Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: Coalition Formation and Stability in Environmental Policy: Testing a Revised Version of Advocacy Coalition Framework on San Francisco Bay/Delta Water Policy
EPA Grant Number: R823445Title: Coalition Formation and Stability in Environmental Policy: Testing a Revised Version of Advocacy Coalition Framework on San Francisco Bay/Delta Water Policy
Investigators: Sabatier, Paul A.
Institution: University of California - Davis
EPA Project Officer: Packard, Benjamin H
Project Period: May 15, 1995 through May 14, 1997
Project Amount: $158,226
RFA: Socio-Economics (1995) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Environmental Justice
Objective:
This study has two main objectives. The first objective is to document long-term belief change among bureaucrats and interest groups regarding an important public policy issue: San Francisco Bay-Delta water policy 1953-1996, including the sub-issues of water supply, water quality, fisheries, and wetlands.
The second objective is to use these data to test hypotheses about public policy-making, as suggested by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). ACF hypotheses concern the dynamics of coalition formation and stability; the extent to which beliefs and strategies change over time and why; the role that exogenous events play in policy change; and the conditions conducive to policy-oriented learning across coalitions.
With an improved understanding of policy-making in the San Francisco Bay-Delta, practitioners working through CALFED and other venues might be better positioned to overcome the stalemate which has dominated California water policy since voters rejected the Peripheral Canal in 1982. The Bay-Delta has immense symbolic and economic value for the 7.5 million inhabitants of the Bay Area, and provides water to 15 million people in Southern California and to farms in the San Joaquin Valley with gross crop values of approximately $2.5 billion.
Methods:
We collected two bodies of data. The primary data set resulted from content analysis of 552 testimonies presented at 60 public hearings between 1953 and 1996. The second data source consists of personal interviews of coalition leaders. Whereas content analysis allows us to track belief change over time, the interviews allow us to understand how coalitions formulate proposed solutions and develop strategies for convincing government to adopt those solutions.
Testimony Content Analysis. We began the coding project by identifying every public hearing (held between 1950 and 1996) that dealt substantially with one or more aspect of Bay-Delta water policy, and for which a verbatim transcript could be obtained. This resulted in a population of 60 hearings. Except for the 1987-90 State Water Resources Control Board hearings, we coded every testimony by any major organization or individual who appeared in at least 4 hearings over more than a decade. The great breadth and technical nature of the 1987-90 SWRCB hearings required us to code only a sample of 33 testimonies. The 60 hearings yielded 38 testimonies by legislators, 230 by federal or state agencies, 45 by cities and counties, 120 by water supply districts or interest groups, and 142 by environmental advocates. (Figures do not sum to 552 because some testimonies are offered jointly by more than one group, and some speakers have more than one affiliation.)
For each testimony, we coded every statement pertaining to any of 683 belief variables. The belief variables fall into five major categories: Policy Core Beliefs, Water Pollution, Water Projects/Allocation, Bay-Delta Fisheries, Bay-Delta Wetlands & Fill, and Evaluation of Specific Actors. Each of the first four categories includes items on the speaker's beliefs about a) the importance of different basic values, b) whose welfare matters, c) the proper balance of governmental versus private authority, d) the proper balance of federal, state, and local government authority, e) the overall seriousness of the problem, f) present and future trends in the problem, g) perceived causes of the problem, h) evaluation of specific policy strategies, and i) the adequacy of available information about the problem. Each category also contained several additional items.
The coding database includes 552 records (one for each testimony) and 683 belief variables (plus 18 variables characterizing the hearing and the speakers' affiliation(s)). For all testimonies, data are "missing" for the vast majority of the variables because no testimony can address every aspect of Bay-Delta water policy over a span of 43 years. The average number of codes per testimony is 15; the range is 1 to 87. In all, we coded more than 8,300 belief statements expressed in the 552 testimonies. Our analysis focuses on the 44 belief variables that were mentioned in at least 40 testimonies.
