UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The High Ross Dam/Skagit River controversy : the use of public hearings in the management of an international… Wolfe, Larry Dennis Sturm 1974

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A6_7 W64.pdf [ 10.01MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0099932.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099932-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099932-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099932-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099932-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099932-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099932-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0099932-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0099932.ris

Full Text

THE HIGH ROSS DAM/SKAGIT RIVER CONTROVERSY: THE USE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS IN -THE MANAGEMENT OF AN INTERNATIONAL RIVER by LARRY DENNIS STURM WOLFE B. S c i . , U n i v e r s i t y of Oregon, 1970 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n the school of Community and Regional Planning We accept t h i s t h e s i s as •conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1974 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission fo r extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by hi s representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Community and Regional Planning The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada D a t e June 1, 1974 ABSTRACT The High Ross controversy was a problem i n the management of an International r i v e r . An i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r presents a s p e c i a l problem because the actions of a nation upstream may cause prob-lems for a nation downstream or vice versa. A r i v e r i s also a f i n i t e resource where uses for one purpose may exclude uses for other purposes. The use of a r i v e r f o r h y d r o e l e c t r i c power, f o r example, may destroy f i s h e r i e s . In the case of an i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r , c o n f l i c t i n g demands on water use may present serious prob-lems i f the nations r i p a r i a n to the r i v e r f a i l to coordinate t h e i r • " <"v-»-f t ip %; ' planning with respect to the r i v e r . In t h i s study, i t i s normatively assumed that the best system for insuring that the i n t e r e s t s of a l l concerned w i l l be heard i s a democracy. In a democracy i t i s a p r i n c i p l e that the decision system should respond to the preferences of i t s c i t i z e n s . To do t h i s i t must f i r s t be able to perceive these preferences. A public hearing i s one v e h i c l e for accepting information concerning the preferences of c i t i z e n s . The goal of t h i s study i s to assess cer-t a i n -public h e a r i . ^ d which wp.re held _ . . . t a i n public hearxngs which were held i n reference to the r a i s i n g of Ross Dam on the Skagit River i n Washington State. The issue of whether to r a i s e the dam has created an i n t e r n a t i o n a l controversy l a s t i n g f o r years and in v o l v i n g the energies of hundreds of persons on both sides of the border. The hearings of i n t e r e s t i n t h i s study are c e r t a i n hearings of 1970 through 1972 held by the International Jo i n t Commission, the Washington E c o l o g i c a l Commission, and the i i S eattle C i t y Council. The approach taken i n t h i s thesis began with i s o l a t i n g two normative c r i t e r i a among many:,which any democratic system must have: openness and e f f i c i e n c y . Openness i s the a b i l i t y of a sys-tem to perceive the preferences of i t s c i t i z e n s . This means that there should be no a r b i t r a r y r e s t r i c t i o n s upon what the dec i s i o n -makers should see. E f f i c i e n c y means that the process should be simple and not l i m i t e d to a se l e c t group with the most time, money, and expertise to p a r t i c i p a t e . Having established these c r i t e r i a , the next step was to i s o l a t e the l o c a t i o n i n the hearings system where one might expect to f i n d evidence of openness and e f f i c i e n c y . To do this,, a t h e o r e t i c a l paradigm of a communication system was constructed from p o l i t i c a l communications theory. This paradigm contained the basic components of a simple communication system. Thus, i t was found that any com-munication system w i l l have messages (input), sources for those mes-sages (input sources), and receptors for perceiving those messages (intake elements). In r a t i o n a l systems there w i l l also be a memory process which s e l e c t s relevant input from among the mass of intake (screening element). These elements were analyzed i n order to assess the hearings investigated. To assemble the data necessary f o r assessment, a multi-method approach wai used. Over four hundred a r t i c l e s i n newspapers and p e r i o d i c a l s were surveyed. The t r a n s c r i p t s of the hearings and r e -s u l t i n g reports were c l o s e l y analyzed. F i n a l l y , selected p a r t i c i -pants who- had key roles i n the hearings were interviewed. The i i i information from these sources was used in tandem to examine parti-cular aspects of the hearings process which were suggested by the communication model as relevant. The conclusions derived from this study were that with certain exceptions the procedures used in the hearings studied facil i t a t e d openness. Also, while the cost of using the hearings was very high, the participants with few exceptions f e l t that the expense was j u s t i -fied because the issue was crucial to their interests. However, the weaknesses that did exist in openness and efficiency merit attention and should be remedied to strengthen the system. The result of this strengthening would be a more responsive and democratic process for managing international rivers. DEDICATION In Memoriam This work i s dedicated to C a r o l — a g i r l who died of S i c k l e C e l l Anemia at twenty-five years of age because her disease was an i r r e l e v a n t t o p i c of inquiry. These labours are not wasted i f they contribute to Brotherhood and Peace on the earth she has l e f t . A l i t t l e love too l a t e i s a p a i n f u l tragedy, but regrets should not end our search for relevant answers. V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The debts I owe to the many persons who made t h i s thesis possible are hard to put into words. I am deeply indebted to advisors, f r i e n d s , sources, and others without whose kindness t h i s thesis would not have been written. I am p a r t i c u l a r l y i n -debted to my advisors, Professor Gordon Stead of the School of Community and Regional Planning, and Professor Irving K. Fox, Director of the Westwater Research Centre. Their, s e n s i t i v e and c r i t i c a l advice and support i n the planning and preparation of t h i s thesis i s immensely appreciated. I am also indebted to friends who provided she l t e r , c r i t i c i s m , support, and love at the r i g h t time and in.the r i g h t measure. F i n a l l y , I am indebted to the very busy people who consented to s i t with me to candidly share t h e i r very personal knowledge, f e e l i n g s , and fears despite t h e i r often t r i c k y j l e g a l and p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s . To a l l of these people I owe a debt of love and I pray that t h i s work meets with t h e i r respect. May 1974 v i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i DEDICATION i v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v CHAPTER I. DEFINITION OF THE' PROBLEM 1 THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERNATIONAL RIVERS 2 INTERNATIONAL LAW 4 SOME FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN DESIGNING INSTI-TUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR INTERNATIONAL WATER RESOURCES' PLANNING 7 The Role of the I n s t i t u t i o n s 8 Water as a Resource 9 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of User Behaviour 11 The Nature of C o n f l i c t s 13 Fights 14 Debates 14 Games 15 C o n f l i c t s and Water Resources 16 The Role of Communication i n Games . . . . . . . . . 16 Communication i n Decision-making 18 NORMATIVE ORIENTATION . 19 The Democratic System 20 Communication, Democracy, and International Rivers 23 THE CASE UNDER INVESTIGATION . . . . . . 24 The Focus of t h i s Study 25 v i i CHAPTER I I . A HISTORY OF THE SKAGIT RIVER 31 HISTORY 32 Water Power • • 35 The Gorge Plant 36 The Diablo Dam 37 The Ruby Dam 37 Publ i c Power 38 Growth " 39 The Second Stage of Ross Dam 40 The Third Stage of Ross- Dam 41 The Fourth Stage of Ross Dam 42 Permission' to Flood 42 The Compensation Agreement 42 THE HIGH ROSS DAM CONTROVERSY -. . . 43 Launching the Fight 43 Seattle Digs In 46 Searching f o r Al t e r n a t i v e s 48 The Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission . . . . . 50 The International J o i n t Commission 52 The Results Come 54 The Sides Respond 56 The B r i t i s h Columbia E l e c t i o n s 56 The Compensation Debate 58 The Federal Power Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 v i i i CHAPTER I I I . SURVEY-OF RELEVANT INSTITUTIONS . 68 THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT" COMMISSION 70 Authority 70 Applications and References 72 Applications 73 References 73 Meetings • • 74 Appeals • 74 Organization 75 Hearings 76 Technical Boards ~ 76 THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 78 Authority 78 Organization 80 Public Involvement 82 Public Hearings 82 THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE . 84 Authority • • 84 Organization 85 Hearings . . 85 THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 86 Authority 86 Public Involvement 88 CHAPTER IV. THE RESEARCH DESIGN 94 A PARADIGM COMMUNICATION MODEL . . . . . . 96 The Paradigm Communication Model 98 i x THE FOCUS OF THIS STUDY: THE INTAKE POINT 100 The Input Source 101 The Intake Element 103 The Screening Element 104 The Geographic Scope 105 The J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Scope . . . . . 105 The De c i s i o n a l Scope 105 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 106 E f f i c i e n c y of Operation 108 Openness of Operation 110 TARGET DATA 114 Input Sources . . . • 114 Intake Elements 116 Screening Elements 118 METHODOLOGY 119 The Methods-Used • 120 CHAPTER V. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 126 THE DECISION SYSTEM 127 THETKgMCbmunl'callioiiEElements 129 The Intake Element 129 (1) " I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the intake elements (public hearings) under study 130 (2) An examination of the phy s i c a l arrange-ments, recording, and announcement of the hearings 131 The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee Hearings. . 132 The Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Com-mission-'Hearings 133 The International Joint Commission Hearings 134 The Seattle C i t y Council Hearing 134 X (3) An i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the operating r u l e s and procedures' o f the hearings 135 The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee Hearings. . 137 The Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Com-mission Hearings 137 The International Joint' Commission Hearings 138 The Seattle C i t y Council Hearing 138 (4) An analysis of the volume of testimony r e -ceived at the various hearings' 138 (5) An analysis of the shares of time used at hearings for" d i f f e r e n t " c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of witnesses 138 A. The t o t a l number of witnesses ap-pearing" at each hearing and the p o s i t i o n they represented 139 B. T o t a l volume of testimony delivered i n favour of and against the dam . . . 140 C. The t o t a l amount of' testimony delivered by selected c l a s s i f i -cations of public witnesses. . . . . . 142 (6) A d e s c r i p t i o n of the expertise a v a i l a b l e on hearing boards for understanding and perception" of testimony "received 145 The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee 145 The Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission 145 The International Joint Commission . . . . 146 The Seattle C i t y Council 146 (7) An examination of the technical and research support a v a i l a b l e to the intake hearings - boards" 147 The Public Utilities-Committee 147 The Washington"State E c o l o g i c a l Commission 147 The International Joint Commission . . . . 148 The Seattle C i t y Council 148 x i The Screening Element 149 (1) An i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the a u t h o r i t i e s s e t t i n g the terms of reference (scope of allowed intake) f o r the hearings . . . . 149 The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee Hearings . . 149 The Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission. 150 The International J o i n t Commission Hearings' 150 The Seattle C i t y Council 150 (2) A l i s t i n g of relevant r u l e s f o r deter-mining t h i s scope 150 (3) The r a t i o n a l e f o r p a r t i c u l a r l i m i t a t i o n s upon what i s acceptable for intake . . . . 150 (4) A-determination of the scope of coverage these r u l e s permit 151 The Public Utilities'Committee Hearings . . 151 Geographic Scope 151 J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Scope 151 Deci s i o n a l Scope 152 The Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Com-mission Hearings. • 152 Geographic Scope 152 J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Scope 153 De c i s i o n a l Scope 153 The International J o i n t Commission Hearings . 154 Geographic Scope 154 J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Scope 155 Deci s i o n a l Scope 155 The Seattle C i t y Council Hearing 155 Geographic Scope 155 J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Scope 155 De c i s i o n a l Scope 156 x i i (5) An assessment' of the organization of intake necessitated by t h i s scope 156 The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee Hearings. . 157 The Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Com-mission Hearings 157 The International J o i n t Commission H t n u v f Hearings 157 The Seattle C i t y Council Hearings . . . . 158 The Input Source 158 (1) The i d e n t i t y i n broad terms of the input sources and t h e i r v i s i b l e organizations and leading spokesmen 159 A. Those Favouring the Dam 159 1. The C i t y of Seattle and Seattle C i t y L i g h t . „. .. . ...... 159 2. Commercial and i n d u s t r i a l organizations 160 3. Certain p r i v a t e c i t i z e n s 160 B. Those Opposing the Dam 160 1. Large ad hoc c o a l i t i o n s 161 2. Environmental and sporting groups . 162 3. Other c i t i z e n s and groups 163 (2) An examination of the s t r a t e g i e s open to input sources i n the hearings and which were used 163 (3) An examination of the cost to c i t i z e n s i n making testimony at hearings i n terms of expertise, time, or money 165 (4) An examination of s p e c i a l impediments and d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered by c i t i z e n s and input groups' i n using these hearings . 167 DISCUSSION 169 The Hearings Process 169 x i i i D e f i n i t i o n of Affected Interests 170 Representativeness 171 Oral Testimony 171 Organized Testimony 172 Sworn Testimony 172 SUMMARY 172 The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee Hearings . . . . 173 Openness 173 E f f i c i e n c y 173 The Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission Hearings 174 Openness 174 E f f i c i e n c y 174 The International J o i n t Commission Hearings. . • 175 Openness . . . . . . 175 E f f i c i e n c y 175 CHAPTER VI. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 183 CONCLUSIONS 184 Conclusions Respecting Openness 184 Conclusion I 184 Conclusion II 185 Conclusion I I I 185 Conclusion IV 186 Conclusion V . . . 186 Conclusion VI 187 Conclusion VII 187 Conclusion VIII 188 x i v Conclusion IX 188 Conclusion X 189 Conclusions Respecting E f f i c i e n c y 190 Conclusion XI 190 Conclusion XII . 190 Conclusion XIII 191 Conclusion XIV . 191 Conclusion XV 192 Conclusion XVI 193 Conclusion XVII 193 Conclusion XVIII . 194 Conclusion XIX 195 IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL RIVERS MANAGEMENT. . . . 