, philosophic approach
1. Long term
2. Short term
Fo Criteria for defining need
G. Boundaries of effect
H. Approach and attitude toward uncertainty
I. Negative aspects
182
-------
APPENDIX 2
Demographic Profile
Agency
Corps of Engineers
Bureau of Reclamation
Federal Water Quality Admin,
Grade
Age
GS-11
12
13
14
15
20-24 years
25-29 "
30-34 "
35-39 "
40-44 "
45-49 "
50-54 "
55-59 "
60 and above
Time in Grade
Less than 1 year
1.0 - 2.9 years
3.0- 4.9 "
5.0 - 6.9 "
7.0 - 8.9 "
9.0 - 10.9 "
11.0 - 14.9 "
15.0 - 19.9 "
20.0 and above
Agency and Planning Service
Years
Less than 1
1.0 - 2.9
3.0 - 4.9
5.0 - 6.9
7.0 - 9.9
10.0 - 14.9
15.0 - 19.9
20.0 - 24.9
25.0 and above
Number
43
15
12
To
16
29
16
7
_2
20
0
14
8
14
12
6
7
6
_3
IP.
6
26
18
10
4
2
3
0
_1
70
Percentage
61.4
21.4
17.1
Agency Service
100.0%
22.9
41.4
22.9
10.0
2.9
100.07.
0
20.0
11.4
20.0
17.1
8.6
10.0
8.6
4.3
100.0%
8.6
37.1
25.7
14.3
5.7
2.9
4.3
0
1.4
100.0%
Planning Service
No.
0
6
10
10
8
17
3
6
10
70
Percentage
0
8.6
14.3
14.3
11.4
24.3
4.3
8.6
14.3
100.0%
No.
2
4
11
11
10
16
7
3
5
70
Percentage
2.9
5.7
15.7
15.7
14.3
22.9
10.0
4.3
8.6
100.0%
183
-------
Office Location and Sample
& 12
P - Planners -
GS-11
S - Supervisors -
Corps
San Francisco
Dallas-Fort Worth
New Orleans
Charleston
Baltimore
Boston
Detroit
Omaha
Portland
Los Angeles
Level of Office
Corps
Division
Districts
Education
Bachelor degree
P
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
11
4
12
£3
GS'
S
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
14
P
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
S
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
BuRec
Billings
Denver
Boulder City
Sacramento
P
2
2
2
'3
9
S
2
2
1
1
6
FWQA
A lamed a
Dallas
Boston
Chicago
Portland
Denver
P
1
1
1
0
2
2
7
S
1
2
1
1
0
0
5
BuRec
Region
Yes
Yes, double degree
No
Civil Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Economics
Mechanical Engineering
Physical Sciences
Geography
Soil Conservation
Animal Husbandry
Forestry
Masters degree
Yes
No
Civil Engineering
Geography
Economics
Business Administration
Agricultural Economics
15
L5
53
2
4
2
2
1
1
1
_1
67
16
j>4:
20
11
1
2
1
_J.
16
FWQA
Region
Basin
6
_6
12
Number
66
1
3
70
Percentage
94.3
1.4,
4.3
100.0%
22.9
77.1
100.0%
184
-------
Ph.D. Decree
Yes 1* 1.4%
No 69 98.6
IP- 100.0%
* Subject: Sanitary Engineering
Other Education - University Number Percentage
Night school or extension courses 22 31.4
Graduate school courses (no degree) 19 27.1
Graduate, courses toward an M.S. . 5 7.1
Business college 1 1.4
Junior college - pre-engineering 1 1.4
College, without graduation 1 1.4
Cornell - environmental systems
engineering 1 1.4
Li-house - agency training
Technical/report writing courses 25 35.7
Management courses 9 1209
Current awareness program 1 1.4
Corps - Advanced engineering program 2 2.9
- BERH - planning associates 4 5.7
Background
Where born and raised? Number
Outside the United States 3
WashingtonP Oregon (Northwest) 3
California (Calif.) 4
Nevada3 Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas (Southwest) 9
Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana (Intermountain) 7
North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa,
Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma (Midwest) 14
Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio (Mideast) 8
Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida,
South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky,
Virginia, West Virginia (South)' 10
Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island,
New Jersey (Northeast) 8
Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine (New England) 4
Urban 38 ' 54.3%
Rural 30 42.9
Both 2 2.9
Father's Occupation
Professional - medical, engineering, law, etc. 7
Executive white collar ->
Wage earner - white collar °
Farmer ' i:L
Skilled trade 26
Unskilled, blue collar 7
Merchant
Military 2
No answer ~
185 —
-------
Membership in Groups/Organizations
Number of professional groups or societies joined.
0 - 27.1%; 1 - 37.1%; 2 - 20.0%; 3 - 10.0%; 4 - 4.3%;
5 - 1.4%.
Number of citizen organizations, community groups, joined.
i
0 - 88.6%; 1 - 8.6%; 2 - 1.4%; 3 - 1.4%.
Number of water sports, outdoor recreation pursuits followed.
0 - 14.3%; 1 - 12.9%; 2 - 24.3%; 3 - 18.6%; 4 - 15.7%;
5 - 8.6%; 6 - 5.7%.
Average time for all interviews - 2.95 hours.
Agency-Age
Corps BuRec FWQA
Under 30 years 10 1 3
30 - 40 " 13 5 4
40 - 50 " 11 4 3
50 & over " _9 _5 __2
M 15 12
Agency-Planning Experience
Under 5 years 90 7
5 - 10 " 10 5 3
10 - 20 " 15 3 2
20 & over " _J? _7 _Q
43 15 12
186
-------
APPENDIX 3(a)
Q. N46 Definitions of the Environment
(Order randomized within categories)
Physical-tangible features
1. Ecology of a specific locale.
2. Earth surface, from mantle to the stratosphere.
3. Physical, chemical and biological factors which impinge on an
organism.
4. Everything about us, natural and man-made.
5. Weather, land, the place in which man lives—urban or rural.
6. Air, water and plant life.
7. Everything that physically affects the way a man lives.
8. Surroundings.
9. Surroundings, everything with which an individual is associated.
10. Never ending conflict between man and nature, fighting for equilibrium.
11. Nature5 ecology, life.
12. Places, conditions that exist, things that affect plants, animals,
man.
13. All surroundings, the relationship between all things.
14. Surroundings, the same as nature.
15. Everything around an individual, the physical setting in which man
lives.
16. Nature in relation to inhabitants of the earth, people,animals, etc.
17. Spaceship earth, land, water, air, all surroundings.
18. Place where people lives cities, vacation areas.
19. Everything, people, buildings, air.
20. All natural phenomena, and how they interact with man.
21. Everything around man, roads, rivers, etc.
22. Framework that man lives within, air, soil, water.
23. Everything interacting, man interacts with environment.
24. Interrelationship of man with air, water, land, etc., in which he
lives.