Personal Interviews. In order to obtain an understanding of the strategies pursued by different actors, we decided to focus on the events leading up to the 1994 Bay/Delta Accord. Although this dealt primarily with the 1994 negotiations, the interviews also dealt with previous controversies including the Three Way Process and the efforts by the State Water Resources Control Board to revise the Bay/Delta water quality standards in 1987-88 and again in 1992-93. The study involved 44 semi-structured interviews with virtually all of the major actors involved in the negotiations leading to the Accord, plus an historigraphic analysis of relevant documents.
Major Findings:
Content Analysis of Hearing Testimony. In order to analyze the testimony presented by over 500 testifiers at 60 hearings during the period from 1953 to 1996, we distinguish four time periods, each with 100-150 testimonies: the 1950s and 60s, when the major issues were the development of new water projects (particularly the State Water Project), and the emerging concern with water pollution; the 1970s, which began with the opening of the SWP and the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Amendments and ended with concerns about the impacts of water development on fisheries; the 1980s and the 1990s, both characterized by major conflicts regarding water quality (primarily salinity), the water projects, and the viability of fisheries. Following are some of our preliminary findings:
- The mean score (usually on some environment/development scale) on virtually every item varied very little over the four decades. This suggests either that there was very little aggregate change in specific beliefs over time or that, within any decade, the organizers of hearings were careful to incorporate a wide variety of viewpoints. Another possible explanation for the moderate tone on most items over time is that the cast of characters has remained relatively stable. Among the more persistent participants have been the California Department of Water Resources (37 hearings), California Department of Fish & Game (37), Sierra Club (28), Bureau of Reclamation (26), US Fish & Wildlife Service (18), Army Corps of Engineers (17), Environmental Defense Fund (17), State Water Resources Control Board (15), the Bay Institute (15), Contra Costa Water District (15), East Bay Municipal Utility District (14), and Congressman George Miller (14). What varies over time, as we shall see, is the frequency with which various topics have been discussed. The major exception was evaluation of the performance of the SWRCB, which went from rather favorable ratings (mean of about 3.6) in the 1960s and 1970s to a rather low score of 2.0 (on a scale from 1 to 5) in the 1990s.
- There was relatively little concern with overall Bay/Delta water policy - that is, policy involving the entire Bay/Delta and both human and non-human welfare - during any of the four periods. Instead, testimony tended to focus on narrower topics such as water pollution, water allocation/supply, and fisheries.
- With respect to water pollution, the peak period of concern was the 1960s, followed by the 1970s and 80s. It is rarely mentioned in hearings during the 1990s. Water pollution hearings produce much more frequent expressions of opinion regarding environmental quality and public health compared to economic welfare, with the relative importance of each remaining constant over time. Interestingly, expressions of concern about the effects of river flows on pollution are not a recent phenomenon but, instead, peaked in the 1960s.
- In virtually every time period, the most frequently discussed topic has been water allocation/supply. On hearings focused on this topic, opinions on three basic values-economic welfare, environmental quality, and public health-have remained roughly comparable both across the three values and within each over time. There certainly has been no major switch from economic welfare to environmental quality. Expressions of concern with the welfare of urban residents and agriculture have also remained quite stable over time. What has changed is an increasing concern with the welfare of fisheries, accompanied by a declining concern with the welfare of recreationalists (after the 1960s) and Bay/Delta residents (after the 1970s). In every time period - including the 1960s - more attention has been devoted to the welfare of fisheries than to any other group. In short, concern with fisheries did not emerge after the 1976-77 drought. It has been there since the 1950s, but the frequency with which it is discussed has certainly increased over time, particularly in the 1990s.
In sum, this research project documents several interesting trends in California water policy. Overall, problem perception and values remain remarkably stable over time. Concern regarding fisheries issues has been steadily increasing while concern for Bay/Delta recreationalists and residents has been declining.
Supplemental Keywords:
RFA, Economic, Social, & Behavioral Science Research Program, Geographic Area, State, decision-making, Economics & Decision Making, coalition formation, surface water policy, community involvement, belief system, consensus modeling, stability, advocacy coalition framework, environmental values, environmental policy, legal and policy choices, California (CA)Progress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.