195 BIBLIOGRAPHY 201 GENERAL 202 THE SKAGIT RIVER 208 APPENDICES 213 XV LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 2.1 SKAGIT RIVER MAP 33 FIGURE 3.1 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART FOR INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION 71 FIGURE 3.2 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART FOR STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 81 FIGURE 3.3 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART FOR THE CITY OF SEATTLE 86 FIGURE 4.1 A PARADIGM MODEL OF "COMMUNICATION IN A DECISION SYSTEM" 99 FIGURE 5.1 CITIZEN COMMUNICATION MAP OF HIGH ROSS DAM DECISION SYSTEM 128 LIST OF TABLES xvi TABLE 5.1 CLASSIFICATION OF WITNESSES BY HEARING AND POSITION 140 TABLE 5.2 LINES OF TESTIMONY AT HEARINGS, BY POSITION ON DAM 141 TABLE 5.3 LINES OF CITY LIGHT TESTIMONY IN COM-PARISON WITH OTHER' TESTIMONY 142 TABLE 5.4 LINES OF TESTIMONY BY NATIONALITY 143 TABLE 5.5 LINES OF TESTIMONY BY COALITIONS T AT THE HEARINGS 144 x v i i APPENDICES APPENDIX A. A SURVEY OF THE CONTENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE HEARINGS, SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL, MARCH 20, 1970 TO MAY 25, 1970 214 Hearings with Minimal High Ross Testimony. . . . 214 Hearings with Extensive High Ross Testimony. . . 216 Summary 217 APPENDIX B. COMPOSITION OF THE HEARINGS BOARDS 218 APPENDIX C. LISTING OF TECHNICAL BOARD PERSONNEL OF THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION 219 APPENDIX D. LINES OF TESTIMONY BY POSITION AND NATIONALITY . 220 Lines of Testimony by P o s i t i o n 220 Lines of Canadian Testimony by P o s i t i o n 220 Lines of American Testimony by P o s i t i o n 221 Discussion 221 APPENDIX E. THE SEATTLE CITY LIGHT HEARINGS ORGANIZATION' . 222 C i t y Light Testimony . . . . . . . 223 APPENDIX F. BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE DAM 224 APPENDIX G. ORGANIZATION OF ANTI-DAM COALITIONS 225 The N.C.C.C. C o a l i t i o n 225 The R.O.S.S. Committee 227 The C o a l i t i o n s C o l l e c t i v e l y 229 APPENDIX H. LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SPORTING GROUPS OPPOSED TO THE DAM 230 APPENDIX I. BIOGRAPHICAL LISTING OF INTERVIEWEES 231 CHAPTER I DEFINITION OF.THE.PROBLEM i 2 The subject of t h i s study i s the development of administrative arrangements for the management of - i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s . This study w i l l look.at part of the system of communication operating within a decision-making process responsible for.a p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r , the Skagit River i n Canada and the United States. The purpose i s - t o assess t h i s communication process.according to c e r t a i n norma-t i v e c r i t e r i a . I t i s hoped that i n t h i s way we may gain a c l e a r e r understanding of how to structure decision-making arrangements r e -l a t e d to i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s . . The importance o f . i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s In the modern world.is a compelling source of relevance for t h i s study. THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERNATIONAL RIVERS The importance of water i n our l i f e has been recognized for thousands of years. The ancient c i v i l i z a t i o n s of the world grew up on the shores of great r i v e r s — t h e N i l e , T i g r i s , Euphrates, Indus, and Huang-ho. Surely c o n f l i c t s over water r i g h t s ensued from the f a c t that water was scarce and people were more abundant. These c o n f l i c t s must have led to some administrative arrangements of-a .primitive sort t o : a l l e v i a t e - c o n f l i c t s and to.provide f o r better use of t h i s scarce resource.. F. J . Berber, an authority on i n t e r n a t i o n a l water.law, goes further, claiming that water may have been the reason for the development of p o l i t i c a l . s y s t e m s . Water r i g h t s have been the subject of state concern ever since the e a r l i e s t appearance of any form of state organization. In l i g h t of the most recent 3 research i t may not even.be going too-far to say that the organization of the state as. known to us over the l a s t s i x thousand years had i t s . o r i g i n s i n water r i g h t s . 1 This i n t e r e s t i n g theory emphasizes, the fac t that water r i g h t s have an even more fundamental s i g n i f i c a n c e i n the modern world. The importance of managing .international r i v e r s i s immediately emphasized by the r o l e of water.in the current quest for development by the greater part of the world\s.inhabitants. This quest for development may be threatened by the p o t e n t i a l lack of water. Water i s - c r i t i c a l for .development programs.. Water i s .used f o r hyd r o e l e c t r i c power, i r r i g a t i o n , water supply, transportation, and c e r t a i n indus-t r i a l concerns. The demand, for ..water... w i l l increase with development as new uses place demands, on.existing, supplies. Population growth alone causes .increasing demands on water. I f the demand for water for these purposes exceeds_supply, then water shortages may cause bottlenecks and delays i n the implementation of plans. In some cases t h i s may cause severe setbacks to.development .programmes at a time when setback can mean d i s a s t e r . Developing countries are already lagging further and further behind developed countries i n economic growth. Population increases are nearly keeping pace with, economic growth, thus slowing per-capita r i s e s i n Gross Nation-a l Products. I t i s easy to see that with.developing countries already strained by population, and economic growth pressures, water shortages may become c r u c i a l f a c t ors inhibiting-development. It i s evident that at some point the trends become regressive and the quest for development i s l o s t . The worldwide shortage of fr e s h water would i n e v i t a b l y cause 4 c o n f l i c t s .over .international .streams. These streams w i l l be taxed heavily as each r i p a r i a n n a t i o n - t r i e s .to.get a f a i r share, or bet-t e r , of i n t e r n a t i o n a l waters. .Given the present decentralized world p o l i t i c a l system, i t could be hypothesized that t h i s would lead to misery and slaughter unless.some.form o f . e f f e c t i v e peace-f u l settlement i s found.: Many i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s are already located i n war torn areas, such as -the Indus, Jordan, .Ganges, Mekong, and .Rio de.la P l a t a r i v e r s . In South America, the Rio de l a P l a t a system has seen h o r r i f y i n g c o n f l i c t . Currently these same rivers-themselves", and other i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s , are becoming the very s o u r c e . o f . i n t e n s i f i e d c o n f l i c t s stimu-lated by the r i s i n g demands for water of developing r i p a r i a n s . The demands for.water.are now changing i n .character. Formerly the main use of r i v e r s was f o r navigation. Nations are now developing mas-sive i r r i g a t i o n , , flood c o n t r o l , h y d r o e l e c t r i c , and water supply pro-grammes which change the .rivers' habits or.consume some.of the water. ^Meanwhile, .the d e t e r i o r a t i o n of the environment,'accelerated by i n -d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n and urbanization, i s placing a l i m i t on the amount of water that may.be used without.harmful.feedbacks from the environ-ment. Researchers are. now turning.to.the problem of the management of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s to seek .some-solution to.the budding dilemmas these events have caused. INTERNATIONAL LAW International law.on, i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s i s a rather new concept. 5 Most of the law now applicable comes.from treaty obligations of co-r i p a r i a n nations.. Treaties have become.the usual method of d i v i d i n g the-waters. This fact.derives from the nature of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. With no un i v e r s a l court and with.the nations j e a l o u s . o f . t e r r i t o r i a l sovereignty, the.only law i s that which nations v o l u n t a r i l y accept. Thus, International law .governs relations-between independent states. The rules of law. binding upon states.there-fore emanate from .their.own f r e e . w i l l , as expressed i n conventions or usages generally-accepted as expressing p r i n c i p l e s of law and.established i n order to.regulate the relations-between these coexisting independent communities or with a. view to the. achievement of common aims. Restrictdionsyuponhfehe• independence of states cannot therefore be presumed.2 This s i t u a t i o n leads us.to.the conclusion that law on-inter-n a t i o n a l r i v e r s is -perhaps i r r e l e v a n t . . But t h i s i s f a r from the tr u t h . The current s i t u a t i o n . i s perhaps more' f l e x i b l e and thus may help i n the so l u t i o n of . c o n f l i c t s . P a r t i e s to a treaty may design t r e a t i e s .which. are made to ..fit t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r r e g ional problems... According ..to. Anthony. Scott, i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s expert and former Canadian member of the International Joint Commission, ...the dearth of .general law on border streams i s not a disadvantage. Rather i t gives an opportunity for many kinds-of arrangements to be t r i e d and nego-t i a t e d free from the r e s t r i c t i o n s . o f established rules Perhaps.the biggest e f f e c t of international, law i s to.provide normative guidelines for the pa r t i e s to use in.deciding'what i s the best and most f a i r arrangement. Thus, the discovery, of neighbourly consideration as a general-principle of water law based on neighbour-ship and water r i g h t s i n .the municipal.law of c i v i l i z e d nations has a d i r e c t and not unimportant s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l law.^ 6 Nations are repudiating the Harmon Doctrine developed i n the early pre-treaty days between the United States and Mexico. The Harmon Doctrine, enunciated by United States Attorney General Harmon i n 1895, said that the upper .riparian, the United States, had no obligations to the lower r i p a r i a n , Mexico. Now modern disputants have sought to base t h e i r arguments.on .different p r i n c i p l e s . Ac-cording to the International Law-Association, the Harmon Doctrine has. never:had a wide following among States and has been rejected, by v i r t u a l l y a l l States which have had occasion to speak on t h i s point.^ The ILA stated as .an "agreed p r i n c i p l e . o f .international law" that: Except as otherwise provided by treaty or other instruments or customs binding upon.the p a r t i e s , each c o - r i p a r i a n State i s e n t i t l e d to a reasonable and equitable share i n the b e n e f i c i a l uses of the waters of the drainage.basin. What amounts to a reasonable and equitable share i s a question to be determined i n l i g h t of a l l the relevant factors i n each p a r t i c u l a r case. The dominant " r u l e , " perhaps more normative than binding, i s that nations should share. The r o l e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law in,the case we are considering i n t h i s study i s centered.on .the .international.law r e l a t i n g to t r e a t i e s . A treaty has existed since.1909 between the two co-r i p a r i a n s , the United States and Canada. ..This agreement provided the authority for managing, the. international.waters to which the two nations are c o - r i p a r i a n . This type of agreement.has the bles s i n g of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law experts who see ..the problem of managing.the i n t e r n a t i o n a l . r i v e r as best suited to a. n o n - j u d i c i a l arrangement.^ This opens a new type of s i t u a t i o n . The problem now.becomes that of f i n d i n g the best administrative arrangement 7 to accomplish.the aims of.the respective.co-riparians.. Whatever they decide -becomes t h e i r i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. Under.international law States.may enter into agreements with respect to -any matter unless i n c o n f l i c t with basic..standards of i n t e r n a t i o n a l conduct accepted by the world community. Of course, th i s , l i m i t a t i o n would, equally, apply to the establishment of a.binding custom among States. Thus, States may a l t e r among themselves by agreement-or binding custom the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of r u l e s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law so long as there i s no c o n f l i c t with.these basic standards.8 These basic standards would .include the ..principles of self-determination of nations, non-aggression, and. respect f or the i n t e g r i t y of other nations. Thus the p r i n c i p l e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law which i s most ap-p l i c a b l e , given the treaty, i s that StateStatesuare under primary' o b l i g a t i o n to resort to means of prevention and settlement of d i s -putes s t i p u l a t e d i n the .applicable t r e a t i e s binding .upon them....9 The question now becomes one of i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements for management of i n t e r n a t i o n a l .rivers. SOME FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN..DESIGNING. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR INTERNATIONAL WATER RESOURCES PLANNING The lack of a generally applicable and.enforceable code of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law respecting i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s provides f or the settlement of boundary c o n f l i c t s by means of negotiation and s p e c i a l i z e d agreement. This-allows-great f l e x i b i l i t y . However, i t a l so involves some;very.complex..and-difficult questions of i n s t i t u t i o n a l design for managing .common resources. These ques-tions .draw on the expertise .of m a n y . d i s c i p l i n e s — p o l i t i c a l science, 8 economics, geography, engineering and-so on. These d i s c i p l i n e s each attempt to contribute-tovthe.answer of the most c r i t i c a l question: "How should-international..rivers be managed?" To get a perspective on:the problem,-let -us begin by looking at the r o l e of i n s t i t u t i o n s . The Role .of.;.the ..Institutions The Water, management: administrative i n s t i t u t i o n .promises to play a- c a r d i n a l . r o l e i n the management of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s . On t h i s .there.is-common agreement among:students of these r i v e r s . Ac-cording to.F. A. Butrico, C. J . - T o u h i l l , and I. L. Whitman of the Great Lakes .study,,...Resource..Management.in..the..Great Lakes Basin, It. has-recently been, recognized that ..policy and . i n s t i t u t i o n a l - q u e s t i o n s often determine the course and eventual outcome_of -many, water-rrelated endeavors.10 H. P. Michael stated at a 1963 international.conference on .water de-velopment .in l e s s developed countries that I n s t i t u t i o n a l shortcomings-were .found.to..be the major handicap to promotion, successful.planning and e f f i c i e n t operation, of a l l water development projects; i n most c a s e s . f a i l u r e i s due to the non-existence of proper water development a u t h o r i t i e s , to c o n f l i c t s between multiple agencies, having divided authority and working under c o n f l i c t i n g . p o l i c i e s , and to the absence of up to date water l e g i s l a t i o n . i l Jerome W. Milliman, an economist, concludes that ...there are signs that the need for.more e f f e c t i v e . . management of water resources i s r a p i d l y approaching a " c r i s i s " stage.12 In the 1962 Seminar on.the Development.and Administration of the 9 International River Basin, the conclusion was reached that . . . i t was the lack of.personnel with imagination and determination, and. the s u i t a b l e .administrative i n s t i t u t i o n s to carry the schemes forward that were the r e a l i n h i b i t o r s . . . £ to . i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s management] .13 The l i s t could.be extended.: Unmistakably, the design of adequate i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements i s a p r i o r i t y i n water management. To get an idea*of what should be the basis of such arrangements, we must look,.at what they, are supposed to:manage. . Water as a.-Resource Above a l l , water i s a f l u i d substance which moves with l i t t l e regard to n a t i o n a l or l o c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s . . A river.may cross a border, form a border, or stay within a j u r i s d i c t i o n . When a r i v e r crosses' or forms a-border.it becomes an.international r i v e r . The f a c t that water i s f l u i d leads t o . c e r t a i n problems i n water management. Since a r i v e r flows,.