Communications & Water Resource Governance: Connecting the Dots

Details

Published: Monday, 02 December 2019 20:08

Karen Trebitz
University of Idaho PhD student

Communications networks are like spider webs of interlinked ties of people and their interactions. The threads are lines of communications, and the intersections, or nodes, represent various organizations, or “actors.” Central actors talk to each other frequently, and likely have a major interest in the system. More distant connections may provide bridges to outside resources, such as information, funding, or even political support.

My PhD studies are focused on the networks of communications for governing fisheries and water quality in five reservoirs of the Columbia River Basin: Lake Chelan, Lake Roosevelt, Lake Pend Oreille, Lake Koocanusa, and člq̓etkʷ (Flathead Lake). A sixth area, the St. Joe/St. Maries River sub-basin of Lake Coeur D’Alene, was a pilot study for the current research. The actors and stakeholders include a diverse array of U.S Tribes and Canadian First Nations; federal, state and local regulatory agencies; non-government organizations, and business and industry.

A robust online survey was developed that is divided into three sections: health indicators for water quality and fisheries, networking opportunities, and attitudes regarding the success/health of networking as it relates to meeting organizational goals. The on-line survey has been completed by 73 organizations. With roughly forty identified actors per basin, this is a 37 percent survey response rate overall. Follow-up calls and emails with survey participants also yielded rich contextual information.

An early take away from implementing the survey is that organizations aren’t social, people are. Representatives from some organizations interacted numerous times to assure they were completing the survey properly, others completed the survey without comment, and some declined to complete the survey with or without comment. Differing protocols within organizations also became apparent with one, for instance, asking their press office to vet the survey first.

Each of the study areas show the same general “core-periphery” pattern of multiple actors being densely connected in the center. As one moves away from this core, actors tend to be connected to the center, but are less and less connected to each other.

Those located at the core tend to be central actors with a major interest in the system, e.g.-- regulatory agencies, Tribes/First Nations, dam owner/operators, and major landowners. Still central, but less prevalent, are the US EPA, lake Research Institutes, Lakes Commissions, and state-level departments of lands or natural resources. Each network has at least one non-profit or collaborative council that is close to, if not, in the core.

Information exchange is a less evident, but perhaps a more important function of the central actors in the networks. In five of the study areas at least one central actor provides an information platform, in the form of regular (usually quarterly) meetings or presentations that are open to the public. Only the Lake Roosevelt network breaks this pattern. The Lake Roosevelt Forum (LRF), a non-profit organization, is barely outside the cluster of the basin’s most central actors. LRF is the only forum platform mentioned by survey respondents in the Lake Roosevelt network, and is even named in another basin. All but one of the respondents who named LRF have either attended or presented at Forum meetings. Multiple information sources are identified in all other basins, mostly hosted by one or more of the central actors.

Collaborations are a matter of communications, and can be blocked or promoted by various factors. Survey respondents were surprisingly candid in their answers: collaboration is hindered by funding limitations, a lack of common goals, poor communication, politics that get in the way, a lack of trust, and the unwillingness of some parties to share data. Interest in collaborating is promoted with an improved willingness by others to engage, share goals and purpose, better communicate, and strongly support sustainable funding.

Statistical correlations of perceived network dynamics reveal similar relations. Data suggest that a network with more of an advisory role (and less binding or regulatory authority) relates positively to higher levels of collaboration, and is more able to identify issues and implement action plans. Neither authority scheme is associated with the ability to develop common goals or strategies, however. The availability of scientific data, more public participation, and higher levels of inclusiveness all correlate with more success in finding common goals and strategies as well as identifying and implementing action.

These findings contribute to understanding Columbia River Treaty governance discussions and on-going federal, state and provincial regulatory processes. Elected officials and policy makers would do well to recognize that achieving goals is greatly affected by not only the standing of sovereigns in the process, but the extent and nature of networking and information exchange present.

Areas with higher degrees of engagement are more likely to find common goals and jointly implement action. Higher degrees of engagement and inclusiveness, however, need additional support and a strong commitment by those with the highest standing and regulatory authority. This requires strong leadership and the presence of social and cultural norms because organizations aren’t social, people are.

Is your organization involved in one of these networks? If you have not yet had a survey filled for your organization, please contact Karen at treb6275@vandals.uidaho.edu.