Back to top or back to home page or back to Chapter Index
The survey completed as part of this project indicates that Lewis County resident have become disenfranchised from Lewis County flood policy decision-making. To alleviate the sense of public frustration and distrust of the decision-making process, it is in county government's interest to strengthen its communication with the public, broaden its efforts at inviting citizen participation and ensure that public values and concerns are used as a foundation for policy decisions.
In his work, The Moral Commonwealth, Philip Selznick argues that no matter who wields influence in public decision-making, government must have the authority, the "rightful claim to deference or obedience," to make and enforce those decisions. (Selznick, 1992: 266) He argues that public participation in government decision-making lends legitimacy to the process as well as the outcome. The key is to allow contending interests to be recognized and addressed: "True civic participation affirms the worth of constituent individuals and groups; it does not absorb and extinguish them." (Selznick, 1992: 313) In a healthy and effective system of government, individuals and interest groups are allowed to express their needs, values and concerns, and government is willing to listen and develop policies that reflect such input. This public empowerment is critical for the legitimate exercise of government authority and for the overall success of community. "Without a concern for human relations . politics is reduced to a naked contest for power." (Selznick, 1992: 314)
Public participation is crucial to the success of any land use or environmental planning effort (Jain, et. al. 1993: 266). Government plays an important role in establishing the structure of public participation, as it often determines and provides funding and staff support for the program. In Western Water Resources, (19 80) Frank J. Trelease argues that the political arena may not be a good mechanism for deciding how to manage water resources, as legislators are not bound to apply statutory standards to project plans. But in the case of the Chehalis River flood issue, the local Flood Action Council was chaired by state Rep. Bill Brumsickle, R-Centralia and supported by U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton and then-U.S. Rep. Linda Smith, all of whom are widely recognized as supportive of the growth agenda. Trelease argues that it's better to leave planning in the hands of agencies that must follow a set of standards and regulations. Governments often depend on a benefit-cost analysis to guide decisions, but also notes that such an analysis has a political element as well, as it will likely reflect the values of those in power. In other words, whoever is in power determines what is a benefit and what is a cost, and the worth of each. And Renshaw notes that, depending on the location of political power, flood management decisions may simply move the flooding problem to another community downstream - or worse, exacerbate the flooding problems for everyone. (Renshaw, 1961: 28)
An effective public participation program must be thoughtfully constructed, implemented, evaluated and then refined. "Achieving useful results requires creating a constituency for change that has the breath and the integrity to push beyond the parochial interests that prevent people from addressing the broader public concerns of citizens." (Chrislip and Larson, 1994: 77)
Back to top or back to home page or back to Chapter Index
Flood plain management is a complex public policy issue that involves many local stakeholders as well as state, tribal and federal government. In the case of the Chehalis River Basin, the most effective recent attempt to address this public policy issue was initiated by the Flood Action Council (FAC), a private organization whose
primary purpose is to improve the area's economic prospects by controlling flooding. Until it was announced at a series of public hearings, most local residents were unaware of the FAC's proposal for a structural solution to the flooding problem - a dam which would have inundated the Doty area. Lewis County Commissioner and FAC member Richard Graham was present at those well-attended meetings and recalls that he thought the FAC was going to be 'lynched'. (Graham, interview, April 17, 1999).
A common flaw in many public participation programs is that opportunities for citizen involvement come too late in the decision-making process. Soliciting public input after a policy decision appears to have already been made can hurt government credibility and foster a general public cynicism about the process. Involving the public as soon as possible and ensuring public access to staff and information are two ways to build credibility. "The government needs to . reach out and explain what government does and how it serves the interests of citizens for example, through persistent, diverse and consistent information campaigns such as 'lings." (Berman, 1997: 2) Information must be provided in a simple, straight forward manner, as citizens affected by local policy decisions possess varied levels of knowledge and skill on the particular issue. Technical information should be "translated" into plain English and be made available to the general public. Rosenbaum calls this step "public preparation" as it provides the public with background information on basic concepts as well details about the government decision-making process. Such materials also provide public notice of policy issues. (Rosenbaum, 1976: 46)
Public administrators may view the public participation process as completely separate from their planning process. The " . technical side of the project is designed and managed in a rational, scientific and professional manner, yet the problematic human side of the enterprise is often dealt with in a totally ad hoc reactive, unplanned form of management by crisis." (Connor, 1997: 3) Des Connor, Canada's leading expert on public participation, proposed a timeline that outlines an approach that integrates public participation with project planning:
Back to top or back to home page or back to Chapter Index
The development of public policy generally requires public input, particularly in the area of environmental policy. However, defining just who is "the public" is no simple task. Connor argues that it makes more sense to think in terms of many different "publics," rather than one monolithic public that includes, for example, all residents of a community. "When [the term] 'publics' is used in the singular, the statement is probably false in some important respects. Some publics are organized and may have their own means of communication." (Connor, 1997: 4) Even if a person has lived in a community for years, says Connor, that person's perspective on the community differs from that of others. He also argues that the community is a system of groups both seen and unseen. Connor identifies subgroups and their social attitudes and main characteristics by conducting a social profile. This approach provides useful information on attitudes and beliefs within a community and identifies the various 'publics' that comprise the community as a whole. Such information can be useful to public administrators who must identify a representative sample of members of the community to take part in policy decision-making.