-the uses of.the r i v e r i n i t s upper reaches may af f e c t . t h e uses i n the lower reaches. Thus, i f p o l l u t i o n occurs upstream, i t i s . s u f f e r e d downstream. Hydro-e l e c t r i c power developments, consumptive uses, or rel a t e d land management, practices may a l l have an e f f e c t on the downstream uses. Where a r i v e r crosses a . p o l i t i c a l boundary, t h i s may mean that the e f f e c t s w i l l be f e l t . i n a d i f f e r e n t , p o l i t i c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . I f these e f f e c t s are harmful, i t i s l i k e l y that the downstream r i p a r i a n w i l l protest. .Since t h i s protest then a f f e c t s upstream uses,.a con-f l i c t may develop.- International .rivers :then, because they are 10 f l u i d , may be sources of f r i c t i o n . The factor of f l u i d i t y . a l s o : presents a .problem of property ri g h t s . Where a substance i s not fixed i n one.location, i t would be d i f f i c u l t to argue legal.ownership r i g h t s . The rights are held i n common by the " s o c i e t y T h i s makes .water a resource which Vincent and.Elinor .Ostrom.call a-"common pool.resource" just l i k e " w i l d l i f e , . f i s h l i f e , o i l , groundwater, lakes, streams, and the atmosphere..." These authors describe some of the prob-lems associated with common.pool resources: Par t i c u l a r problems occur in.the u t i l i z a t i o n and . . management of.these kinds:of-resources whenever the following .conditions :are.present: (1) owner-ship of the resource.is held, i n common; (2) a large number of users .have independent rights to the use of the resource;. (3) no. one userceancoohtrol the a c t i v i t i e s . o f ' the other users.or, conversely, voluntary agreement:or.willing.consent of every . user i s required" i n j o i n t action:involving a com-munity Of users; and (4) total.use or demand upon the resource .exceeds supply.15 When these conditions pertain,.a.situation develops-in which a host of independent .users overuse the.resource. This overuse leads to exhaustion.or monopoly of the resource. .This exhaustion process occurs because no.overall public authority exists to.control over-use. In the end, everyone suffers because the resource i s gone. Regulation i s thus imperative. Another aspect :of water..which i s commonly recognized i n studies of water management" i s that water' resources .-are part of a system which includes many.sub-systems"and related systems which.greatly affect the nature of the water system. For example, i t i s clear that surface water.and.ground water.-systems:are.intimately related, 11 and t o ' a f f e c t one i s t o . a f f e c t the other. Forest management p r a c t i c e s can a f f e c t the run-off patterns of a r i v e r . A g r i c u l t u r a l p r a c t i c e s can a f f e c t the water q u a l i t y . Likewise industry. The r i v e r must then be looked at .as part of a larger system.. The most commonly proposed boundary to t h i s system;is-that of .the r i v e r basin. The r i v e r basin, i t i s argued, should be considered a hydrologic u n i t . This u n i t ; however includes a r i v e r basin, but, i n . a d d i t i o n , i t may also include elements .outside .the-basin which a f f e c t ithe b a s i n — such as.hydroelectric demands from a c i t y not i n the basin. This demand could have a great.effect .on .the resource. The point here i s that water must be.viewed i n a.complex w a y — i t i s an uniquitous and vulnerable resource. I t is.found: everywhere and i t can be damaged by.seemingly.unrelated a c t i v i t y . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .of. User ..Behaviour The nature of the water resource causes c e r t a i n types of be-haviour to be observed among.those whovuse.the resource. This be-haviour i s . a natural outcome of.the competition'for the use of the resource. As Milliman.puts i t , underlying a l l water problems:is.the simple f a c t that there i s competition for. the use of water resources; t h i s competition w i l l increase and become more intense i n the .future.16 The water resource has the capacity .to.become scarce and yet there are few e f f e c t i v e ways of managing:it. Thus user behaviour tends to become .chaotic. S. E. Goldston, M. H. Karr, Vincent and E l i n o r Ostrom of the.Indiana U n i v e r s i t y Department of P o l i t i c a l Science 12 have offered some propositions which they f e e l explain t h i s behaviour. A few of these are given below as .examples of.user' behaviour. . Proposition 1. ... i n d i v i d u a l s " u t i l i z i n g a scarce common pool resource without public -intervention w i l l be led to make decisions which ..produce s o c i a l costs for others. They w i l l . t e n d . t o overinvest i n f a c i l i t i e s concerned with t h e i r own pri v a t e use and underinvest i n projects.to produce.joint.benefits for a community of users. Proposition '2. Intense competition .for .the u t i l i z a -t i o n of.the .resource.will lead i n d i v i d u a l users to . adopt, any or a l l of. the following ..patterns of .conduct: (a) concealing information about resource u t i l i z a t i o n and the .potential s o c i a l costs for others; (b) ignoring the adverse e f f e c t s .on the use of-the resource; and following .a.hold-out .strategy when projects.of j o i n t benefit are proposed. ...... Proposition 3. Without, c o l l e c t i v e a c t i o n , the pre-dominant outcome, of. competitive use of a scarce common pool resource.will be.eventual domination by one use.or user... The dominant-use.or. set of uses w i l l tend to be.one that produces the largest accrued s o c i a l cost' to the t o t a l community of p r i o r and p o t e n t i a l users:. . . ^  These.characteristics.of.user behaviour show how competition i n the development of * t h i s resource operates. I t tends to involve a heavy.concern.for p r i v a t e s u r v i v a l to the point where society s u f f e r s . While i n some ways.this: may.be good since a.monopoly •I Q of the resource.may have.some.benefits, for the society as a whole i t i s .detrimental. .The s o c i a l . c o s t s of user behaviour are not borne by the users. Underlying the rapacious:nature.of.unregulated.user-behaviour i s the problem of uncertainty. I f users:knew they were destroying the resource and they.could find, a way of .cooperating with each other, i t i s conceivable that at .least some-of the users.could see 13 the greater benefit, of j o i n t , cooperation. .-In a.national context t h i s cooperation.might be gained.by government .action. In an i n t e r -n a t i o n a l context.there i s no government j u r i s d i c t i o n a pplicable to everyone. But cooperation.is possible,.as demonstrated.in the case of whales found . i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l .oceans... Whales- are. an i n t e r n a t i o n a l pool resource. They were hunted u n t i l n early"extinct by a.world of nations which saw no .reason.to .cease hunting until.everyone else did. Eventually the whale populations-declined and. t h i s decline was duly noticed. E f f o r t s were, then.made to gain, i n t e r n a t i o n a l cooperation .from all.whale hunting, nations, (users) t o . l i m i t or p r o h i b i t k i l l i n g , of whales. While .this e f f o r t i s . n o t . e n t i r e l y successful and perhaps too.late, for.the. whales, it-demonstrates how users may.be brought to ,see..the. b e n e f i t s of j o i n t e f f o r t s . The problem of uncertainty- i n common-pool xesoureesiis brought about because users do "not make ..information on t h e i r use r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . There i s the danger, i n a competitive system i n l e t t i n g your.adversary or the.referee (government) know what you are doing. I f you do, then these.actors.may know what you are doing and, i f they do not approve,.they may obstruct your behaviour—thus bringing.you a. smaller return.. Hence, . i t should not be assumed that.users w i l l make information.-readily.available. The. Nature of ..Conflicts The r e s o l u t i o n of conf lic.ts i s .a. fundamental-responsibility facing every p o l i t i c a l system.. The p o l i t i c a l . s y s t e m i t s e l f i s a 14 response to c o n f l i c t s i n society which require a u t h o r i t a t i v e d e c i s i o n . In order to decide how c o n f l i c t s . i n water resource a l l o c a t i o n could be resolved, perhaps.it would be wise to look, at the nature of con-f l i c t s . In h i s book The Analysis of International Relations, K a r l 19 Deutsch discussed-the problem .of ''.how c o n f l i c t s a r i s e among, sta t e s . " Deutsch uses the terms-of Anatol.Rapoport.,..a.mathematician.-and game theorist,, t o - l a b e l the three types of ..conflict -which. he f e e l s are important: f i g h t s , . games., and debates. . In the following paragraphs we w i l l explore these b r i e f l y . Fights. Fights .are conflicts..characterized- by mindless and automatic, e s c a l a t i o n - o f . h o s t i l i t i e s . ..This -type.of c o n f l i c t esca-l a t e s of ten. to mutual s e l f - d e s t r u c t i o n with no thought of the con-sequences of the quarrel. Here. the. analogy of a.dog f i g h t i s given, where: a dog meeting another.dog.in the stre e t may growl at him; a second dog..growls back... The f i r s t dog growls louder,.and. the second s t i l l , more.so. The f i r s t dog sn a r l s , and so does-the.second. In the c l a s s i c sequence o f . e s c a l a t i o n there follow bared teeth, snaps, and a dogfight.20 This type of c o n f l i c t i s ir r a t i o n a l . a n d . accelerates quickly. I t i s d i f f i c u l t to co n t r o l . Control, may. come.through.reasoning with the contestants or.from fatigue or from.destruction of at l e a s t one of the contestants. Debates. A debate, as defined, here,, i s . a contest of ideas "where adversaries are changing each other'smotives,-values, or 21 cognit i v e images of r e a l i t y . . . " This d i f f e r s , from the concept 15 of a high school debate where the object i s to.represent any. point of view e f f e c t i v e l y . The object i n c o n f l i c t debates i s to obtain some understanding from your opponent. .Since your opponent i n t h i s type of c o n f l i c t i s undoubtedly t r y i n g .to-gain.some under-standing from you, the result.might.be some mutual understanding. There are theories of debating .which are-based.on.experience and research which promise to y i e l d some informative i n s i g h t s into i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s . One such theory, in. the f i e l d of psycho-logy, may have some, a p p l i c a t i o n . George.Bach,.a prominent psycho-22 l o g i s t and author, of—The. Intimate Enemy,.. has advocated. a form of constructive f i g h t i n g i n marriage counseling.which i s direc t e d at the "contestants" a r r i v i n g . a t . g r e a t e r understanding of and s e n s i t i v i t y to each other. The rules are s t r i c t i n such f i g h t i n g i n order to avoid escalation into.what.was e a r l i e r c a l l e d a " f i g h t . " Certainly, the idea w i l l be getting greater research a t t e n t i o n , but at t h i s time theory i s weak. Games. Games are a form of c o n f l i c t .where each player maintains some co n t r o l over h i s actions ( i . e . , games are not "fights")^, even though he may have no say.over the f i n a l , outcome. Games have the objective of winning, or at least, not losing., some contest. ( i . e . , games are not debates). Games require strategy because the con-testants are faced with a l e v e l of uncertainty. They may know what they want, what they can do, what, they cannot do, what they know, and what they do not know. By d e f i n i t i o n , they do not know what t h e i r opponent can or w i l l . d o . Hence, the contestants w i l l 16 make a set of moves or t a c t i c s which are. guided by some ..over-all game plan, or strategy. This. strategy., i s based .on..perceptions of t h e i r a l t e r n a t i v e strategies and of.the c a p a b i l i t i e s of t h e i r op-ponents. . The best.strategies-are .ones.which,secure the objectives of the c o n t e s t a n t — e i t h e r to win or.to avoid, l o s s . C o n f l i e t s .and-Water Resources Given.the nature of water.resources,. we have found t h a t . c o n f l i c t s are inevitable.. In some cases.these conf .1 let's- may become f i g h t s . In such a case the element of i r r a t i o n a l i t y i s high. One would expect that i n such a case, i r r a t i o n a l i t y would.have.to.be.converted to some ..form of. more, m a l l e a b l e . c o n f l i c t such as.a debate or game. In some cases c o n f l i c t s over water, resources may become.debates. This may occur i n . c e r t a i n l e g i s l a t i v e s i t u a t i o n s . . However., given the nature of i n t e r n a t i o n a l relations,. this. .form..of, conf l i c t i s apt to occur i n s p e c i a l .cases, only. Rather.,-it i s l i k e l y that contes-tants w i l l be determined to. seek .their s e l f - i n t e r e s t . a n d thus t r y to win. something from t h e i r c o n f l i c t . . This means that, c o n f l i c t s over, i n t e r n a t i o n a l water resources w i l l often be characterized by game type behaviour. I t should.be remembered, that, games, i n t h i s context, would include diplomatic,, economic .and. p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y , and, ultimately, warfare. The Role of Communication i n Games Communication i n games i s a.complex process. I t was said that contestants-may know what they want, what they can do, what they 17 cannot do,, what they know, and what they do-not know. They do not know what.their opponent.can.or w i l l do. Immediately i t becomes evident-that to play ; the game, contestants need c e r t a i n types of.knowledge. They have, to know what they want. This r e -quires some i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e i r values and c e r t a i n informa-t i o n . The information comes-from.communication. Also, they should, know what they can do. . This-involves information about str a t e g i e s a v a i l a b l e . t o them. -This.means communication regarding the r u l e s . The same applies to ..information on. what.. they cannot do. The contestants.must also, know-what.they,know--the extent of t h e i r knowledge. In each .case .some communication .is necessary. No poker player, would bet on a hand. i^agigameiiinvw.hiich^helLdldacnot know the r u l e s , the objectives of the game, what h i s cards are, or what h i s opponent could do. -Neither should, we expect, contes-tants i n water resources c o n f l i c t s .to..enter, a .water c o n f l i c t without s i m i l a r information. The question now becomes., "who. should-be allowed, to enter water resources, conf l i c t s . on.-international ..rivers?" . National governments w i l l d e f i n i t e l y be.involved.. -Regional.governments w i l l be involved,. although perhaps in. an.indirect manner. They may., for example, represent t h e i r position, to the nationa l govern-ment, asking that the national..government represent .the regional government i n the i n t e r n a t i o n a l forum. What about the c i t i z e n ? In a democratic system, i t i s perhaps.an element of d e f i n i t i o n that the c i t i z e n ' s wishes are c a r r i e d out.through .elected repre-18 sentatives. But how do.the.elected representatives.determine what i s the p o s i t i o n of. the .citizen? Somehow,, the c i t i z e n must communicate his. p o s i t i o n ..to. his. elected representative. Thus, communication w i l l be a part of a democratic.international r i v e r s management arrangement... .Let us look, closer, at. communica-t i o n i n p o l i t i c a l , theory for deeper, perspective. . Communication..in...DecisionT:making . Communication i s an,essential ..component in. any d e c i s i o n -making system. According to Robert. C.-North, Associations, organizations.,. s o c i e t i e s , and the nation-state i t s e l f are b u i l t upon. and.held to-. gether by communications-—by.perceptions, by d e c i -sions, by.expectations which people maintain of each other, by t r a n s a c t i o n s b y ..their, w illingness to v a l i d a t e a.considerable portion of the expecta-tions by appropriate r e c i p r o c a l behaviours. P o l i -t i c s could not exist-Without communications... In these terms a modern nation state.may be viewed e s s e n t i a l l y as a d e c i s i o n and.control-mechanism which r e l i e s upon.the exchange of.messages i n both i t s . domestic a f f a i r s . a n d its.-foreign, r e l a -t i o n s . 23 Discovery of the c r u c i a l r o l e of .communication has stimulated the development of. some very useful theory based, on.analyses of com-munication aspects, of. s o c i a l , and. p o l i t i c a l , s i t u a t i o n s . These studies have led. s o m e i n c l u d i n g . K a r l Deutsch, to see communi-24 cation.as a key focus to the study of p o l i t i c s . . . . I t i s c l e a r , i n any case, that communication..studies have a. strong r o l e i n 25 p o l i t i c a l studies. This r o l e w i l l increase our understanding of how demands upon. decision-making...pr.ocesses of .these systems 19 are communicated and received. 