25. Natural setting the earth is in, open areas.
26. Surroundings in which we live.
27. Setting in which living things are dependent on habitat.
28. What man and animals have to live with and within.
29. All physical surroundings.
30. All surroundings, weather, climate, shelter.
31, Airs food, natural resources.
32. Air, food and water that man takes and uses.
33. Things that man lives with, that are around man.
34. Surroundings humans and animals live in.
35. Animal, vegetable, mineral content of the universe, man and everything
around man.
36. Place in which a man is, the air he breathes, everything.
37. Everything that can be affected by man and nature.
187
-------
inJEangj.ble features
38. Eveyr.hi.ng associated with how man lives, includes all sensory effects,
noise, odors, etc.
39. Physical environment, air, wateir, scenic: and audio-visual.
40. Man's surroundings, nature, development and its effects.
.e~P lus q ua li ty a s pec ts
41. Desirable li.vin.gj urban or rural, depending on personal, taste.
42. Where, man. lives, how he lives, and what he does with it.
43. Our surroandlngs , unspoiled, clean and safe.
44 „ Nature and external, effects on man, aesthetic, clean water, clean
air, etc.
other men
45. Natural surroundings, including man, within which a man lives and
contacts .
46. Everything around man, land, water, people, public improvements.
47, Air, land, water systems, powers, plus people.
48. Space that man lives in, and contacts—air , water, people, animals,
society
49. Land, water, sunlight, fish and wildlife, interaction affecting
emotional and attitudinal behavior of an organism.
Physical plus social world
50. Everything that exists, everything that a man does, all encompassing.
51. How man lives, the. quality of life.
52. Surroundings (physical terrain, temperature, etc.) plus the social
s true cure.
53. Total surroundings and life, work, home, human relationships.
54. What man is surrounded with (clean air and water), plus what is
available to man, jobs, entertainment, climate.
55. Sum of all physical and social factors that exist.
Physical plus, social plus economic world
56. Everything that affects the way of life, land, water, people,
transportation.
57. Where and how man lives, actions to preserve and conserve the
environment and .economy.
58. Complete spectrum, all beneficial and adverse effects on man's
ability to survive and prosper.
Physical,, social., economic and spiritual world— total life experience
59. Total surroundings, state of mind, the whole being experience.
60. Man's total life situation.
61. Resources, people, social, religious, everything with which man
comes in contact.
62. Everything that surrounds man, city or rural, plus social, institu-
tional and political spheres.
188
-------
63. Surroundings, everything that affects man, physical and metaphysical
and religious.
64. Natural, social, human environment, anything that affects the human
body and spirit.
65. Each man's surroundings, what man lives, sees, does, physically and
psychologica1ly.
66. Relationship with man's surroundings, his effect on them, their
effect on him, physical, social, and mental.
67. Everything external to man's inner feeling of being, physical plus
attitudes, etc.
68. Sum of material and spiritual surroundings, everything.
69. Air and land and house in which man lives, plus anything that affects
his enjoyment of it, or his mental well being.
70. Total surroundings, all man comes in contact with, physical plus
emotional and moral influences.
189
-------
APPENDIX 3(b)
CU G93 Definitions of a Plan
Means to an end—guide to action—directive
L. Outline of a directions or picture of a goal to be reached.
2. A determination of objectives and how to achieve them.
3. A statement of goals and objectives, including policies, and the
means to reach them.
4. A proposed course of action and the justification for it, economic
and non-economic.
5. An orderly program to get from one point to another. Priorities
and goals for the plan to attain are established before the planning
is begun,,
6. A course of action (or inaction) to use existing resources to satisfy
the needs of the public.
7. A course of action to best solve a set of problems.
8. Most economic method or direction of reaching a goal.
9. Shows a way to accomplish an objective--hopefully a desirable
objective 0
10. A direction for action~-a document or report which gives implementers
a direction on where to go.
11. A flexible guideline to go by-flexible to change over time.
12, Background and recommendation for a future action.
13. Flexible guide for action.
14. A route to follow (with defined limits).
15. A selected solution to solve a problem.
16= A guide to decision makers to help them to allocate resources.
17. A way to go about doing something, organization of a planner's
activities., providing a solution to a problem.
18. Cheapest, or nearly cheapest method to meet needs of the local
interests to be served.
19. A guide to resource use.
20. A program for action, for doing something.
21. A guide for action to be taken.
22. A logical presentation of a method of solving a problem. Must solve
all problems, or answer all questions as well as is possible, or the
plan is incomplete. May have to compromise/reduce effectiveness/on
prime objective to meet several others.
23. Proposal, or method of solving a problem.
24. Means of reaching a given objective.
250 A proposed solution for a purpose to be met.
26. Presentation of ideas in the solution of a problem, narrative and
drawings.
27. A series of steps to accomplish a goal.
28. System devised to meet a desired or agreed upon goal.
191
-------
Evaluation°-non°directive analysis
29. Comprehensive, evaluation and treatment of all types and purposes
relating to needs and resources and of ways to meet those needs.
30. Sitting down and thinking things through from start to finish,
31. The way of going about a study, when it is to be done, gives who is
going to do the. study and the cost of the report.
32. A starting point which maps out alternatives and uses, from which,
depending on the needs, a decision on a direction to go can be made.
33. Information and education tool to be used by Congress/states/other
agencies, A collection of information to be used as a basis for a
decision, a series of options, a list of alternatives. A map of
areas of decision consequences.
34. Varies--from the vague idea for a project to the detailed analysis
of a problem.
35. Assessing possibilities as they exist, corrects problems seen in the
immediate future,, but flexible enough to change as conditions change.
36. Overall view, touches all spectrums looked at, a clear, concise ex-
planation of findings, devoid of highly technical terminology, read-
able by the public.
Directive, plus evaluative features
37. More than just words. A plan identifies needs and problems, it sets
goals (with several, time frames) and all methods available to achieve
the goals. Planning defines goals and criteria.
38. A master plan for the basin. A good start for whoever manages the
water in the basin. Flexible enough to handle changes in needs and
objectives. A starting point for development. A source of alter-
natives for future needs.
.39. Identifies objectives, lays out a course of action to achieve these
objectives., and evaluates all alternatives. A method to achieve
objectives.
400 The alternatives studied and the practical solution to a problem*
41. Not necessarily a project. A system by which agency/planner solves
the problems faced. (Includes structural-non-structural/incremental
solutionss etc.)
42. Presents the problems, possible solutions, alternative plans, and
makes a choice or recommends a plan.
43. Puts down a problem definition, alternative solutions, their conse-
quences (advantages and disadvantages) and makes a recommendation.
An accumulation of information.
44. Documents a statement of a need, alternatives to meet that need, it
recommends the most feasible, desirable alternative, and then pre-
sents this to a political body for consideration.