Choosing an approach to public participation that best fits the needs and characteristics of the community is also important. Wilson states that ". . . wealthier, more educated people are likely to dominate party-based activities, while 'working class' people dominate in direct protest settings." (Wilson, 1999: 3-4) While public administrators may be tempted to focus their attention on people who are knowledgeable, easy to work with or who are known as public activists, the exclusion of other citizens - by design or by default - can strengthen the hold of the local growth coalition on public decision-making. Such an approach also excludes members of the public whose support and goodwill are important to the long-term success of policy development. In collaborative decision-making, ". . . if you have people around the table who can make things happen - and those who can stop it from happening - then it will happen." (Chrislip and Larson, 1994: 77)
Back to top or back to home page or back to Chapter Index
The purpose of an effective public involvement program is not only to inform the public but also to discover their needs, values and perspectives on proposed actions. The most common way to invite public input - normally a requirement of law - is through public hearings. Public hearings are designed to provide citizens with a formal mechanism to learn about public decisions and to offer input. To citizens, reading a public hearing announcement in the local paper may be the first time they have heard of a pending public decision. "Affected citizens cannot participate meaningfully if they are unaware that issues are coming up for decision, or if they receive only a few day's notice to prepare themselves. Again, much of the 'negativism' and 'irrational' opposition to land development that planners and administrators attribute to citizens may be caused by the fact that pending policy decisions are often exposed to public input only a short time before final action is scheduled." (Rosenbaum, 1976: 23)
As with all public participation programs, structure and the role of the citizen in the decision-making process are both important elements that impact program effectiveness. In public administration there has been a growing movement towards establishing community advisory groups for publicly funded programs, especially those with potentially controversial elements (e.g., welfare or land use). Citizen advisory groups can also serve a public relations function, helping governments agencies gain greater public legitimacy because such groups ostensibly represent the public in the decision-making process. However, community advisory groups whose core function is community relations as opposed to influencing or participating in decision-making are simply an example of cynical tokenism.
People who are appointed to a committee are generally dedicated citizens who commit significant time and attention to a particular issue. Advisory groups designed to help government improve community relations serve only to frustrate and anger both citizen participants and the public at large. "The appointment of a citizen to an advisory board can be expected to arouse his interest immediately, and this awakened interest is a valuable public relations asset. If, however, he finds that his appointment carries no duties or responsibilities, he becomes disillusioned or takes the initiative in finding something to do. In either case the result is unfortunate. An offended or disillusioned citizen may be a permanent public relations liability, and a layman who tries to make a job for himself is likely to be a very disrupting factor." (qtd. in Steward, 1976: 72)
An example of this disillusionment can be found in the interaction between the Lewis County Board of Commissioners and the Citizens' Advisory Committee appointed by the commissioners to provide input on flood planning. When the group reviewed and offered feedback on the proposed flood management plan developed by Pacific International Engineering and supported by the local growth coalition, the response from the Lewis County Board of Commissioners was that such input went beyond the purpose and role of the committee. Members of the advisory group came to believe the commissioners had sought their input only as a token gesture aimed at legitimizing county flood policy decisions that had already been made. (Ilona Peterson, interview, April 13, 1999)
An effective public participation program should help citizens define their interests rather than their positions, allowing room for understanding and negotiation to take place. Participants should be invited to offer a full range of alternatives that can then be evaluated objectively. The group should assess the feasibility of each alternative and consider their social, economic and environmental effects. In order to avoid creating an adversarial relationship, government should avoid advocating a position until the end of the process (Creighton, 1985: 7-5). In the case of the Citizens' Advisory Committee, citizens were brought into the policy decision-making process after the Flood Action Council had already proposed flood management plans developed by Pacific International Engineering. County government also failed to utilize the Citizens' Advisory Committee during development of the Lewis County Comprehensive Plan, despite the fact that members of the group would have provided a valuable resource because of their strong understanding of flood issues.
Implementation of an effective public participation program is not simple, and its application can present a challenge to public administrators. Government may view public participation as tending to ". . . undermine the administrative goals of efficiency, expertise and control, which drive agencies to seek public approval of predetermined solutions. On a practical level, public participation is inefficient in terms of cost and time . . ." (Spyke, 1999: 4).
It's not enough to measure the cost-effectiveness of a public participation program by looking only at how much it costs to support such outreach. Government must also consider the money saved by avoiding costly litigation that can arise from public dissatisfaction with government decision-making. Another consideration the value to government of the legitimacy and support for government decisions gained through effective public participation - cannot be measured. Well-structured programs help to ". . . develop support for the projects, it reduces the alienation of the individual, and it takes an active rather than reactive, role in resolving conflict . . ." (Shepard and Bowler, 1997: 4). An effective program can improve government/citizen communication, foster a sense of community empowerment and strengthen government legitimacy.
Back to top
Back to Chapter Index
Back to CRC Index Page
Back to Flood Index Page
Back to Watershed Index Page
Back to Lewis County Issues Index Page
Back to Grays Harbor County Issues Index Page
Back to Thurston County Issues Index Page
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council