26 In his book Politics, and Communication, . Richard Fagen describes three main directions, in which communication studies are now directed. These are. a concern with-normative.questions of the proper use.of communication, the development of f i e l d work technique for analyzing, communication, and the development of theory, on. the mechanics or. systems, of., communications . The concern for the proper use.of communications has.much to.contri-bute to any study of a democratic-institutional arrangement, including one dealing .with, international rivers.. This study w i l l be an assessment of .one. such.arrangement based, on a.specified normative standard.directed at understanding.a-facet of proper communication. This w i l l also require.some..of-the. new techniques being developed . for the study . of ..communication.... Finally, this study w i l l analyze the.communication.system in .the case under consideration by.applying.a.model.based .on.the.study of the me-chanics of. communication. This..work,Mthen, w i l l , be based to a large extent on the theory of.communication. NORMATIVE ORIENTATION The area, of interest of. this ..study..is. communication.... In this study, however, there i s a value, perspective, which w i l l be made ex-p l i c i t in the following paragraphs.. This is.the.normative conclu-sion that the preferential system of decisionmaking is a democratic system. 20 The Democratic System Leaving the question of - communication .aside.for.the.moment, l e t us look.at the concept of-democracy. What a t t r i b u t e s do we expect a.democracy to have? The.primary .attribute-is the p r i n -c i p l e that the decision-makers, should, be under.the e f f e c t i v e con-27 t r o l of the c i t i z e n s . P r a c t i c a l l y , t h i s means- that the repre-sentatives of the c i t i z e n s .should-.be.-chosen by the c i t i z e n s and should remain i n o f f i c e as long as they continue to enjoy the support o f . t h e i r constituency. I f they do not, then at the next e l e c t i o n they should be.subject to.replacement. A second p r i n c i p l e , of .a-democratic system, i s that the c i t i z e n s 28 should, be. able to influence the decisions .of the decision-makers. This i s another way .of. saying, that.-the preferences of the c i t i z e n s 29 should count. Thus.preferences should .not necessarily.be expres-sed only at times of e l e c t i o n s . A t h i r d p r i n c i p l e of a democracy i s that a l l . c i t i z e n s should be p o l i t i c a l l y equal. This would, certainly, mean that .every adult c i t i z e n should have, a vote i n elections.where.representatives are chosen. I t would also .mean that...each .person.had only one vote and 30 that t h i s vote should-be counted e q u a l l y . w i t h . a l l other votes. The p r i n c i p l e of p o l i t i c a l equality, w i l l be a major concern of t h i s study. A d i f f i c u l t question.of democratic theory i s that of deciding how.to weigh the influence which i s . brought to bear upon the p o l i t i c a l decision-makers. I t i s a.fact that c i t i z e n s are not. equal i n p o l i t i c a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Not every c i t i z e n i s 21 a b l e t o c o m m u n i c a t e h i s p r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s . Some o f . t h i s c a n b e a t t r i b u t e d , t o . d i f f e r e n c e s . i n p e r s o n a l c o m p e t e n c e ; some p e r s o n s , a r e ..more a r t i c u l a t e , , m o r e p e r s u a s i v e , m o r e - i n t e l l i g e n t . I t i s a l s o t r u e t h a t e c o n o m i c . a n d s o c i a l f a c t o r s . c o n t r i b u t e t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n p o l i t i c a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s . . - . T h e m o d e r n d e m o c r a t i c s y s t e m . p u t s a . p r e m i u m o n . t h e a b i l i t y . t o u s e c o m m u n i c a t i o n , i n o r d e r t o r e a c h a c o n s e n s u s . I n many c a s e s t h i s . c a n m e a n t h a t t h o s e w i t h s u p e r i o r e d u c a t i o n , h a v e m o r e . k n o w l e d g e - a n d . e x p e r t i s e f o r p r o m o t i n g t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s . A l s o , p e r s o n s w i t h g r e a t e r , w e a l t h , i n c o m e , o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y t i m e c a n . a p p l y t h e s e r e s o u r c e s . t o p r o m o t i n g a d e c i s i o n . I f we a r e t o a c c e p t ; - t h a t " d e m o c r a c i e s s h o u l d , b e b a s e d on. p o l i t i c a l e q u a l i t y , t h e n i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e . i n f l u e n c e o f t h e m o r e a b l e . s h o u l d n o t b e e x c e s s i v e . A f o u r t h p r i n c i p l e o f d e m o c r a c y i s t h a t e v e r y c i t i z e n s h o u l d b e f r e e t o e x p r e s s h i s . p r e f e r e n c e . A b s o l u t e l y t h i s m e a n s t h a t v o t e r s s h o u l d n o t b e i n t i m i d a t e d o r c o e r c e d i n t h e i r . v o t i n g o r i n v o i c i n g p r e f e r e n c e s . w h e r e , t h e s e . a r e . d o n e r e s p e c t i n g - t h e f r e e d o m o f o t h e r c i t i z e n s . T h i s s h o u l d . m e a n . . i n s t i t u t i o n a l s a f e g u a r d s . p r o t e c t i n g m i n o r i t i e s f r o m , a b u s e b y t h e m a j o r i t y . . T h i s s h o u l d a l s o m e a n f r e e d o m o f c i t i z e n s t o r u n f o r o f f i c e u n m o l e s t e d . I t s h o u l d i n c l u d e f r e e d o m s 31 o f s p e e c h , a s s e m b l y , a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n . . . I n t h i s w a y t h e c i t i z e n m ay g a i n a d e q u a t e i n f o r m a t i o n . u p o n . . w h i c h t o b a s e h i s p r e f e r e n c e s . I t m e a n s t h a t h e s h o u l d b e a b l e t o . a t t e m p t t o f t / p e r s u a d e , o t h e r s t o 32 a d o p t h i s p r e f e r e n c e s . T h e s e f r e e d o m s a l l a d d u p t o . a f r e e d o m t o c o m m u n i c a t e . 22 A f i f t h principle of democracy is.that the representatives should serve with the consent of the majority of the citizens and a majority vote of the representatives should be required for decisions. A democracy should be premised on the principle that i t is the total citizenry that, has authority and that no minority can bind the majority.to. a decision against i t s w i l l . A few practical, constraints should.be noted.. F i r s t , i t would be unreasonable for representatives to know, exactly what the preferences of each of their, constituents., might be. In modern democracies, representatives have large constituencies and should not be expected to get. explicit consent for every vote in a legislature. The.system would quickly f a i l , to act on anything. Rather,.representatives, should attempt to gain an impression of their constituents preferences. A second constraint .is .on. the citizen. It. would..be un-reasonable for. every citizen to be called upon, to.assimilate the increasingly.complex, voluminous., and...technical information neces-33 sary for. developing, an educated preference.. A democracy in these conditions would expect the.elected representatives to study current problems and interpret their constituents' preferences in 34 terms of their special knowledge and .competence. Also, i t should mean that individuals, may be able, to designate a knowledgeable spokesperson who may. speak for their, preferences on issues of concern to them. These broad principles w i l l be drawn upon in the assessment 23 of communication in this study. Communication,., Democracy,.. and International. Rivers . In this study, we are concerned with the assessment.of. communication which is part of a decision-making arrangement for. the management, of an international river. It i s the object, of this.study to look at certain components of. this.communicating.process to determine i f they are adequately democratic. A second matter, of concern in. this study is. whether, these components of. this communication.process f a c i l i t a t e effective management of this particular, river. While this study does not seek to answer these questions" f u l l y , i t i s important to shed some light on.the role.of communication .in .that management activity. It w i l l be an assumption of..this.study that.if the system i s adequately democratic, then i t w i l l f a c i l i t a t e more suitable management. A system, which ..is .not sensitive . to the desires of i t s citizens w i l l inevitably overlook.sources of discontent and conflict. When the level of alienation from the system exceeds the level of satisfaction with the system and no procedure exists for resolution of.these .feelings, the citizens w i l l reject that system. Rejection may. take the form of apathy or 36 aggression. This inquiry into the role of communication, in international rivers management should-not be considered.definitive in regard to principles, of.management. . There are many, factors involved in these arrangements. A University of British Columbia research 24 team on the management of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s , directed by Professor Irving K. Fox, i s i n v e s t i g a t i n g a wide range of "fac t o r s suspected of i n f l u e n c i n g the nature of the agreement 37 reached or/'responsible f o r . f a i l u r e . " At present i t i s p l a i n that we do not know a l l of the factors .which.. do influence the success of these arrangements. This study has a secondary i n t e r e s t i n i n d i r e c t l y contributing.to^knowledge, i n - t h i s matter. THE CASE UNDER INVESTIGATION In t h i s thesis we w i l l be looking at.a s p e c i f i c case. This case i s the High Ross^Damrr-rSkagit .River -Controversy. The Skagit River is. an i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r flowing from.Canada into the United States. The Ross Dam i s a project.on the Skagit River i n the United States which provides h y d r o e l e c t r i c power, flood c o n t r o l and.some recreation.benefits to the. State of Washington. The Ross Dam i s designed so.that i t can be b u i l t to a higher l e v e l and.thus be capable of producing greater bene-f i t s i n h y d r o e l e c t r i c power and flood c o n t r o l . The r a i s i n g of Ross Dam was approved i n 1942 by .the i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangement responsible for water management.of .joint waters in.Canada and the United States-—the International.Joint Commission. The agreement seemed secure, u n t i l 1969 when.a movement began which opposed t h e agreement. Since the dam had. not. a c t u a l l y been raised and since.new questions concerning., recreational...and en-vironmental impacts, had come, up., .decision-makers faced a c o n f l i c t 25 between two a l t e r n a t i v e uses. They could allow the dam to be b u i l t and support one p o s i t i o n . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , they could sup-port the environmental-recreationist p o s i t i o n and oppose the dam. Since the decision-makers' c o l l e c t i v e mind had not been decided irrevocably (at l e a s t according to the perceptions of the anti-dam contestants), there was a c o n f l i c t . The Focus of t h i s Study. This study w i l l look at the com-munication aspect of the High Ross Dam Controversy. More speci-f i c a l l y , t h i s study w i l l look at that part of the communication process where messages are accepted by the decision-making pro-cess. The point of concern here then i s where the process a c t u a l -l y receives the message that the c i t i z e n decides to d e l i v e r . This point w i l l be c a l l e d the "intake" point. An example of an intake point i s a pu b l i c hearing. A public hearing presumably accepts messages that are delivered by the p u b l i c . We are concerned here with c e r t a i n aspects of t h i s exchange. We want to evaluate (1) whether t h i s exchange i s capable of permitting r e l i a b l e communi-cation of preferences of the c i t i z e n s into the system of d e c i s i o n -making (openness). We want to know (2) i f t h i s intake point i n -h i b i t s or f a c i l i t a t e s the acceptance of messages to the d e c i s i o n -making system ( e f f i c i e n c y ) . I t should be apparent that i n t h i s study c e r t a i n matters have been ignored. In t h i s case we are not concerned with the "worthiness" of the message since presumably only the c i t i z e n can determine how v a l i d h i s preferences a r e — t h e y are subjective value 0 26 judgments. Neither are we concerned about the cr e d e n t i a l s of the decision-makers. Decision-makers are extremely important v a r i a b l e s deserving lengthy study, but are outside the scope of t h i s study. We are not concerned with the v a l i d i t y of the ultimate d e c i s i o n which i s also a matter of judgment for the decision-makers and t h e i r constituents to decide. We are not concerned with the mo-t i v a t i o n s of the c i t i z e n s who present t h e i r preferences. We are not concerned with the d e t a i l s of how the decision-makers received the message from the hearings. We are not concerned with the ac-t i v i t i e s of decision-makers except i n r e l a t i o n to how they were involved i n the intake process. Rather, we want to know i f the c i t i z e n had a reasonable channel of communication to the d e c i s i o n -process. There i s a further l i m i t a t i o n on the scope of t h i s research. There are a myriad of ways i n which a c i t i z e n may make h i s pre-ferences known. He may write l e t t e r s to h i s elected representa-t i v e , to h i s newspaper, or to administrative t r i b u n a l s with some authority to make decisions. He could perhaps bring action i n court. He could contribute money to a p o l i t i c a l campaign for his preferences. He could even run for an elected o f f i c e . What we are concerned with here, however, i s a s p e c i f i c type of i n -take point. We are concerned with what has become perhaps the most popular form of p u b l i c intake p r o c e s s — t h e p u b l i c hearing. Although a l l forms of intake are i n f l u e n t i a l , the focus here i s made i n l i g h t of research const r a i n t s . 27 A further l i m i t a t i o n w i l l be imposed. Beyond a simple des-c r i p t i v e mapping exercise, t h i s study w i l l be l i m i t e d to a few s p e c i f i c public hearings. The p u b l i c hearings that w i l l be of concern here are p r i m a r i l y the hearings of the International J o i n t Commission, the Washington State Ecology Commission, and the Seattle C i t y Council. The hearings of the Federal Power Com-mission w i l l be considered to a l e s s e r extent. This study w i l l now proceed to Chapter II where the High Ross Dam Controversy w i l l be described. A f t e r t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n we w i l l b r i e f l y describe, i n Chapter I I , the decision-making units involved i n the controversy and t h e i r context. " In Chapter IV we w i l l es-t a b l i s h the research design that w i l l be implemented to gather data for Chapter V. Chapter VI w i l l be an exploration of the im-p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s research for management of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s . 28 FOOTNOTES "''Berber, F. J . , Rivers i n International Law (London: Stevens and Sons, Ltd., 1959), p. 1. ; 2 International Court of Permanent Jus t i c e , The Lotus  Case, P.J.I.C, Ser. A, No. 10, as quoted i n Berber, op. c i t . , p. 256. 3 Chapman, J. D. (ed.), The International Rivers Basin (Vancouver, B.C.: University of B r i t i s h Columbia Publica-tions Centre, 1963), p. x. ^Berber, op. c i t . , p. 262. 5 International Law Association, P r i n c i p l e s of Law  Governing the Uses of International Rivers (Resolution adop-ted by the Association at i t s Conference held i n Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia, August, 1956), pp. 9-10. I b i d . , p. 3. ^International Law Association, Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the.Waters of International Rivers (Resolution adop-ted by i t s 52nd Conference held i n H e l s i n k i , Finland, August 20, 1966), p. 4. ^ I b i d . , p. 7. 9 I b i d . , p. 41. ^R. F. Butrico, C. J. T o u h i l l , and I. L. Whitman (eds.), Resource Management i n the Great Lakes Basin (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Company, 1971), p. 4. "^H. P. Michael (ed.), Water Development i n Less Developed  Areas (Transactions of an International Conference held i n B e r l i n , Germany, May 17 and 21, 1963) (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 1965), p. 19. 