45. What the basic goals of the area are, gives a determination of public
wants, and the. resources available, develops ways to meet the needs.
It is not static, but changes with time.
46. Defines problems, offers alternative solutions, recommends a pre-
ferred solution, gives all methods of financing and who should ad-
minister the solution. More than just, what should be done, it
specifies how this should be done,
192
-------
47. A means of accomplishing a desired end. Shows the alternatives
leading to the one chosen.
48. Result of an effort to investigate and analyze a situation. Presents
alternatives and recommends a solution if economically justified.
Is multipurpose in form.
Physical solution—blueprint
49. The consummation of research into a problem and what can be done
about them and getting this down into a structural or non-structural
solution or scheme to solve the problem.
50. A technical solution to some problem, including economics and means
of implementation.
51o A graphic display of what this agency considers to be the most fea-
sible-economic way to meet future needs in the area.
52. A proposed project—a blueprint of the way a project is set up.
53. Something a planner thinks will be a workable item.
54. A project to meet the needs of people. The plan meets the objectives
begu.'i v.1?; th .
55, Engineering features to be constructed and the results to be obtained
by development.
56. Combination of developments to solve a problem.
57. Presents what the agency proposes to build.
58. The physical satisfaction of local interests and desires.
59. Design of something to build or construct.
60. Defines what will be done to carry out a given function or operation,
fills in all engineering details—irrigation, flood control, etc.
61. A written diagram of what agency is trying to sell or do.
62. Begin with nothing, project future, put together, get answers leading
to a project.
63. How man's devices can be made to meet the needs of the area involved.
64. A plan of structural improvement.
65. A project designed to meet the needs of an area with as many added
benefits as are justified.
66. Providing water to meet a demand.
Physical solution plus evaluation
67. Physical design of a means of meeting an objective, with economic
analysis, estimates of costs and analysis of effects.
68. Physical changes that will be made. An appraisal and financial
analysis of the proposal.
69. A proposal which includes structural and non-structural elements
~ that will solve some., if not all, water resource problems in the
area or river basin. It should include all alternatives with and
without :the project.
700 No definition given.
193
-------
APPENDIX 3(c)
Q- PIZ|-5—"How would you jescri.be your personal planning philosophy?"
jProlect-need oriented—Directive
1. To come, up with the best solution to fulfill water needs.
2. If there is a need, try to find the most practical, economical and
direct way to meet it, with consideration of environmental factors.
3. Do as much good for as many people as possible, with the least detri-
ment,, minimize bad effects.
4. Would like to see the betterment of the environment.
5. Consider the total, well being, do not plan projects for project's
sake,, emphasize environmental considerations.
6. Do the most that can be done the cheapest way. Furnish the basic
facility,, leave out the non-essentials, leave it rustic or primitive,
not a lot of new-style features.
7. Matching supplies to needs. Start with needs, determine best and
most economical way to meet these needs,
8. Develop a plan that solves problems, meets needs, yet is socially
acceptable.
9. To develop plans for improvement that will satisfy primary needs of
the problems at hand.
10. Define problems (most important step), and then consider alternative
solutions.
11. Like to see a project, built to meet present and future needs, that
will cause future good and will help the regional economy.
12. Do the job well and efficiently. Make sure locals'wishes are con-
sidered. The nation as a whole must be considered above the desire
to satisfy local needs.
13. Feel that the type of planning engaged in can contribute to making
the area a better place to live. Want to help the people in the area.
14. Do the best possible with the resources, people, that have to work
with.
15. Basic goal is to develop plans for projects which are desired and
requested by local interests, and are engineeringly and economically
feasible. They must fit into much broader, overall plans. Plans
are needed that do not harm overall plans, but become part of them.
16. Multipurpose projects. Try to get all problems on the table, identify
the critical problems, "will the project fly?", seek solutions to the
problems, and then pursue normal investigation for water supply, ir-
rigation, etc. Problems make up 90% of work effort. Thus need to
find solutions early, try to anticipate problems, discover where can
compromise, etc..
17. Determine what the requirements, or needs, are. Consider all factors,
mainly hydrologic (but also social, environmental, economic redis-
tribution, etc.). Find the best way to meet these needs within the
available resources.
18. Have training and inclination for this type of work. Try to uncover
means and ways of satisfying needs and goals of the area lived in.
Go to whatever means available to illuminate true facts and develop
solutions to needs. Ensure engineering, economic and social acceptability.
195
-------
19o If a problem existss, a water need exists, we must work toward a solu-
tion, must involve the local, interests,1 eventually present a recommen-
dation along with alternatives.
20. Enhance the various aspects of water resource development. Multi-
purpose use of water„
21. Take constraints that are imposed, plan the best project that can be
done within these, constraints.
22. Look for information and data, evaluate it, determine what is needed,
where researches required, surveillance, etc. Define the problem,
solicit opinion and advice from other planners, agencies and private
groups* Develop alternative plans., the cost of each and evaluate
with respect to benefit-cost and intangibles. Recommend a plan and
a means to implement it.
23 „ Maximize resource potential, of the area with human values (economic
and others)' first,, and environmental factors a close second.
Project-need or.iented~"non°directive
24o Develop plans to meet the needs and desires of the public, but leave
options open as much as possible, for as long as possible for the
future.
25. Somebody asks for a service, we provide it.
26. Get most for dollars spent. Follow the directives given, don't fight
agency policy. Agency and own policy often different, causes mental
anguish9 but live with it,, Try to see that everything is considered.
27. Try to satisfy the needs (needs are not wants) of the people.
28. Within the bounds of legal requirements, give affected iritersts what
they desire, and yet support agency goals.
29. Give the general, public what they want within the bounds and limits
of agency and Congressional regulations and procedures. If locals
are strong9 they should be considered.
30. Try to do as much as possible to meet the water resource needs of
the people in the district as can be done under the framework of the
laws within which the agency works.
31. Meet the needs of the people involved.
32. Needs oriented.
33. Involve the locals much more. Reduce expenditures of money now to
generate distant benefits. Use 20-25 year economic life. Broaden
alternative methods used to take care of problems. Get expression
through hearings of what the public, wants.
34. Conservative. Try to satisfy needs with minimum effect. Local
people must make the ultimate decision on "go/no-go". Give them
adequate alternatives.
35. Unfortunately,, am more a historian than a planner. All the work that
we have done is still in plans9 none have been built. Will not live
to see many projects. Am not preparing pla'hs for immediate construc-
tion,, more for the library shelf. So I prepare them so that a suc-
cessor can adequately review the wbrk, put in necessary details to
ensure good future understanding of what has been done.
36. Go by directives9 work strictly to directives.
37. Corps conditions ideal. Fulfilling a needed role in the plan.
38. Optimistic, about the type of project worked on. They are needed,
worthwhile.
196
-------
Planning"analysis oriented°-non°directive
39. Give planners a free hand to do their planning based on their ability
and knowledge of goals. Let them reach their own decisions and con-
clusions. Let them make their own mistakes. Let them coordinate and
work with others.
40. Had better do more and better planning than was done in the past, to
prevent the mistakes of the past and to profit by those mistakes.
41. A practical approach which brings in new concepts in a non-panic,
studied manner, as techniques develop to include them in planning.
42. Play the "devil's advocate" and enjoy it. Foresee aspects of planning
overlooked by other agencies.
43. Even though I am a pessimist, have to assume that there is a future.
Planning for the future is necessary (analogous to life insurance),
need insurance, maybe too expensive, but better off with it than
without planning.
44. Do not have a set philosophy. Always changing, flexible, receptive
to ideas. Must be flexible to learn anything. These are good attri-
butes. Not working with people that personally would consider as
planners.
45. Go along with agency philosophy. Meet near-future needs and plan for
distant future needs. Have not given deep thought to a philosophy.
Will probably have to think more about it in the future.
46. Approach planning from an objective standpoint. Do not just produce
a program for the agency. Do the best that meets all needs and all
objectives, not just economic efficiency.
47. Try to be objective, neutral. Gather all. data that can in the time
available, analyze as carefully as can and come to dispassionate
decision. If changed at higher levels that is nothing to do with
self, not own problem.
48. Must plan to the extent that can determine future needs and growth.
For orderly growth, need planning to the extent possible.
49. Start with the big picture. Try to lay out an open plan, get other
coworkers to help fill in the parts, then fill in details with inputs
from the public.
50. Should be more liberal, more alternative ways to report a project,
should have more variety of tools, priorities, not so cut and dried
(i.e. commercian navigation—use B/C only; recreational navigation—
use intangibles equally with B/C).
51. The planner is responsible to provide informationwhichwi.il assist
decision makers to make decisions for the best interests of the people.
52. Should consider in better fashion, future needs as related to what
these needs are anticipated to be, along with present needs. A bet-
ter handle on intangibles (environment, etc.) to translate them to
hard decisions is needed.
53. Work against shutting off the openness of a plan too early, remain
open minded during the data gathering stage.
54. (Don't have one, I am not really a planner. Somebody else does the
planning.) The agency function is to show the impacts of projects.
Use an analytical approach, show monetary and use effects. Tell
other agencies, people, what to consider. See role as that of an
analyst, *n illuminator of consequences.
197
-------
55. (At present,, am pushing against the tide.. Close to retirements hard
skinned and tired.) The need for water resources as has been known
in the past is,fast approaching its limit. There is a need for a
reevaluation of positions. Environmental, regional, local9 social
and welfare values are becoming increasingly important. The national
emphasis must, decrease.. There must be a shift to a regional planning
emphasis. "In a time of transition, for a time everything must come
to a halt, before a real change to a new planning form takes place."
56. Approach a project with an open mind. Try to see and account for
everything. Allow values to compete through discussions with others.
(i.e.9 get outside influences)
57. Emphasize the word "wise".
58<, Flexibility, open to new methods3 procedures, new goals. Like to
think that 1 am creative.
Planning°analysis oriented—directive
59. Planning must be done,, In this region, planning is the most impor-
tant branch of the agency. It serves all others. It feeds the first
steps,, project initiation facts, into the organizational grinder.
It must keep feeding in. projects in their correct timing. It must
initiate change. It is a very rewarding function. Branch conceives
projects;,works it through authorization, construction and operation.
The benefits of the work are seen. It helps to do something for
people.
60. Look Co resources. Set down and establish goals and priorities. See
what is needed to get there. Equate needs with resources. Then
spend what is needed and be happy.
61. There is a lot that needs to be done. It is the agency's business to
ensure that water resources are usefully exploited, not wasted.
62. Make, advancements. Better self and the people that am involved with.
Improve planning.
63 o Seek public we Ifares the common good. Things are going to be dones
money will be spent. Hope to shape expenditures so that they are
useful,, so that will be better off with planning than without it.
The engineer should do with one dollar what other people use two
dollars to achieve.
64, Everything is interrelated„ Way of life is complex, urban interde-
pendencies create a need for planning, for evaluation of alternatives
to develop the best approach for broad objectives.
65. Prejudiced in favor of very long range planning. Cooperate with
nature rather than fight it. Favor careful and increasing consider-
ation of radical planning approaches (such as limiting metropolitan
growth by fiat, or making a shift of water uses compulsory in the
West). Must get to the root causes of problems.
66. Try to think in terms of the entire picture, all resources., not just
water resources. Look, at the social and economic impacts. Then
select specific areas or cases for planning and restrict self to
water resources.
67. Determine a goala go for it in the simplest, quickest, most direct
and objective way.
198
-------
68. Optimistic, planning is an optimistic endeavor. Objectives are dif-
ficult to meet but work is a challenge to meet these objectives.
Keep a positive attitude. Accept the following principles of plan-
ning. Look at all alternatives possible, get all inputs possible,
develop a well defined objective or set of objectives for planning
to be directed towards and always keep striving to meet these goals.
69. In water resources, there is a planning job to be done, needs will
increase, thus the need for careful planning will increase. The
future major problem will be to develop water use and control plans
that will take into account all planning aspects, including environ-
mental and social needs.
70. Not asked.
199
-------
APPENDIX 4
INTERVIEW NUMBER
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
PERSONAL FUNCTIONS
1. Would you briefly describe the 3 most important tasks that are
assigned to you?
PHILOSOPHY OF PLANNING
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Richard McDonald
Ray Wilson
2. Do you have any task, which you would like to reduce?
PROBE: WHY?
ISJ
O
O
Questions preceded by a letter are those used in this thesis.
The letters used correspond to the major areas of analysis;
e.g., N - Nature, P - Personal Role, S - Socio-Political,
6 - Goals of Planning, T - Time. The remaining questions are
being analysed by Richard McDonald.
3. Which tasks would you devote more time to if you had the extra
time?
PROBE: WHY?
Place of Interview: Agency
Location
lime started and completed
Date
4. What type of planning, long range, framework studies or project
planning nave you spent most of your time doing in the last year
-------
5.
(a) Do most of the planners in your office do the same kind of
work, or does each man specialize in one phase of planning?
Generalists
Specialists
6. How much of your planning can be accomplished before
consultation with technical specialists is required?
Ni
O
7.
Do *you (*your planners) communicate directly with the technical
specialists in your office during day-to-day activities?
Yes
No
8.
How much of your time is spent coordinating the activities
of your technical specialists?
PROBE: Do you consider this time we'll spent?
9. Are most of your inter-office communications verbal or written?
10. Do *your supervisors usually accompany you *(you usually
accompany your planners) to meetings with other branches in
this district [division] [regional] office?