29 12 Jerome W. Milliman, "Economic Considerations f o r the Design of Water I n s t i t u t i o n s , " P u b l i c Administration, XXV, December 1965, P:> 284. 13 Chapman, op. c i t . , p. 4. 14 Berber, op. c i t . , p. 5. "^Vincent and E l i n o r Ostrom, "A P o l i t i c a l Theory f o r I n s t i -t u t i o n a l A n a l y s i s " i n R. P. Butrico and others (eds.), op. c i t . , p. 173. 16 Milliman, op. c i t . , p. 285. 17 S. E. Goldston, M. H. -Karr, Vincent and E l i n o r Ostrom, " I n s t i t u t i o n a l A n a l y s i s " i n R. F. Butrico and others (eds.), op. c i t . , p. 173. 18 Vincent and E l i n o r Ostrom, op. c i t . , p. 173. 19 K a r l W. Deutsch, The Analysis of International Relations (Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice H a l l , Inc., 1968), pp. 112-132. 20 I b i d . , p. 113. 2 1 I b i d . , p. 130. 22 George Bach, The Intimate Enemy (New York: Avon Books, 1968). 23 Robert C. North, "The A n a l y t i c a l Prospects of Communication Theory," i n James G. Charlesworth (ed.), Contemporary P o l i t i c a l  Analysis (New York: The Free Press, 1967), p. 301. 24 K a r l W. Deutsch, Nationalism and S o c i a l Communication (Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1953.) Gabriel A. Almond and G. Bingham Powell, J r . , Comparative P o l i t i c s ; A Developmental Approach (Boston: L i t t l e , Brown and Company, 1966), esp. pp. 164-189. 25 Richard R. Fagan, P o l i t i c s and Communication (Boston: L i t t l e , Brown and Company, 1966), p. 8. ^ ^ I b i d . , esp. pp. 1-33, 88-106. 30 27 H. B. Mayo, An Introduction to Democratic Theory (New York: Oxford University Press, 1960), p. 60. "^Ibid., p. 62. 29 Kenneth Peterson and Irving K. Fox, "A Normative Structure for Evaluating Water Quality Management Institutions," Westwater Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., July 6, 1973. 30 ^, Mayo, pp. 62-64. Ibid. 32 Peterson and Fox, op. c i t . 33 Ibid. 34 Robert Dahl, After the Revolution? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), esp. pp. 28-40. 35 Peterson and Fox, op. c i t . : 36 F. Milton Singer, "Anomie, Alienation, and P o l i t i c a l Be-haviour," in Jeanne N. Knutson (ed.), Handbook of P o l i t i c a l  Sociology (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1973), pp. 171-202; and James C. Davies, "Toward a Theory of Revolution," American Sociological Review, February 1962, pp. 5-19. . Irving K. Fox, "Work Plan for Project on International Rivers'^ (unpublished manuscript), Westwater Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. CHAPTER II A HISTORY OF THE SKAGIT RIVER 32 The subject of t h i s chapter i s the Ross Dam on the Skagit River. The Skagit River i s an i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r which flows from B r i t i s h Columbia i n Canada through Washington State i n the United States. I t empties into Puget Sound, an i n l e t of the P a c i f i c Ocean. The Skagit i s the l a r g e s t r i v e r flowing into Puget Sound and the second l a r g e s t i n the state of Washington. The Skagit River i s 24 miles long i n Canada and drains 330 square miles of forest and park land. The Canadian basin i s mountainous. In the United States the Skagit i s 125 miles long and drains 2,700 square miles of fo r e s t and farm land."*" In the United States the Skagit flows through an upper v a l l e y and then, on the lower reaches, across the f l a t s . The upper v a l l e y i n the United States i s currently the centre of power development, logging, and rec r e a t i o n . The Skagit F l a t s are r i c h a g r i c u l t u r a l lands with growing i n d u s t r i a l investment. HISTORY The Skagit River was probably discovered'in the l a t e 1700's. It i s known that Spanish and Engl i s h explorers were i n the area around that time, but no one knows who a c t u a l l y discovered the r i v e r . Settlement f i r s t began on the Skagit F l a t s . Though t h i s area was frequently subject to flo o d i n g , a pioneer named Samuel Calhoun s e t t l e d on these f l a t s i n 1863. He began a forerunner 33 FIGURE 2.1 SKAGIT RIVER, MAP 34 of a dyking and farming development on what became recognized 2 as some of the r i c h e s t farmland anywhere. The area grew r a p i d l y . In 1879, James H. Moores dropped a g i l l net into the Skagit and i n i t i a t e d a f i s h i n g industry i n the area. This helped stimulate industry and settlement. A 3 food processing industry grew up. Growth was further spurred by developments i n the upper U.S. i v a l l e y . The logging i n t e r e s t s showed i n t e r e s t i n the v a l l e y f o r i t s timber and began modest operations i n the v a l l e y i n the l a t e 4 1800's. This of course led to some support industry downstream. In 1878 gold was discovered i n the upper v a l l e y . This l e d to a gold rush which brought several hundred prospectors and miners to the upper v a l l e y . This i n i t i a l rush was short l i v e d , however, and was cooling by l a t e 1880. Many stayed behind, however, and operated t o l l bridges, f e r r i e s , r i v e r boats, and road houses. These enterprises got most of the gold then being mxned. In the 1890's new mining a c t i v i t y awakened. This a c t i v i t y continued into the twentieth century. S i l v e r was found i n 1900. Many of the mining companies of t h i s rush were marginal, however, and soon went bankrupt. Mining a c t i v i t y became minimal by 1913. 6 The true s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s mining e f f o r t l a y i n those who stayed and s e t t l e d i n the upper v a l l e y . The mining had brought many s e t t l e r s to the v a l l e y and they determined to make 35 i t their home. Water Power The upper river f i r s t became a source of water power in 1906 when a small water wheel and generator was set up to power mining operations.''' This marked the beginning of waterpower development in the area which was followed by other mining g oriented power developments of a modest scale. These simple power developments were the forerunners of power planning of a much more massive scale. A conflict inevitably developed between the residents of the upper valley and the power development concept. The r e s i -dents slowly lost their claim to the valley because of the growth of importance of the power interests. In 1898 the area was put into a forest reserve. In 1906 the Forest Homestead Act was passed by the United States Congress defining the rights of residents of the newly appointed reserves. The home-steaders of the upper valley had to f i l e a claim which then had to be approved by the Forest Service. Residents had to prove that they had been on the land a sufficient length of time prior to 1906 and that their claim was agricultural. Forest and power industries would have superior claims. The object of this legislation was conservation and the Forest Service was 9 against settlement in the reserves. Very early i t became evident that homestead t i t l e s would be 36 hard to get from the Forest Service. Slowly the electric power interests in the state became interested in the river. Competi-tion for the river valley became intense in the second decade of the twentieth century with the winner, the City Light and Power Authority of Seattle, establishing i t s rights by 1917."^ The Gorge Plant The planning for the development began immediately. F i r s t , sites had to be located and arranged into a development scheme for the whole river. The river was explored and surveyed. Questions of advisability and f e a s i b i l i t y were tackled in Seattle and the' valley.'''"'' It was decided that any scheme for development would include a dam at Gorge Creek near the site of the present Gorge Dam. The two main additional sites explored were at Diablo Canyon and Ruby Creek. Eventually the Superintendant of City Light, Mr. J. D. Ross, recommended a three step plan including a l l three damsites which would be scheduled for de-velopment as needed. In May of 1918 the Seattle City Council authorized City Light to proceed with the Gorge Plant, the f i r s t * +u . 1 2 of the series. The Forest Service, desiring rapid development of the valley, put pressure on City Light to proceed quickly by threatening to revoke the company's'permits i f i t hesitated. Construction be-13 gan in 1919. The site was barely accessible and a railroad had to be b u i l t . Delays arose and estimates of costs rose. The 37 dam w a s c o m p l e t e d a n d p o w e r b e c a m e a v a i l a b l e i n S e p t e m b e r o f 1 9 2 4 . 1 4 T h e G o r g e P l a n t e s t a b l i s h e d t h e S k a g i t ' s p o t e n t i a l a s a c r e d i b l e p o w e r r e s o u r c e . T h e r i v e r now w a s o p e n e d t o f u r t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t f o r p o w e r . C i t y L i g h t now b o a s t e d t h a t T h i s g r e a t c i t y [ S e a t t l e ^ ] . . . now w i t n e s s e s a v i c t o r y o f a c h i e v e m e n t a g a i n s t h a r a s s i n g o d d s o f m i s l e d o p p o s i t i o n , m i n o r i t y p e s s i m i s m a n d s e l f i s h i n t e r e s t s , w i t h a n a d d i t i o n a l 2 0 5 , 0 0 0 h o r s e p o w e r y e t t o come'.-'-'-' T h e D i a b l o Dam T h e n e x t p h a s e o f t h e S k a g i t d e v e l o p m e n t came w i t h t h e f u r t h e r r e f i n e m e n t o f p l a n s . I n 1 9 2 5 S e a t t l e l a i d o u t p l a n s w h i c h i n c l u d e d p l a n s f o r t h e f u t u r e h i g h R u b y ( R o s s ) Dam a s w e l l a s t h e m o r e i m m e d i a t e D i a b l o Dam-. I n 1 9 2 6 C i t y L i g h t s o u g h t a p p r o v a l o f i t s p l a n s f r o m t h e F e d e r a l P o w e r C o m m i s s i o n . T h e F P C g a v e p e r m i s s i o n i n 1 9 2 7 f o r C i t y L i g h t t o c o n s t r u c t D i a b l o Dam. T h e D i a b l o Dam w a s b e g u n i n 1 9 2 7 a n d c o m p l e t e d i n 1 9 3 6 . T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f D i a b l o Dam l e f t o n e m a j o r s t e p t o t h e S k a g i t d e -v e l o p m e n t — t h e R u b y Dam. T h e R u b y Dam T h e i d e a o f c o n s t r u c t i n g a dam a t R u b y C r e e k w a s n o t new. T h e i d e a w a s s e t i n m o t i o n b y t h e 1917. a p p r o v a l o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s F o r e s t S e r v i c e f o r S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t t o d e v e l o p t h e S k a g i t . I n 1 9 2 0 C a r l F. U h d e n , t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n e n g i n e e r f o r t h e G o r g e 38 P l a n t , e n v i s i o n e d a dam a t t h i s p o i n t t o e l e v a t i o n 1 6 0 0 w h i c h w o u l d c a p t u r e t h e e n t i r e f l o w o f t h e r i v e r . I n 1 9 2 5 , C i t y L i g h t l a i d o u t i t s p l a n s f o r t h e S k a g i t c o m p l e t e w i t h t h e R u b y Dam."^ I n 1 9 2 9 S e a t t l e p u r c h a s e d t h e W i t w o r t h R a n c h i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a t o p r e p a r e f o r p o s s i b l e f l o o d i n g a c r o s s t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l B o u n -1 8 d a r y . I n 1 9 3 0 t h e a r e a w h i c h w a s f o r e s e e n a s a r e s e r v o i r w a s p l a c e d i n t o a l a n d . r e s e r v e f o r t h a t p u r p o s e b y t h e B.C. g o v e r n -1 9 m e n t . I n 1 9 3 3 ' t h e ' U . S . E n g i n e e r D e p a r t m e n t s e n t a r e p o r t a n d 2 0 a p r o p o s e d p l a n f o r S k a g i t d e v e l o p m e n t t o C o n g r e s s . T h e s e e v e n t s w e r e u n f e t t e r e d s t e p s t o w a r d c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e R u b y Dam. I n 1 9 3 9 t h e U.S. F e d e r a l P o w e r C o m m i s s i o n c l e a r e d t h e w a y f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e f i r s t s t a g e o f R u b y Dam b y g r a n t i n g p e r m i s s i o n f o r t h e p r o j e c t t o b e g i n . B e n e f i t s o f t h e dam w e r e t o i n c l u d e em-p l o y m e n t f r o m r e s e r v o i r c l e a r i n g a n d dam c o n s t r u c t i o n , f l o o d c o n t r o l , c h e a p h y d r o e l e c t r i c p o w e r a t s i t e , a n d s u p p l e m e n t a l 2 1 s t o r a g e f o r t h e t w o d o w n s t r e a m d a m s — t h e G o r g e a n d D i a b l o Dams. T h i s s t o r a g e , a t c o m p l e t i o n t o i t s u l t i m a t e h e i g h t , w o u l d i n c l u d e 2 2 t h e e n t i r e f l o w o f t h e r i v e r . C o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s w o u l d b e 2 3 l o w r e l a t i v e t o b e n e f i t s . P u b l i c P o w e r A m y s t i q u e g r e a t l y o v e r s h a d o w e d t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s , T h i s w a s t h e m y s t i q u e o f p u b l i c p o w e r . S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t w a s f o u n d e d i n 2 4 1 9 0 2 a s a p u b l i c u t i l i t y . I t s s u p e r i n t e n d a n t , M r . J a m e s D. 39 Ross, was extolled as a champion of the public interest over the 25 private. Seattle was hailed as "America's Best Lighted City." The virtues of this enterprise were proffered as ideal. News-paper readers were told that whereas a privately owned u t i l i t y erecting dams or transmission lines lays waste [to] i t s right-of-way with no concern for the natural beauties, Seattle does differently.26 27 In 1928 Seattle began tours of i t s dams which undoubtedly were meant as a public relations effort to get Seattle residents to identify with their great u t i l i t y . The grounds around the dams were well kept, featuring rock gardens, tropical and native plantings, waterfalls l i t up at night with coloured lights, music emanating from the trees, boat and r a i l rides around the grounds, camping'grounds, cottages, threatre, movies, and 28 dances. In the spring of 1939, the patriarch of this great 29 enterprise, Mr. Ross, died. ' Ruby Dam's name was changed to "Ross Dam;" Growth . Development in this period was legitimized by the reigning philosophy of the day. The early years of the twentieth century had witnessed a movement toward conservation. The wider issue of "the environment" was not yet salient, however. The salient issue was growth. Growth was to be unlimited. According to \ 40 The New American in Bellevue, Washington There should not, nor can there be, any jealousy or rivalry by.different sections or factions when i t comes to the question of state development... any growth anywhere in our commonwealth affects the whole state... any development should have in view this f u l l and complete use of our rivers and streams. This view of growth was fostered by the experience of rapidly rising standards of li v i n g brought about by the growth of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The growth ethic received a boost from the hardships of the Great Depression of the 1930's. Finally, i n 1939 the gathering clouds of war were seen in Europe and the Far East. The special role that Seattle had in -this perilous situation was that of a producer of war materials—particularly aircraft. This industry required energy. It was in this super-heated environment that Ross Dam's f i r s t 31 stage was brought to completion in 1940. As with a l l dams on the Skagit, construction was very d i f f i c u l t . When completed, the f i r s t stage reached 1365 feet in elevation and was 290 feet high from bedrock to crest. The Second Stage of Ross Dam The war which had been threatening broke by 1940 and the• completion of stage one. The war in i t s early years constituted a very serious threat to the national securities of Canada and the United States. The war was a defensive war with a l l i e d armies retreating under the Axis onslaughts. Air power had proven i t s 41 crucial, perhaps determinant role i n the war. As a supplier of aircraft, Seattle became a focus of a l l i e d attention. In 1943 the U.S. Federal Government requested commencement of second stage construction. Work was delayed and construction 32 began f i n a l l y In 1945. Work was s t i l l i n progress when the city decided to proceed with stage three in view of the increased demand for power. Contracts were let for logging the reservoir site in 1945 and the Silver-Skagit logging road was b u i l t from 33 the north in 1946. The second stage ,of Ross Dam was completed in 1947. Ross Dam with the completion of the second stage reached 475 feet from bedrock to i t s crest at elevation 1550 feet. The Third Stage of Ross Dam Preparations for construction of. the third stage began before completion of the' second stage. The finishing work on second stage construction was simultaneous with the foundation work for the 34 third stage. Thus stages two and three proceeded without i n -terruption from 1945 to 1949"when stage three was completed. Ross Dam stood at elevation 1615—540 feet high. Plans for completion of the fourth stage were postponed un t i l more economical power 35 developments in the Northwest United States were completed. Construction of the fourth stage would require thickening of the dam at the base and increasing i t s height to elevation 1725. At this elevation the reservoir behind the dam would be backed into Canada and permission would be needed from the Canadians. 42 The Fourth Stage of Ross Dam Permission to Flood. Raising Ross Dam to elevation 1725 would cause flooding in Canada. According to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 between Canada and the United States, the Inter-national Joint Commission must approve a l l projects raising the 36 natural level of boundary waters. Thus to begin the fourth stage Seattle had to go to the Commission. In 1941 the City of Seattle made application to the Commission. A hearing was held in Seattle on September 12, 1941. War was threatening and there was no opposition to the dam. The hearing lasted less than two hours and dealt mainly with engineering as-pects and economic benefits of the dam. One Canadian tes t i f i e d and no non-official citizens from either nation t e s t i f i e d . There 37 was no mention of recreational or environmental questions — a n understandable situation given the reigning philosophies and necessities of the day. In 1942 the International Joint Commission granted an Order of Approval giving permission to Seattle to raise the dam. The order was subject to a condition that the City of Seattle arrange an agreement with the Province of British Columbia for compensation 38 for any damages caused in the province by the flooding. The Compensation Agreement. The next problem for Seattle was to obtain this agreement. The British Columbia Legislative As-sembly passed the Skagit Valley Lands Act of 1947 which empowered the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to negotiate with the City i n 43 order to make the agreement with, the C i t y required by the 1942 39 1 IJC order. This e f f e c t i v e l y meant that the p r o v i n c i a l cabinet minister responsible could make, an agreement. Agreement had s t i l l not been reached when the reigning Liberal-Conservative c o a l i t i o n : i n B r i t i s h Columbia was brought down at the p o l l s by the S o c i a l Credit Party and i t s c o l o u r f u l leader, W.A.C. Bennett. The Socreds were concerned about possible precedents which could be set for the Columbia River Treaty nego-t i a t i o n s and agreement on the Skagit was postponed. The Columbia River Treaty was f i n a l l y s e t t l e d and B r i t i s h Columbia was ready to s e t t l e . Acting upon the authority vested i n the government by the Skagit V a l l e y Lands Act of 1947, Resources Mi n i s t e r Ray W i l l i s t o n of the Socred government signed the long-awaited agreement i n 1967. The agreement was signed twenty years a f t e r the Act was passed and twenty-five years a f t e r the 1942 IJC Order. Seattle agreed to pay $5.50 per acre per year f o r 99 years i n exchange for r i g h t s to f l o o d the v a l l e y . This came to $35,566.21 per year. Seattle was also l i a b l e f o r p r o v i n c i a l taxes on the v a l l e y . 4 THE HIGH ROSS DAM CONTROVERSY Launching the Fight The controversy over High Ross Dam began with a protest de-veloping i n l a t e 1969. The protest was o r i g i n a l l y l e d by a c e r t a i n 44 L i b e r a l Party MLA from North Vancouver-Capilano, David Brousson. The Vancouver Sun, the c i t y ' s leading newspaper, popularized the opposition to the dam with ample coverage of the issue. The issue was one.of environmental damage and loss of r e c r e a t i o n a l assets which could r e s u l t from the dam. Seattle spokesmen denied these claims. Another issue which added f u e l to the c o n f l i c t was that of nationalism—Americans were flooding a Canadian v a l l e y . State-ments by L i b e r a l MLA P a t r i c k McGeer, anti-dam group leader John Massey, Vancouver Sun columnist A l l a n Fotheringham and others sup-41 port t h i s theory. Federal Canadian p o l i t i c i a n s became interested i n October of 1970. Canadian Senator John Nichol wrote an a r t i c l e appearing i n 42 The Vancouver Sun opposing the damming. The new Canadian Environ-ment Mi n i s t e r , Jack Davis, an M. P. from B r i t i s h Columbia, vowed to 43 do something to stop the flooding. The L i b e r a l Party i n Canada went on record as opposing the damming at a L i b e r a l Party p o l i c y 44 conference i n November. But options of the Canadian f e d e r a l govern-ment seemed l i m i t e d when Prime M i n i s t e r P i e r r e E l i o t t Trudeau i n d i -45 cated that the way to stop the damming was to "get r i d of Bennett." The Federal government feared any Federal action to stop the dam-ming would mean deleterious e f f e c t s to the reputation of the Inter-n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission. The IJC would have an i n c r e a s i n g l y v i t a l r o l e i n protecting Canadian i n t e r e s t s elsewhere and improper a c t i o n would jeopardize the IJC's legitimacy. 45 Meanwhile, conservation groups .in B r i t i s h Columbia and Washing-ton State continued t h e i r campaigns against the dam. In October, 1970, 2,500 persons marched to the shores of Ross Lake behind the present dam and heard* speakers condemn the High Dam for environmental and r e c r e a t i o n a l reasons. They said.the Province got a "raw deal" and 46 Seattle would get power while B.C. l o s t f i s h . Canadian Parliamentary' force stood' s o l i d l y behind the anti-dam movement i n November of 1970, with the' entry of nation a l Progres-sive Conservative Leader "Robert S t a n f i e l d into the f i g h t . S t a n f i e l d 47 said i t would take Canadian federal action to stop the flooding. This was a' r e j e c t i o n of Prime M i n i s t e r Trudeau's e a r l i e r statements that stopping the damming would require dumping W.A.C. Bennett as Premier of B r i t i s h Columbia. The Bennett government decided to remain uninvolved throughout t h i s c o n f l i c t . They contended that they were morally obligated to sign the 1967 agreement because of agreements made by previous governments as w e l l as the 1942 IJC Order. They said that i f Seattle wanted to drop the contract they would agree, but they 48 would notcfofcecthe C i t y to drop i t . By the end of 1970 a "fighthhad c l e a r l y been launched. The package of opposition to the dam included important Canadian p o l i -t i c i a n s : f e d e r a l and.provincial; L i b e r a l , Conservative, and New Democrat. P u b l i c i t y came from The Vancouver Sun and environmental groups. A march had been organized. In the f o r e f r o n t of the con-f l i c t were the long l i s t of conservation and sports clubs who 46 wanted the v a l l e y saved. The Skagit flooding had become the top p r i o r i t y issue of the environmental groups i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The issue now had "occupied centre stage among B. C. conserva-49 t i o n i s t s f o r more than a year." Seattle Digs In The C i t y of Seattle set the stage for the controversy by wanting the High Ross Dam. They had prepared f o r t h i s dam f o r many years without" major opposition. Now, when they f i n a l l y de-cided to r a i s e the dam, opposition developed. The C i t y had known for some time that some of the p o l i c i e s of i t s agent, Seattle C i t y L i g h t , were not p o l i t i c a l l y p o p u l a r . ^ In early 1970 the Public U t i l i t i e s Committee of the Seattle C i t y Council decided to hold a seri e s of nine hearings to explore p u b l i c concern with C i t y u t i l i t i e s p o l i c i e s . There were several p o l i c i e s of concern including plans f o r a nuclear reactor on Kiket Island on the mouth of the Skagit, the p o l i c i e s concerning underground wiring i n the C i t y , the r o l e of C i t y government i n managing C i t y Light, and the High Ross Dam. Descriptions of s p e c i f i c hearings are given i n Appendix A. The hearings heard C i t y Light witnesses explain i t s p o l i c i e s and c i t i z e n s l e v e l . c r i t i c i s m on'a wide range of p o l i -c i e s . C i t i z e n s f e l t i t was time for wide ranging reform. Among the Seattle c i t i z e n s protesting was a prominent spokesman of what was l a t e r to become a large' Seattle-based c o a l i t i o n opposing the 47 High Ross. The leader of the North Cascades Conservation Council (NCCC), Dr. Pa t r i c k Goldsworthy, was to become a key organizer of the Seattle c o a l i t i o n . Spokesmen for what was l a t e r to become a large Canadian c o a l i t i o n , the ROSS Committee, were also present. The four-member Public U t i l i t i e s Committee was supplemented by the presence of two hired.consultants, Professors Douglass C. North and Yoram Barzel of the Un i v e r s i t y of Washington. They wrote a report based on the hearings of the C o m m i t t e e T h e r e -port was not e n t i r e l y favourable to the dam, but the City-Council was not discouraged i n i t s plans to' b u i l d the dam. , Meanwhile, i n l a t e 1970 Cit y Light launched a strong counter-campaign to support i t s dam. I t h i r e d a p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s f i r m i n 52 Vancouver, Torresan and Associates, to support i t s plan. F. F. Slaney and Company,, Seattle's Vancouver-based resource planning consultant, released an environmental/recreational assessment of the damming plan on September 23, 1970 which turned out to be 53 favourable. I t claimed that the re s e r v o i r would enhance recre-a t i o n a l p o t e n t i a l of the v a l l e y with minimal environmental impacts. The report was s t r o n g l y condemned by environmentalists and others. In addition, C i t y Light continued p u b l i c i t y campaigns i n Seattle newspapers. I t was obvious that C i t y Light had no i n t e n t i o n of reversing i t s p o l i c y concerning the dam. Some weakening i n C i t y Light's p o s i t i o n was evidenced by the decision of Mayor Wes Uhlman to review the decision to flood the v a l l e y . The decision of whether to commit the C i t y , however, was 48 a legislative option resting'with the City Council. The campaign in support of the dam began' with the consideration by the Public U t i l i t i e s Committee of a request by the Mayor to drop the project. The Committee held a public hearing on the request on December 9, 1970. Hearings rules were s t r i c t l y enforced. Pew of the two busloads of Canadians were allowed to speak. Placards and ap-plause were not allowed. The Canadian position was represented by Sierra Club president Ken Farquharson who spoke of the strength of Canadian opposition. There yas one speaker in favour of the damming. The Committee voted three to one to recommend an ordi-nance to the City Council requiring Seattle City Light to proceed with i t s application to the Federal Power Commission for permission to build the dam."'"' The recommendation went to the City Council which approved i t after a thirty minute debate. The only reference to the concern of Canadians was by Councilwoman Lamphere who said 56 "the international p o l i t i c a l question disturbs me mightily." There were no apparent Canadian' conservationists in the audience. The vote was 6 to 2 in favour of the ordinance. Application to raise the dam was made by- Seattle to the Federal Power Commission on December 17, 1970. The f i l i n g of the application closed the issue from Seattle's perspective for the time being.^ The City would proceed under the assumption .that i t did have valid rights to the valley and would be allowed to raise the dam. Searching for Alternatives The opponents of the dam thus faced strong resistance from 49 the City of Seattle. The problem for the opponents became one of finding the means for challenging" the dam. While having many politicians on their side, they-did not have an arena to bring their conflict to. The period following Seattle's answer was a period of searching. Various spokesmen for the movement suggested ways which might lead to prevention of the damming. One proposal was to create an international part in the area. Parks were needed in the B.C.-Washington region and this part would be a valuable addition to the parks now along the border. This, i t was hoped, would offer a "sop or sweetener" to Seattle 58 residents. Another suggestion.was to delay the dam u n t i l delays and consequent expenses added.up to rule out the dam. This position was suggested by Liberal MLA David Brousson who said 59 "whatever happens i t w i l l be fought every'step of the way." Seattle would not be able to tie up i t s capital on a questionable project indefinitely. A variation of this theme was introduced in January of 1971 by a c a l l by Ken Farquharson for shared benefits. The idea was to make the High Ross Dam less attractive to Seattle by*raising the costs. The precedent for shared benefits had been set by the Columbia River Treaty.^ The subject of shared benefits was brought down a notch by a proposal for shared costs in dumpihggthe project. Ray Williston, a Socred cabinet minister, indicated that i t would take $8 million to compensate Seattle for i t s investment in preparation for raising 50 the dam. British Columbia would become lia b l e for this sum i f the 61 Province stopped the project. Another alternative tried was to get the Canadian federal government to intervene. But the government continued to plead impotence. Meanwhile, the Canadian government was i t s e l f seeking a meeting with U.S. o f f i c i a l s in hopes of setting up talks on the Skagit. Talks began on December 17, 1970 with the U.S. State Department, but they centered on environmental aspects and not 62 the disposition of the dam. The Washington State Ecological Commission Searching for alternative ways of stopping the damming was interrupted by a li v e option for protest created by the Washing-ton Department of Ecology. On November 23, 1970, the Director of the Department of Ecology, John Biggs, said he would hold 63 hearings on the High Ross Dam. On January 12, 1971, Mr. Biggs announced that he had suspended City Light's state permits to raise Ross Dam pending hearings by the Department's advisory ecological commission. The Department had authority to issue or deny state ;: permits for appropriation of water and creation or' reservoirs. Biggs indicated that'he would l i k e l y accept the commission's 64 findings. The Department could be overruled, however. There were precedents for the overrule of state agencies by court 65 action and the Federal Power Commission. The Washington State Ecological Commission Chairman announced that the hearings would 51 b e o p e n t o t h e p u b l i c a n d w o u l d a c c e p t t e s t i m o n y f r o m a n y o n e w i t h a d i r e c t i n t e r e s t i n t h e i s s u e , i n c l u d i n g C a n a d i a n o p p o n e n t s t o 66 t h e dam. M r . B i g g s w a s a w a r e o f t h e C a n a d i a n o p p o s i t i o n a n d 67 i t s e x i s t e n c e e n c o u r a g e d t h e h o l d i n g o f h e a r i n g s . B i g g s h a d a s k e d t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o " t e s t a l l l e v e l s o f p u b l i c o p i n i o n o n t h e p r o j e c t a n d t h e n t o c o n v e y £the^j f i n d i n g s t o J o h n B i g g s . . . " T h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s p o w e r s w e r e t o " a d v i s e a n d c o u n s e l " a n d h a d " n o p o w e r s o f a c t i o n w h a t s o e v e r . P u b l i c h e a r i n g s w e r e h e l d M a r c h 1 6 , 1 9 7 1 i n S e a t t l e a n d M a r c h 69 17 i n M o u n t V e r n o n , W a s h i n g t o n . E n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s w e r e p r e s e n t . M a n y i s s u e s w e r e r a i s e d . S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t a r g u e d i t s c a s e f o r b u i l d i n g t h e dam a n d p r e s e n t e d s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s t o s u p p o r t i t s o p i n i o n . S e v e r a l b u s i n e s s a s s o c i a t i o n s s e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e dam. A c o a l i t i o n o f ' t w e l v e W a s h i n g t o n g r o u p s i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e dam p o o l e d t h e i r t i m e t o a l l o w e i g h t e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s t o s p e a k o n t h e i r b e h a l f . T h i s t e s t i m o n y r e p r e s e n t e d t h e p o s i t i o n o f s i x t e e n e n v i r o n m e n t a l g r o u p s . M L A s D a v i d B r o u s s o n ( L i b ) a n d W i l l i a m H a r t l e y (NDP) f r o m B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a a l s o s p o k e i n o p p o s i t i o n . ^ M e m b e r s o f a l a r g e C a n a d i a n c o a l i t i o n , t h e R o s s C o m m i t t e e , p r e s e n t e d t e s t i m o n y . T h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s e h e a r i n g s w a s a d e l a y . T h e t e s t i m o n y c o n v i n c e d t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o h o l d o f f d e c i s i o n o n r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a n d p o s s i b l y h o l d h e a r i n g s a g a i n i n t h e f a l l o f 1 9 7 1 . C o m m i s s i o n C h a i r m a n A r p a d M a s l e y s a i d t h a t i f t h e C o m m i s s i o n i d i d a p p r o v e t h e 52 dam, i t might consider " r i d e r s " such as a - s p e c i f i c a t i o n of maximum drawdown r ange. The decision was tabled. The hearings were attacked by John Nelson, Superintendent of C i t y L i g h t , who sa i d they had "zero s i g n i f i c a n c e l e g a l l y , " and were " j u s t a soap box on which people stood to make speeches." 