Yes
No
11. How much of your (personal; time is spent in communicating
either verbally or by letter with:
'/, or hrs/wk
a. local Congressmen
b. State or local
officials
c. special interest
groups & Private
citizens
d. other Federal agencies
If zero-
If not
zero"
How much in hours/wk.?
too little, not too
much, etc. Could you
be more specific?
Do you think that this is too much or
not enough contact?
Too much Not enough About right
Do you feel that you would benefit
from this kind of contact'
Yes No
No Opinion
a.
b.
c.
-------
to
Q
to
L2. Do you actively participate at public hearings? Yes No
13. How does your direct supervisor allocate his time between
supervision and planning?
Supervision:
Planning
14a. How much time on the job do you think it takes to become an
experienced planner?
. Does your agency conduct periodic training programs in
planning?
Regular
Occasional
Never
14c. Do you think your agency does an adequate job of keeping you
up to date on new developments in project planning?
15. a. Does your agency have regular programs for training
supervisors and managers?
b. Are these programs adequate? Yes No Don't know
PERSONAL ROLE AND GOALS
G 1~6. What is the highest position in the organization that you
think you will ultimately achieve? What GS level?
G 17. What factors could keep you from reaching this goal?
PROBE: If he gives personal, ask for institutional and
fice-versa.
Personal Institutional
18.
What are the three most important attributes leading to pro-
motions within your agency?
19.
Do you consider the turnover rate among your office's planners
fast or slow?
20. Are the ages of the planners in your office uniformly distributed
from the early 20"s to just under retirement, or are they
bunched at several levels?
Uniform Bunched
Old
Middle
Young
21. How do you feel about your chances for promotion in the near
future?
G 22. As a water resource planner, you must have some personal
reasons for choosing this profession. What do you feel are
your primary reasons for this choice?
-------
a. Have you been satisfied with your choice of occupation?
Yes No Why?
b. What other profession would you consider given the choice
again?
N3
O
OJ
P 24. A «ater planner can serve a number o£ purposes in the course
of his work. Card No. 1 has a list of possible roles that a
planner could assume. Choose the three that you feel are most
important.
a. He should serve in a technical capacity only.
b. He should actively promote the project he is working on.
c. He should coordinate all agencies and interest groups
involved in any project.
d. He should educate the public about the possible conse-
quences of water resources planning.
e. He should have the decision-making power to determine the
direction and type of development needed.
f. He should initiate change wherever he sees progress slowing
down.
g. He should act to serve the public.
h. Other.
P 25. Which of all these descriptions most nearly fits your present
job?
26. What are the personal characteristics and qualifications of
your favorite advisor?
WHAT?
PROBE: What is his position?
P 27.
Would you comment on your love! c.1 emotional involvement in cue
success or failure oj the plans r.hat you work on?
28. How far do you believe a planner can go in promoting his own
particular ideas and answers to problems? That is, what is
the highest level of authority with which *(your planners could
freely discuss their ideas?) you would freely discuss yoiir ideai?
fellow planners/ immediate superiors/' highest level in your
district [division][regi -in]
higher levels of the agency/ outside the agency - state officials,
U. S. Congress, general public
PROBE: What if *you and your supervisor *(the planner and his
supervisor) disagree?
P 29. Do you feel that the ideas and opinions of the field planner
get much expression in the policy of your agency?
Yes
No
No opinion
If yes: How do these opinions reach the policy level?
PROBE 1
If no: Why do you think this is so?
-------
S 30. Do you think that the field planner should be in a position to
influence .policy?.. -r ..
Yes
NO-
NO opinion
Why?
31. Card No. 2 has a list of non-engineering courses.
a. Rank them in order of potential value to a vater resource
planner.
b. Which of these courses have you taken?
Rank Formal Informal
a. Report writing &
public speaking __
b. Psychology
c. Economics ___
d. . Sociology . ___
e. Political science
f. Ecology ___
{. Water law
32. Do you think it is necessary for a water resource planner to
have an engineering background?
Yes
No
33. How difficult do you think it would be to train a college
graduate without engineering training to do water resource
planning?
34. What advantages and disadvantages would come from a planning
team made up of economists, engineers, social scientists, and
natural scientists?
Advantages
Disadvantages
35. Who should lead such a team?
36. Why?
-------
NATURE
N 37. One of the popular issues of today is a concern for nature.
When you hear the word "nature", what image comes to mind?
PROBE: With or without man?
N 38. How would you describe our state of knowledge about the long-
range consequences of man's changes on nature?
O
Ul
N 39. Would you agree or disagree with the following statements
about nature?
a. In most cases, nature is robust and self-healing?
A a ? d D
b. Unspoiled environment or untouched nature presently is
abundant in the U.S.
A a ? d D
c. The "balance of nature" is a delicate one. A a 1 d D
d. Man is a part of nature. A a ? d D
e. Nature is essentially a hostile force. A a ? d D
f. Man has the right of control over all other living
species.
A a ? d D
N 40. What do you believe should he the national policy with
respect to nature?
N 41.
What is tile actual policy being followed now?
N 42. Regarding man's ability to control nature, would you agree or
disagree with the following statements?
a. Man has the potential ability to control world-wide
natural phenomena such as earthquakes or hurricanes.
A a ? d D
b. Man can presently change nature on a world-wide scale
but cannot always predetermine the changes thac will
occur.
A a ? d D
c. Man has learned to change and control nature enough so
that he can coexist with it with low damage or risk to
•-' either.
A a ? d D
d. Man can seldom do more than defend himself against
natural disaster,
A a 1 d l>
Give a few examples of what you feel are man's major positive
contributions to nature.
N 43.
N 44.
Give a few examples of what you feel are man's major
effects on nature.
-------
45. Some ecologists claim Chat Che problems of environment are so
urgenC thac solutions must be found within the nexC decade if
we are to survive. How nearly to you agree wich this viewpoint?
Yes/No
Comment?
N 46.
Would you tell us how you would define the environment?
N 47. In your opinion,-what is worth more, natural or man-made beauty?
Natural Man-made . Ambivalent
PROBE: In what way?
10
O
N 48.
What, in your opinion, is gained and lost when a river is
preserved as a "wild river"?
Gained
1.
2.
3.
Lost
1.
2.
3.
H 48b. in your opinion, do the gains outweigh the losses, or vice-versa?
N 49. Do you think the value of a wild river is affected by a few
dams in the headwaters?
PROBE: Does the value go up or down?
N 50 a. Do you believe that most of the people in this country
are concerned about preserving nature?
Yes
Why?
b. Would you say that the general public is willing to make
some sacrifices to save our natural resources?
Comment:
-------
N 51. What are the major forms of water pollution in your region?
PROBE: Which is the most important?
N 52.
Would you say that at present the problem of water pollution
is very serious, still within reasonable bounds, or not serious?
to
o
-4
N 53. Will the problem of water pollution become more or less
serious in the future?