72 The Federal Power Commission would have the f i n a l say. The E c o l o g i c a l Commission hearings seemed to be a small v i c -tory f or the opponents to the dam. They seemed to have made a strong case at a sympathetic forum, but the Commission had not given i t s ' answer and the Department of Ecology perhaps could not enforce actions to stop.the dam anyway. The c o n f l i c t would have to be ca r r i e d to the next arena. The International J o i n t Commission The Skagit opposition socred another v i c t o r y with the announce-ment of p u b l i c hearings to be held on the issue by the International J o i n t Commission. Canadian Federal cabinet minister Jack Davis had been pressing the American government about reopening hearings 73 on the dam. - The governments of- Canada and the United States j o i n t l y referred the issue to the IJC on A p r i l 7, 1971. Hearings would be held June 6 i n Bellingham, Washington, and on June 7 i n Vancouver, B.C. The p r i c e paid by Canada f o r these hearings was to reopen another issue of concern to the United S t a t e s — t h e 74 issue of the American residents i n Pt. Roberts, Washington. The issue of the v a l i d i t y of the 1967 compensation agreement 53 under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty was a prominent pre-hearings issue. MLA David Brousson opened the attack. He c i t e d parts of the Treaty which stated t h a t "the IJC must approve compensation agreements such as the 1967 agreement. Brousson said that ac-cording to the Treaty the Commission " s h a l l require that the i n -jured party... get proper indemnity.... This i s mandatory. There i s no room f o r d i s c r e t i o n on the p a r t of the IJC.""7'' Brousson's contention was backed by leading Canadian i n t e r n a t i o n a l law ex-76 pert, Charles Bourne. P r a c t i c a l l y , however, the only way to argue the case was to appeal to the IJC which alone had the power to r u l e on the issue of whether the IJC could delegate i t s power to approve the agreement. I t became cl e a r e r i n the months preceding the IJC hearings that the terms of reference of the Commission's i n v e s t i g a t i o n might be r e s t r i c t i v e . I t was known that the hearings'would focus on the environment. But, when the announcement i n the papers came out, i t was c l e a r that the Commission was. to investigate environmental consequences i n Canada... and, to make such recommendations, not inconsistent with the Commission's Order of Approval dated January 27, 1942 and the r e l a t e d Agreement dated January 10, 1967...77 The opponents of the dam immediately attacked these" r e s t r i c -t i o n s . The p r i n c i p a l objections were that the hearings were not allowed to consider whether the dam should be' permitted but only how i t s negative e f f e c t s might be mitigated. Also, the hearings were l i m i t e d to consideration of environmental issues north of the 54 border i n Canada. The opponents to the dam also wanted the Com-mission to consider the legality of the 1967 agreement between British Columbia and Seattle. These issues were answered during the hearings, however, when the Commission reached "cooly" to suggestions i t declare the 78 ' 1967 agreement i l l e g a l . The IJC would not consider the issue. The United States government attorney, Douglas F. Burns, read a statement on behalf of his government: saying that the United 79 States would not accept any agreement k i l l i n g the dam. The IJC was obviously not' allowed to discuss this because i t s terms of reference forbad i t to. Finally, the issue concerning whether the Commission should consider environmental effects on both sides of the border at"the hearings was settled when the Chairman of the Canadian Section of the IJC, Louis Robichaud, doused the debate by indicating that the terms of reference were clear and that he 80 would not comment further. It was clear that the IJC was also barred from considering this issue. The hearings were held on June 4, 5 and 6, with an extra day added in Vancouver to hear testimony, and the IJC retired to con-sider the matter. The pro-dam and anti-dam parties thus awaited the reports of the International Joint Commission as well as the Washington State Ecological Commission. The Results Come 81 The IJC report was delayed u n t i l December. Meanwhile, the 55 Washington State Department of Ecology issued: a position paper strongly condemning the.damming. The plan would have to be .re-vised. The Department- paper said that present plans would have "a substantial detrimental environmental impact." It went on to condemn Seattle City Light for i t s lack of concern for the en-vironment and indicated that i t .would i n s i s t that the company 82 come up with an environmental' programme. The Department of Ecology's posi t ion paper came just'days before the release of the IJC report. The IJC report was unex-pectedly highly c r i t i c a l of the.flooding plan. It was barred from recommending against the flooding by i t s terms of reference, but some United States' o f f i c i a l s claimed that the Commission went beyond those terms anyway. But the.report was approved'unanimous-ly by the Commission'. It said that the damming would mean a one mi l l ion dollar loss through the loss - of other uses' of the val ley . It said l i t t l e could be done to mitigate these losses. Further study would be required, and the Commission recommended that a proper study would take three years,, not the six months the Commission had been given. The Commission recommended that the Federal Power Commission look at other sources of power for S e a t t l e . ^ The damming opponents.were jubilant . The IJC had gone as far or further than their terms of reference had allowed them in eW&feifipg-j&ilg ttefte&l^a#%, MLA David Brousson said he did not know how Seattle could now proceed with the opposition of the 56 State of Washington, the International Joint Commission, and the 84 Canadian government. On the other.side, John Nelson, the City Light Superintendant, said he was surprised at some of the figures but would not comment further. The Sides Respond The opponents of the dam immediately applied pressure to the Seattle city government to reverse i t s stand and give up the dam 85 plan. The City Council voted 5 to 4 to reconsider the plan i n 86 February of 1972. The hearings would be on March .31'and 87 Canadians could participate. The Council's reconsideration was important because of the opposition of the IJC, the State of Wash-ington, and the Canadian government, but also because an election had replaced two of the original pro-dam councilmen. Now i t was believed that a vote'would k i l l the dam.. The hearings were held as planned, but on April 10th the Council voted 6 to 2 to continue with the plan. The newly elected councilmen were the lone dis-senters. Even the long term opponents of the dam on the Council 88 voted to support the plan. They decided to wait for the Federal 89 Power Commission hearings' to' consider a f i n a l decision. It now seemed that the real showdown .would be in the Federal Power Commission hearings. The opposition was optimistic about the hearings.^ The British Columbia Elections The whole nature of the controversy changed with the August 57 1972 p r o v i n c i a l e l e c t i o n s ' i n . B r i t i s h Columbia. The S o c i a l Credit Party was badly beaten. The former o f f i c i a l opposition, the New Democratic Party, now formed the ..new government. Opposition Leader Dave Barrett became the new Premier. The NDP. was intent on a-programme of' massive reform and r e v e r s a l of S o c i a l Credit p o l i c i e s . The Skagit was one such p o l i c y . The NDP was against the damming. The NDP immediately announced government opposition to the flooding, saying that the flooding plan was " t o t a l l y unacceptable 91 to the province of B.C." The federal government i n Ottawa res-ponded quickly by saying they would do everything possible to' support £the Province] .... The people of B r i t i s h Columbia own that v a l l e y and i f the people of.B.C., through t h e i r government, say i t i s n ' t going to be flooded tlitheh i i t s msh' gugoingstbabelf 0>6oded. ^ 2 Seattle C i t y Light' responded by saying that "without being informed of t h i s matter o f f i c i a l l y , a l l we can say i s that we s t i l l have a v a l i d agreement with B r i t i s h Columbia." Seattle 93 indicated a wil l i n g n e s s to pursue the matter to court perhaps 94 to get compensation for loss of i t s investment. Meanwhile, a majority of the Seattle C i t y Councilmen (five) indicated op-p o s i t i o n to the dam, but the council appeared'ready to drop the 95 dam only i f the Province made a move to k i l l i t . The issue was c l e a r l y now one of who was to k i l l the dam and become l i a b l e f o r compensation. 58 The Compensation Debate The period which followed'became one of a sometimes s i l e n t , sometimes noisy c o n f l i c t between the Canadian government and the British.Columbia government. Neither government wanted to become l i a b l e f o r compensation, payments to Se a t t l e . Neither would make the move to k i l l the dam. Each t r i e d to s h i f t the blame for i n a c t i o n to the other. The two governments t r i e d to 96 frame a j o i n t plan i n a meeting'on December 8, 1972. But a f t e r the meeting the two governments went back to.their.maneuvering f o r position.. The L i b e r a l MLAs, party . a l l i e s .of the fe d e r a l L i b e r a l government, continued to attack the NDP i n the B.C. Le g i s l a t u r e . Opposition p a r t i e s , e s p e c i a l l y the Conservatives, continued to harass the L i b e r a l government in'Ottawa. F i n a l l y , i n early June of 1973 the long .awaited agreement between B r i t i s h Columbia and Ottawa on the dam was concluded. The d e t a i l s were kept secret. The strategy would be revealed "step by step" as i t was put into e f f e c t . The two governments 97 were sure that the strategy would save the v a l l e y . But L i b e r a l MLAs i n V i c t o r i a continued to challenge the NDP govern-98 ment to take act i o n . This c r i t i c i s m subsided, however, a f t e r Attorney General Alex MacDonald of the NDP government vowed to 99 resign i f the v a l l e y were flooded. The Federal Power Commission The whole issue.now.awaited.the delayed Federal.Power Com-59 mission hearings. With these hearings would come a d e c i s i o n — a decision either ending the f i g h t with an FPC decision to p r o h i b i t the damming or decision by one of the two Canadian governments to breach the agreements and incur, l i a b i l i t y f o r damages compensation for stopping the dam. The hearings would hear ...testimony .from an already defeated Seattle, c i t y . government,. the Washington. State Department of Ecology, the International Joint. Commission, the Canadian Federal Parliament, and i n d i r e c t l y from the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia,. I t would hear... from . environmentalists . and other c i t i z e n s wishing to. make appearance, at -the .hearings i n Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, the Canadian. House, of. Commons, passed.a.unanimous r e s o l u t i o n . i n opposition to the damming . on November 2, 19.73. This added tremendous weight on the side of the opponents to the dam. The Canadian Liberal-government, however,. was s t i l l reluctant . J i * 101 to d e l i v e r the message. As of t h i s w r i t i n g , .public.hearings .have been.scheduled by the. Federal Power Commission.in Bellingham,.Washington, for A p r i l 23, 1974. Public hearings are also_ planned f o r . S e a t t l e . In ad-d i t i o n , the FPC w i l l hold evidentiary hearings i n Washington, D.C. Dam opponents are planning to make a large appearance. Canadian, opponents, have received some f i n a n c i a l support ..in t h e i r 102 e f f o r t from the Canadian Federal government. The Federal Power Commission has hired expert witnesses from the ranks of 103 the Seattle opponents to the dam. Canadian opponents are now apprehensive, however, about the hearings with no c l e a r idea 60 how to proceed i f the FPC approves the dam. They see no a l t e r -104 natives a v a i l a b l e for blocking the dam. Speculation about the future at t h i s point i s quite hazar-dous. I t i s possible that the FPC w i l l approve the dam. I t i s l i k e l y that i n t h i s case the opposition w i l l continue i n some form. There seems to be no c l e a r way to bring about an agree-ment between a Seattle C i t y Council which seems w i l l i n g , to nego-t i a t e and the Canadian governments. The t r a g i c scenario.of the future s t i l l may include the r a i s i n g of the dam and an.unprece-dented i n t e r n a t i o n a l incident whether or not environmental and re c r e a t i o n a l damage r e s u l t s . Chapter II reviewed.the h i s t o r y of Skagit River development and the High Ross Dam controversy.. This h i s t o r y i d e n t i f i e s three a u t h o r i t i e s holding hearings which w i l l become the subject of t h i s study. These are the hearings of the Seattle C i t y Council and i t s Public Utilities.Committee, the Washington State Ecolo-g i c a l Commission, and the International. J o i n t .Commission. In Chapter. I l l we w i l l describe these a u t h o r i t i e s more c l e a r l y . 61 FOOTNOTES . . . "*"F. F. Slaney and Company, Skagit V a l l e y and Ross Lake  Reservoir i n Canada (Vancouver: 1970), p. 1. 2 "Man and the River," Seattle C i t y Light News, November 1967, pp. 5-7. 3 I b i d . 4 I b i d . 5 P a u l Cur t i s P i t z e r , "A History.of. the Upper. Skagit. V a l l e y 1880-1924" (unpublished Master's t h e s i s , University of Washing-ton, 1966), pp. 14-15. 6 I b i d . , pp. 16-18. ^ I b i d . , p. 20. 8 I b i d . , pp. 24, 27-28. 9 Ibi d . , Chapter I I . """^Ibid. , pp. 62-63. 1 1"What's the Hurry? (Skagit River P r o j e c t ) , " Town.Crier, May 11, 1918, p. 4. 12 P i t z e r , op. c i t . , pp. 92-93. 1 3 I b i d . , p. 100. "*" 4"Seattle Celebrates Completion of. Skagit Power Proj e c t , " Seattle D a l l y Times, September 28, 1924. Advertisement, Seattle .Times, September 26, 1924. 16 C. F. Uhden, "Seattle b u i l d i n g . l a r g e Municipal h y d r o e l e c t r i c development," Engineering News-Record., -November' 18 , 1920, pp. 994-6. 62 "^Slaney, op. c i t . , p. 15. "^I b i d . , p. 16. Ibid. 20 U. S. Engineer Department (Report containing a general plan for the Improvement of.Skagit River, Washington), 73rd Con-gress, 2nd Session, House Document No. 187. 21 E. F. Banker, "The Skagit River,."-The New American, October 1935, pp. 23-24. "Raising Ross Dam to.475 f t height," Engineering News, September 20, 1945, pp. 378-81. 22 "Skagit River Development f o r Seattle .System," Power, June 16, 1925, p. 970. 23 Engineering News, .September 20,.1945,.loc. c i t . 24 " F i f t h highest i n the world—Ross Dam," Seattle Post- I n t e l l i g e n c e r , February 2, 1959, p. 25. 25 M. Coleman, "America's Best-Lighted C i t y , " Nation, August 19, 1939, pp. 193-95. 2 6 I b i d . , p. 194. 27 Slaney, op. c i t . , p. 19. 28 June Burn, "Skagit, River of Puget Sound,"...Puget .Sounder, A p r i l 1930, pp. 1 f f . 29 Coleman, op. c i t . , p. 193. 30 Banker, op. c i t . , pp. 23-24. 31 Engineering News, September 20, 1945, l o c . c i t . 32 "Ross Dam t h i r d step nears.completion," Engineering News  Record, A p r i l 1, 1948, pp. 487-89. 33 Slaney, op. c i t . , p.- 4. 63 34 Engineering News-Record, A p r i l 1, 1948, l o c . c i t . 35 „ ' ^ "Ross Dam t h i r d step nears completion, --'4Eng-ln^ r£jN'ews-- y ^Record, A p r i l 1, 1948. 