PROBE: Why ?
N54a. Does your agency have any responsibility in regard to pollution
control [FWPCA: anything but pollution control]?
Yes
Don't know
PROBE: What is this responsibility?
PROBE: Is your agency carrying out this responsibility?
PROBE: Does your agency want this responsibility?
In controlling pollution, what would you say that your agency'
major constraint is?
PROBE: a lack of technology
a lack of effective legislation
N55. Can pollution control be justified using benefit-cost analysis?
Yes No Don't know
_N56. Who should pay for pollution control:
-------
to
AGENCY FUNCTIONS
57. Card No. 3 lists a number of possible water development needs
in your district. Choose the three water needs you consider
most important at the present time. Choose, also, the least
important three now.
Now
Future
a. Irrigation
b. Water supply - municipal
c. Water supply - industrial
d. Provision of recreation facilities
e. Improvement and maintenance of water
quality
f. Navigation
g. Hydropower
h. Fish and wild life
i. Flood control
j. Coastal improvements
58. If you foresee any change in priority over the next 50 years,
which will become relatively more important?
59. Do you usually find it desirable to include as many of these
uses as possible in any proposed plan of development?
(omit FWFCA)
Why?
DECISION-MAKING (PUBLIC)
S 60. What public groups or interests do you take into account in
your planning?
PROBE: Which one is most important?
S 61.
Are there any groups or interests which are not adequately
represented?
S 62.
Define what you mean when you use the phrase "the public"?
63.
What should be the most important function of a public hearing?
PROBE: What are the most important purposes of a public hearing
as it is presently conducted?
PROBE: Would you say that a public hearing is primarily meant
to transmit information to the public or from the public?
-------
S (A. In investigating a set of alternative solutions, which agency
policy should be adopted? Choose one of. the five categories
on Card No. 4.
a. No alternatives should be released except the one ultimately
proposed by a plan.
b. Only selected alternatives should be released outside of
the agency.
c. All alternatives found to be feasible should be made public.
d. Only the feasible alternatives should be made public but
all alternatives should be given to Congress.
e.
The results of all alternatives which are studied should
be made public.
NJ
O
VO
S 65. What is your agency's current policy in releasing alternatives
to the public? Choose one of the previous categories.
S 68. Do you think that the general public should be more involved
in planning?
How? • N
- Why? °-
Yes
Why?
S 69. Should the gen&ral public have decision-making power during the
planning process?
Yes
How?
No
Why not?
S 70.
Do they have any decision-making power now?
Yes How? No
S 72. Again using the agree-disagree scale on Card 0, would you say
that
a. the public is competent to make technical
judgements? A a ? d D
b. the public is highly interested in public
works? A a ? d D
c. the public is highly cohesive over interests
affecting their welfare? A a ? d D
d. the public is easily swayed by emotional
nontechnical arguments? A a ? d D
e. the public,is generally ignorant of the
issues involved in water planning? A a ? d D
f. the public is self seeking?
A a ? d D
-------
S3
l->
o
DECISION-MAKER (FEDERAL)
S 73. What do you think is Congress's motive for their interest in
water resource development?
S 74, Should Congress have direct control over water development
decisions?
Yes __ No _ij Don't know ^
PROBE: WHY?
How much direct control does Congress have over water develop-
ment decisions?
S 76.
S 77.
Do you think that water resource policy would be improved if
the decisions were taken out of the political arena?
Yes
No
Don't know
PROBE: WHY?
Should your agency have more control than it does now over
water development decisions?
Yes
No
Don't know
PROBE: WHY?
S 77a. How much control does the agency have over water development
decisions?
PROBEi What type of control do they have now?
77. What is your definition of a pork-barrel project?
78. Your agency is sometimes accused of being a pork*barrel
agency.
What is your response to this kind of criticism? (out
for FWPCA)
PROBE: Is the percentage of pork-barrel within your agency
increasing or decreasing?
PROBE: What are the reasons for this?
Does your agency have a responsibility to prevent park-barrel
construction?
PROBE: Can it prevent pork-barrel construction7
PROBE: UOW"
-------
S 80. Please turn Co card No, 5. Choosing from the categories on that
card;
W!C ULTIMATELY DECIDES:
^ a. The economic life of a project? a. Planner
b. 'The type of economic and
population projections
to use?
b. Your agency
PLANN'ISC ..PROCESS
82. Are uxvst ol your plan'.unjj eCiY-Et.:, sii.ii i^r enougr. to allot-:
L,I apply cho san>e; procedure;- uni i or ml1-'
Yes
Don' t: knov
c. What the water needs of the
basin are?
d. Which alternatives will be
studied?
d.
U. S. Congress
General public
e. State interests
83. Have your standard planning prt'cedur?* changed r.iuth over the
last five years?
Yes
PROBS: How have they changed?
Don:t know
e. What the best plan is?
S 81. Again choosing from card No,- 5,-
rO W&0 SHOULD DECIDE:
H* a.. What the water needs of the
basin are?
b. What the goals or objectives of
development will be?
f. Local interests
g.~Other_
a. Planner
b.
d.
Your agency
U. S. Congrees
General public
c. The relative importance between
such goals as economic efficiency
and environmental enhancement? e. State interests
f. Local interests
d. Which alternatives will be studied?
g. Other
84. Has the net result been;
a. To increase the amount of detail necessary in
a plan? Yes /No
b . To broad-en the coverage of unusual kinds of
situations?
c. To make the planning job more complex?
Ye=/No
d. To increase the number of alternatives tnat you-
have to study? Yes/NV
e* To improve the- accuracy of the planning process? Ye-i/No
f. To produce better planning? Yes/Nu
85 . Do you have the opportunity to comment on proposed changes i n
planning procedures?
Yes
No
•Do you 'think your
comments are used?
Yes
: In what way?
»-Do you think you should
have the opportunity?
e. What the best plan is?
-------
K>
M
10
86. Would you say that a decision based on a B/C analysis is better
than one based on intangible values?
Yes
No
Don't know
PROBE: WHY?
87. Would you say that a B/C decision is easier to defend against
criticism?
Yes No Don't know
PROBE: WHY ?
Do you ever encounter the following situation:
a. You are personally convinced that a project is worthwhile,
but an economic analysis shows that it is not justifiable?
Yes
No
l»PROBE: What do you usually do in this situation?
b. Do you ever encounter this situation:
You are convinced that a project is not desirable, but an
economic analysis shows that it is justified?
Yes
No
I^PROBE: What do you usually do in this situation?
9. Do you see an increasing trend toward non-structural solutions
for your agency's problems?
Yes
No
90. Do you think that the time spent on planning studies is too
short or too long?
Too short / too long / about right
91. Do you think th*t the planning for survey (feasibility)
reports is too detailed or not detailed enough?
Too detailed / not detailed enough / about right
92.
What would be the most effective method of shortening the
planning process?
G 93.
PROBE: Give the planner more freedom to make decisions?
Yes/No
Improved methods of analysis? Yes/No
• Hire more planners? Yes/No''
Form project planning teams? ifes/No
Decrease the number of review levels? Yes/No
A plan is many things to many people. What do you think a
plan is?
G 94. What distinguishes a '"good" plan from a "bad" plan in your
opinion?
-------
95. How often are important considerations left out of your plans?
If not: never
L-«-PROBE: WHY?
95a. What do you feel is the principal constraint on the quality of
your agency's current water resource planning?
G 96. How would you improve the present planning process?
10
PLANNING lECiiMIQl'ES
97. Are the use i.'f most of your analytical techniques spelled out
in your planning manuals?
Yes
No
98. Do you think that the presently available analytical techniques
allow you to do an adequate job of planning?
Yes
No'
'••PROBE: What are the deficiencies?
99a. What do you see as the main use of benefit/cost analysis?
99b. Would you say that the benefit/cost analysis is most useful
in formulating alternatives OR choosing between alternatives?
lOOa. Which of the following two statements most nearly describes
your feelings about water?
a. Water is a commodity which should be treated just as any
other marketable good.
b. Water is a unique good with a special value which cannot
be measured just in terms of it's price.
lOOb. Using card 0, would you agree or disagree that:
a. Water, as a necessity for life, should be
free to all men. A a ? d D
b. Water is a central factor in determining
economic growth. A a ? d D
c. The highest use of water is for it to serve
the physical needs of man. A a ? d D
-------
101. Define intangible benefits or costs.
PROBE: Give a few examples.
LEGISLATION
G 107. Has there been any legislation in the past 10 or 20 years that
has significantly changed the quality of water resource
planning? Describe what it was and it's effect.
102. What effects do intangible benefits and costs have on an
economic analysis?
N>
PROBE: Do they invalidate the conclusions of the B/C
analysis? Yes/No
Should they be ignored in favor of direct
economic benefits and costs? Yes/No
Should they only be included by decision-
makers higher up? Yes/No
Should they be assigned some numbers and
lumped into an all-inclusive B/C figure? Yes/No
COMMENT:
108.
PROBE: Which laws were most important?
Does existing legislation constrain you or does it free you
to pursue desirable planning goals?
104. Do you regard your agency as a slow or fast adopter of new
analytical techniques?
Fast/Slow
105. Have you heard about or read about any new analytical techniques
that might be used to further improve your planning?
No
Yes
109. What kind of legislation would you like to see introduced to
further improve the quality of planning?
PROBE: Would you comment on the usefullness of these techniques?
111. Do you think that your agency's present appropriation is too
small or too large?
PROBE: WHY?
-------
Do you think that your agency's budget will generally rise or
fall in the future?
PROBE: WHY?
113. Have you been able to perceive any difference between the intent
ol your original legislation and your agency's interpretation
of this legislation"?
to
M
Ui
11A. Card. No. 6 lists a series of possible institutional constraints
on the quality of current water resource planning? Rank them
in order of importance,
a. Budget constraints - lack of planning funds
b. Budget constraints - lack of construction funds
c. The limited nature of our analytical techniques
d. The law of the land - legal constraints
e. The regulations of the agency
AGENCY CONSTRAINTS
116. What xvould you say is the most important function of the
reviewer?
PROBE: Does the function vary with the level of the review?
m District or Field
___ Division or Region
Washington
117. If you were asked to describe your agency's method for making
planning decisions in one sentence, which of the following two
would you choose'•
a. The authority has been decentralized by assigning most of
it to the district or field offices.
b. The district offices do the detail work, but the authority
is firmly centralized in Washington (Denver).
118. In your opinion, which of the two methods leads to better
planning?
a. I b.
1L9. What would be the good and bad aspects of centralizing the
district planning activities at the division (regional) or
Washington (Denver) office?
PROBE:
Good:
Bad:
f. Political realities - pressure from interest groups,
etc.
-------
120.
OS
Is there really a sense of rivalry between water resource
agencies?
Yes
Mo
PROBE: Do you think that competition between agencies provides
the incentive to do better planning?
L21. Some critics have accused your agency of using the so-called
"cook-book" approach to planning instead of treating each
situation as a separate problem with its own particular
characteristics. Do you think this criticism is justified?
122. Some critics have accused your agency of using "tunnel-vision"
that is, you only look at solutions which will benefit your
own (construction) program. Do you think this criticims is
justified?
123. Do you think that the quality of planning would be improved
if the planning function were separated from design and
construction?
Yes
No
Don't know
PROBE; WHY?
GOALS
G 12^. Is your agency's planning directed by a set of long range
goals?
Yes No Don't know
G L25. Would you describe these goals?
G 126. Card No. 7 contains a general list of possible broad economic
goals to be sought in water resource planning. Choose the
three that you consider most important and rank them. Add any
you feel are omitted.
3. Maximize national economic growth
b. Maximize regional economic growth
c. Maximize local economic growth
d. Maintain the resource base (recycle resources).
e. Redistribute income from rich to poor
f. Promote national defense
g. Control the growth of regions
h. Other
G 127. Card No. 8 contains a general list of possible broad environ-
mental goals to be sought in water planning. Choose three and
rank.
a. Enhance and improve the t -wironment
b. Enhance fish and wildlife
c. Control population growth
d. Ensure ecological principles are satisfied
e. Preserve unique natural areas
f. Preserve historical sites
g. Supply recreational opportunities for the public
h. Other
-------
C 128.
G 129.
From the six goals you chose on cards 7 and 8, pick the three
you feel are most important and rank them.
1.
2.
3.
G 132. Do regional and local objectives affect your planning?
Yes No
PROBE: What are they?
What goals do you feel are overemphasized or not being met at
the present time?
Overemphasized:
Not being met:
PROBE: Are they important?
PROBE: How do you resolve conflict?
IS)
G 130.
With respect to the formulation of goals such as those above,
how do you believe they are arrived at?
106a. What is gained and lost by the increased emphasis on
multiple objectives as opposed to just planning for
economic efficiency?
Gained Lost
G 131.
Do you prefer to work under a set of specified goals or would
you rather have the freedom to respond to needs as they arise?
Goals
Needs
PROBE: WHY ?
your
What is/opinion about the use of large scale interbasin
water transfers?
-------
G 133a In Senate Document 97, a general goal states that overriding all
other objectives must be considerations protecting "the welt
being of the people" or "the common good". What do you think.
these terms mean?
T 135.
TIME-
How would you rate your outlook on- the future of mankind?
00
Another important aspect of goals is what you feel the objectives
of the planning process are. Card No. 9 lists a series of
possible planning objectives. Choose the three that best
describe the purpose of your planning:
a. To prepare a document describing project alternatives or
non~structural procedures.
b. lo provide a basis for meeting future water needs.
c. To meet your agency's responsibility to the public.
d. To provide a s-tandard which measures progress toward water
resource goals.
e. To show a way to achieve socially useful results.
£. To assist the agency to better anticipate change.
g. To show means available to achieve economically useful
results.
h. To illuminate aIternative futures.
i. Other
T 136. What are your major reasons for this outlook?
T 137. Would you say tha.t the U.S. has sufficient natural resources
to fulfill its needs for the forseeable future?
T 138. Do you believe that the U.S. is presently a water-short nation7
¥es No ___ Don't know
C otnmen t;
T 139. How about in the future?
Comment:
T i40. How far into the future can we reliably predict?
a. Population: ___^_ years
b. Water needs: years
c„ Economic growth: year-s
d. Social change: years
-------
N>
I-1
VO
T 141. How urgent are the regular programs of your agency?
Do you believe that it is important to build projects now
which have capacities far beyond the requirements for existing
needs"?
Yes
Mo
Don't know
PROBE: WHY ?
T 143a. As a planner, would you say you are more influenced by the
needs of the future, or by the way things have been done in
the past?
b. Along the scale on c^rd No. 10, where would you say your
personal or private concern is directed?
Distant/ Past/ Recent/ Present/ Near / Future/ Distant
Past Past Future Future
P 144. Do you feel any conflicts between the way you like to do your
job and the.way you have to do it?
Ye*
No
—»PR0BE: What are these conflicts?
—»-PROBE: How do you resolve these conflicts?
P 145. How would you describe your personal planning philosophy
P 146. According to the categories on card No. 11, rate yourself on
your general planning philosophy.
Radical/ Liberal/ Moderate/ Conservative/ Very Conservative
L47. How do you rate yourself compared to the other planners In
office on that scale?
-------
DEMOGRAPHICS
Age:
Marital Status:
GS grade
Time in grade
Official job title:
Years with agency Years as a planner
fears with Federal government
Non-Federal Engineering
employment
Other Federal agency Non Federal employment
Education:
a, Undergraduate
b. Graduate
c, Post-university
Degree Maior
Minor
University
Background:
Where were you born and raised?
Would you classify that as urban or rural?
Father's occupation
Membership in professional groups: Membership in Clubs, organizations:
Po you participate in any water-related hobbies or sports?
220
-------
APPENDIX 5
"Ideal Planner" Scale
INSTRUCTIONS
Most of us have some idea of what the "ideal" characteristics
of a water resources planner should be. With a picture of the "ideal"
planner firmly in mind, go through the following list of opposite
attributes and indicate your preference as shown in the example
below:
Example
The ideal planner is a planner:
-with many years 1 2 3 4 5 with many years
of experience of advanced edu-
cation
Explanation
A mark, or "X',! in position 1 indicates that you would always
prefer the experienced planner. A mark in position 2 means that you
prefer the experienced planner but also value an advanced education as
a secondary quality. Position 3 is complete neutrality between the
two attributes. Positions 4 and 5 both favor the planner with the
advanced education, with position 4 indicating that education is more
important than experience, and 5 indicating that education is very much
more important as an ideal planner characteristic.
221
-------
QUESTIONNAIRE
AN IDEAL PLANNER IS A PLANNER:
1. with many years of
planning experience
with many years of
advanced education
AN IDEAL PLANNER IS A PLANNER WHO:
2. follows the chain
of command
3. is an innovator
4. is satisfied with his
present position
is highly independent
follows tried and time
proven planning methods
constantly seeks
promotion
AN IDEAL PLANNER PREFERS THAT THE FINAL CHOICE
OF DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE IS MADE BY:
5. expert planner/
agency
6. Congress
7. general public
general public
(taxpayer)
expert planner/agency
Congress
AN IDEAL PLANNER IS A PLANNER WHO IS:
8. a generalist (has
some knowledge of
many disciplines)
9. emotionally involved
with his planning
a specialist (has
high knowledge of one
planning discipline)
objective or neutral
about his planning
222
-------
AN IDEAL PLANNER IS A PLANNER WHO IS:
10. a realist an idealist
11. pro-preservation pro-development
12. optimistic about
the future
pessimistic about
the future
AN IDEAL PLANNER IS A PLANNER WHO:
13. advocates a plan
(argues in its favor)
14. works carefully
within the agency's
lawful functions
15. insists quantifiable
criteria is most
important
16. always accepts
agency policies and
regulations
17. seeks out dissenting
opinion
18. assess all possible
consequences of a
proposed plan
presents the plan
(neutral stance)
seeks opportunities to
promote a broader range
of development benefits
insists non-quantifiable
criteria is most
important
always rejects agency
policies and
regulations
avoids
controversy
gets the
job
done
AN IDEAL PLANNER IS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT:
project development
19. long-range planning
20. the agency mission ,
-il. existing problems
22. public service
public coordination
distant future problems
agency loyalty
223
-------
AN IDEAL PLANNER PREFERS TO PLAN FOR:
23. economic growth social considerations
24. environmental economic
enhancement growth
25. social considera- environmental
tions enhancement
AN IDEAL PLANNER IS A PLANNER WHO:
26. has a strictly has a strictly
national orientation local orientation
27. seeks a policy input seeks complete direction
opportunity from the top
To use these scales, a large number of planners must be sampled,
from different state and federal agencies, grades, age groups, back-
grounds, the universities, and so on. A series of norms of attitudes
for the various groups can be established. Other planners could then
be assessed with respect to these norms to indicate their potential
responsiveness in particular situations.
224 AU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1973 514-154/286 1-3
-------
1
5
A i i-f •..sM/i Number
2
Subject Field &. Group
06A
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
Stanford University, Department of Civil Engineering
TOWARD A PHILOSOPHY OF PLANNING: ATTITUDES OF FEDERAL WATER PLANNERS
10
Authors) — — — ,
Wilson RavTnnnH W
16
21
Project Designation
16110 DWX
Note
22
' Citation
Environmental Protection Agency report
number, EPA-R5-73-015, March 1973.
23
Descriptors (Starred First)
*Planning, *Planners, *Attitudes, Philosophy of Planning
25
Identifiers (Starred First)
27 Abstract
Summarizes interviews with 70 planners from federal water resources agencies to
determine their attitudes toward planning objectives, their personal role in
planning, the social-political structure, time, and the environment. Responses
of the planners are summarized and compared with views of others on the proper
role of the planner in the planning process. Some conclusions as to methods
in improving the planning process are presented. (Linsley—Stanford)
Abstractor
Ray K. Linsley
Institution
Stanford University
WR:102 (REV JULY 1969)
WRSI C
SEND TO- WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC iNFORI
U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON. D, C- 20240
1AT1ON C EN T ER
* GPO: 1969-359*339
------- |