36 " A r t i c l e IV" of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, as.found i n International J o i n t Commission, .Rules- and.Procedure and. Text of  Treaty (Ottawa, Canada-Washington, D.C.,.1965). 37 International J o i n t Commission, Hearings (Transcript of hearings on the "Application of.the. C i t y of Seattle for. Approval of Proposal to Raise the Water Level of the Skagit River, State of Washington, at and above the.International Boundary"), Seat t l e , Washington, September 12, 1941. 38 Slaney, op. c i t . , pp. 22-23. 39 An Act to authorize the-flooding.of.certain Lands, i n the Skagit River V a l l e y (The Skagit V a l l e y Lands A c t ) , , Chapter 81, B r i t i s h Columbia Statutes (1947), p. 445. 40 Slaney, op. c i t . , pp. 23-26. 41 The Vancouver Sun, September 25, 1970, p. 19. The Vancouver Sun, October 7, 1970, p. 3. The Vancouver Sun, September 26, 1970, p. 19. 42 The Vancouver Sun, October 7, 1970. 43 The Vancouver Sun, October 10, 1970, p. 1. 44 The Vancouver Sun, November.11, 1970, p. 14. 45 The Vancouver Sun, November 25, 1970, p. 37. 46 The Vancouver Sun, October 26, 1970, p. 35. 47 The.Vancouver Sun, November 26, 1970. 48 The Province, September 30, 1970. 49 The Vancouver Sun, December 18, 1970. '64 "^George Cooley, t r a n s c r i p t , P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Committee Hearings, Seattle, 1970. ''"'"George Cooley, interview, Seattle, Washington, 3:00 P.M., A p r i l 1, 1974. 52 "A l l a n Fotheringham," The Vancouver Sun, September 26, 1970, p. 19. 53, The Vancouver Sun, September 25, 1970, p. 25. 54,,, Slaney, op. c i t . 55 The Vancouver Sun, December 10, 1970. 5 6 T h e Vancouver Sun, December 15, 1970, pp. 1, 2. The Province, December 15, 1970, pp. 1, 34. Seattle P o s t - I n t e l l i g e n c e r , December 11, 1970. Seattle P o s t - I n t e l l i g e n c e r , December 15, 1970. ^ I h e Vancouver Sun, December 18, 1970. 5 8 The Province, November 5, 1970. 59 The Province, December 21, 1970. 60 61 62 The Province, December 19, 1970. 6 3 The Province, December 22, 1970. 64 The Vancouver Sun, January 12, 1971. 6 5 T h e Province, December 22, 1970. 6 6 The Vancouver Sun, January 31, 1971. 67 The Province, January 13, 1971, p. 17. 'The Vancouver Sun "The Vancouver Sun "The Vancouver Sun 65 68 The Vancouver Sun, January 14, 1971. 69 Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission, State of Washington  E c o l o g i c a l Commission Hearing Regarding Proposal to Raise Ross Dam, Seattle, March 16, and Mount Vernon, March 17, 1971, Volumes I and I I . The Vancouver Sun, March 16, 1971. Seattle Times, March 15, 1971. Seattle Times, March 17, 1971. 7 Q T h e Vancouver Sun, March 17, 1971. 7 1 T h e Vancouver Sun, March 18, 1971. 72 The Province, March 19, 1971. 73 The Vancouver Sun, January 15, 1971. 74 The Vancouver Sun, February 10, 1971. 7^The Vancouver Sun, January 28, 1971. 7 6 The Vancouver Sun, January 30, 1971. 7 7 I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, "Notice of Pub l i c Hearing," The Province, A p r i l 30, 1971. 78 The Vancouver Sun, June 5, 1971. 79 The Vancouver Sun, June 4, 1971. Ibid . 81 The Vancouver Sun, November 17, 1971. 82 John A. Biggs, " P o s i t i o n Statement on High Ross Dam,; F.P.C. project no. 553" ' (Olympia: Washington State Department of Ecology, 1971). Seattle P o s t - I n t e l l i g e n c e r , December 8, 1971. Seattle Times, December 8, 1971. 66 83m, The Vancouver Sun, December 17, 1971. The International J o i n t Commission, Environmental and  Ec o l o g i c a l Consequences i n Canada of Raising Ross Lake i n the Skagit Valley to Elevation 1725 (Ottawa, Canada and Washington, D.C., 1971). 84 The Vancouver Sun, December 17, 1971. 85 The Vancouver Sun, February 3, 1972. 86 Seattle Times, February 8, 1972. The Vancouver Sun, February 15, 1972. 87 The Province, March 3, 1972. 88 Seattle Times, A p r i l 2, 1972. The Vancouver Sun, A p r i l 11, 1972. 89 The Vancouver Sun, A p r i l 8, 1972. '90 The Province, June 1, 1972. 91 The Province, November 18, 1972. The Vancouver Sun, November 18, 1972. Seattle Times, November 18, 1972. 92 The Vancouver Sun, November 18, 1972. Seattle P o s t - I n t e l l i g e n c e r , November 19, 1972. 93 I b i d . 94 The Province, November 18, 1972. 95 The Vancouver Sun, June 12, 1972. 96 The Vancouver Sun, December 7, 1972. 97 The Province, June 9, 1973. 98 The Vancouver Sun, September 19, 1973. The Province, September 19, 1973. 99 The Province, September 22, 1973. 67 1 0°The Province, November 2, 1973. The Vancouver Sun, November 2, 1973. "^The Vancouver Sun, November 15, 1973, p. 17. 102 The Province, A p r i l 4, 1974, p. 11. 103 Dr. Patrick Goldsworthy, interview, Seattle, 11:30 A.M., April 2, 1974. 104 Ken Farquharson, interview, Vancouver, B.C., 8:00 A.M., April 19, 1974. CHAPTER I I I SURVEY OF RELEVANT INSTITUTIONS 69 In t h i s chapter, we want to look at some of the i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements which have been involved i n the High Ross Dam Contro-versy. The d e s c r i p t i o n of the controversy, found i n Chapter I I , gives us an i n d i c a t i o n of which of these i n s t i t u t i o n s have had an e f f e c t on the f i n a l outcome of the controversy. We are interested i n the public hearings associated with these i n s t i t u t i o n s . The d e s c r i p t i o n of the controversy indicates f i v e sets of pu b l i c hearings which have so far sought to sound public f e e l i n g on the controversy. This study looks at four of these hearings: (1) the 1970 Pu b l i c U t i l i t i e s Committee hearings (March 20 through May 25, 1970), (2) the 1971 Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission hearings (March 16-17, 1971), (3) the International J o i n t Commission hearings (June 4-6, 1971), and (4) the Seattle C i t y Council hearing (March 31, 1972). The hearings of the Fe-deral Power Commission are not considered i n t h i s study. These hearings have s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s . The most obvious s i m i l a r i t y i s that they a l l accepted p u b l i c input with regard to the same i s s u e — t h e High Ross Dam Controversy. This i s an important point as i t means that these hearings were a l l d i r e c -ted at an issue involving an i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r . The differences are more obvious. The hearings are held under l o c a l , regional and i n t e r n a t i o n a l a u t h o r i t i e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The Federal Power Commission hearings bring t h i s to the natio n a l l e v e l as w e l l . The r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the respective a u t h o r i t i e s d i f f e r 70 with i n t e r e s t varying from i n t e r n a t i o n a l water use disputes to ec o l o g i c a l p rotection to municipal power production to general municipal government. The r e l a t i o n s h i p s to the decision-makers also vary from having merely advisory powers to power to k i l l the dam. In the rest of t h i s chapter the agencies i n question w i l l be looked at i n terms of what authority they had i n the dispute and i n examination of t h e i r standing rules on pu b l i c hearings. THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION The International J o i n t Commission was established by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 between Canada and the United States. It was charged with the r o l e of s e t t l i n g a l l disputes regarding " r i g h t s , o b l i g a t i o n s , or i n t e r e s t s " of eit h e r .nation or i t s i n h a b i -tants "along t h e i r common frontier.""'" The Treaty set up the Com-mission as a permanent arrangement with authority to make binding agreements between the two nations. Authority The IJC has authority derived d i r e c t l y from the nationa l govern-ments of the respective nations. One of the p r i n c i p a l purposes of the agreement was to e s t a b l i s h a permanent i n s t i t u t i o n . . . free of l o c a l or s e c t i o n a l prejudice... able to act more expeditiously on mat-ters a r i s i n g along the boundary than was—or i s — p o s -s i b l e through usual procedures.2 Thus the IJC was meant as an i n s t i t u t i o n intended as an i n s t r u -ment of the national governments. I t was meant as an " a l t e r n a t i v e 71 3 to resort to the diplomatic channel on a case-by-case b a s i s . . . " It was meant as a go-between between the nationa l governments for settlement of common disputes which had become too numerous for normal diplomatic channels. I t was a standing negotiating committee with delegated powers of sealing decisions between the two nations. FIGURE 3.1 cQqgan-izatiional Chart ' for International J o i n t Commission American Public United States Government Canadian Government Canadian Pub l i c United States Department of State Canadian Department of External A f f a i r s Reference International J o i n t Commission Ad hoc Technical Board Pub l i c Hearings PUBLIC 72 The IJC was also intended to deal with controversial issues in a prompt and equitable manner. Boundary waters disputes, as we have seen, have a highly volatile content and must be quickly de-fused. The Commission, i t was hoped, would be capable of rapid decision. It should be stated that the Commission has been quite 4 successful i n this context, the High Ross Dam Controversy notwith-standing. Certainly a policy of negotiating agreements and even treaties through diplomatic channels on a case-by-case basis would not be efficient, prompt, or equitable. What was needed was a prestigious vehicle for legitimizing agreements. The IJC would be an institution with the authority to seal bargains. The above comments would imply a limitation on the Commission's autonomy. The Commission has not been described as an independent legislature with wide powers but rather as an instrument of the national governments. Clearly the Commission is not an autonomous body with no accountability to i t s respective countries. The Com-mission i s a creature of the two governments. The Commissioners are expected to represent the interests of their respective nations. Hence, they w i l l often receive instructions from their respective governments. Indeed, the High Ross Dam hearings of 1971, as in most issues, were occasioned by the joint reference of the issue to the Commission by the two governments. Applications and References The International Joint Commission acts in two types of circum-73 stances: (1) when applications are made for decisions within the Commission's jurisdiction, by private or governmental entities, with regard to boundary waters, or (2) when the Commission i s granted jurisdiction in issues specifically referred to i t by the respective national governments. Provision has also been made to use the Commission as an arbitration tribunal, but this provision has rarely been used."* Applications. To make application, a national government sub-mits an application complete with as much information as necessary and with stipulations specifying exactly what i s requested. A private person must have his government transmit his application. This was the procedure followed in obtaining the 1942 Order of Approval for raising Ross Dam. The applicant i s required to "fur-nish a l l necessary information and data..."^ Hearings are held ' 8 and the action proceeds according to established procedures. Reference. The increasingly more common form of action by the Commission occurs when the Commission proceeds with a reference. The IJC hearings that we are interested in (1971) were in support of this type of deliberation. A reference to the Commission is a process whereby the Commission receives a request from either of the governments to consider a certain matter. In these cases, consultation between the national governments insures that refer-ence w i l l be well received by the respective governments. The Commission in these cases i s authorized: 74 to examine and report upon the facts and circum-stances of the particular questions and matters referred, together with such conclusions and re-commendations as may be appropriate, subject, however, to any restrictions and exceptions which may be imposed with respect thereto by the terms of reference.9 The decisions i n these cases do not represent decisions on the disposition of the issue, but rather recommendations for action by the governments. The normal procedure is to appoint a board to study the issue and, after publishing i t s report, the Commission holds public hearings. The Commission then reports to the two governments. Meetings Behind the doors of the Commission's meetings for consideration-of issues, discussion has been described as "open, frank, and spirited as well as deliberate... by a permanent body interested in principles rather than short-term expediency.""'"'"' We would expect, then, a clear bargaining process where the long term national interests of the par-ties are considered and, by a process of bargaining, an agreement is reached by compromise and debate based on fact and circumstance. Common ground is built for consensual agreement and f i f t y - f i f t y splits along national lines are avoided. Appeals Once the Commission has approved an application, i t may not change i t s mind in the face of new evidence in contradiction to i t s 75 d e c i s i o n . The Commission acts upon an a p p l i c a t i o n or a reference. Once an Order of Approval i s issued f o r a c e r t a i n a p p l i c a t i o n , the Commission i s r e s t r i c t e d against change or r e v e r s a l of i t s decision."*" It may have l i m i t e d powers to amend i t s d e c i s i o n . However, the authority f o r reconsideration must come from the n a t i o n a l govern-ments. This was to protect the investment of those making a p p l i c a -t i o n . The Commission's r o l e i n reviewing i t s own decisions was l i m i t e d to i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and advice to governments once the matter was r e f e r r e d . In summary, then, the International J o i n t Commission i n issues such as the High Ross Dam Controversy has authority to i n v e s t i g a t e and make recommendations only when the matter has been r e f e r r e d to i t by the governments. I t may consider only what i s r e f e r r e d to i t i n the terms of i t s reference. I t i s expected to develop a recom-mended so l u t i o n upon which the governments can act. Presumably the Commissioners w i l l be able to represent t h e i r respective nation's i n t e r e s t s and negotiate a recommendation with an i n t e r e s t i n set-t l i n g the dispute to the maximum common i n t e r e s t s of the respective nations. I t i s l i k e l y that the Commissioners w i l l seek advice from t h e i r respective governments where the issue i s of great n a t i o n a l importance. The IJC i s thus a permanent v e h i c l e f o r diplomatic > contact on c e r t a i n issues. Organization The Commission consists of s i x commissioners-^-three appointed 76 by the United States and three by Canada. There are two "sections," i n other words, each representing a nation. Each section has a chairman who i s the presiding o f f i c e r f o r meetings of the Commis-sion when i t meets i n h i s country. The Commission i t s e l f i s as-s i t e d by ad hoc t e c h n i c a l boards which do research f o r them. The organization of the Commission i t s e l f " i s quite simple. I t i s small and i n executive sessions i t may operate informally to f a c i l i t a t e 12 free exchange of ideas and f e e l i n g s . Hearings Since the subject of t h i s t hesis i s pu b l i c hearings, including c e r t a i n hearings of the International J o i n t Commission, a discussion of the standing rules which apply to hearings of the Commission would be appropriate. Before a f i n a l p u b l i c hearing i s scheduled, c e r t a i n procedures are followed. F i r s t , as i n the High Ross Dam case, the governments make a j o i n t request for consideration of an issue. In t h i s case the terms of the reference are c l o s e l y s p e c i f i e d as to what i s to be.considered. Technical Boards When the Commission receives the reference, i t then appoints an " i n t e r n a t i o n a l t e c h n i c a l b o a r d " — a panel of experts from both 13 n a t i o n s — t o make a preliminary i n v e s t i g a t i o n . This procedure i s necessary i n cases i n v o l v i n g complex and technical issues which 77 may require time to inves t i g a t e and analyze. These boards may be 14 appointed by the Commission or by the governments themselves. 15 The boards are under the close supervision of the Commission. When the board f i n i s h e s i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i t i s normally required to f i l e a written report on i t s findings with the Commission which 16 the Commission then publishes. The Commission then proceeds to schedule f u l l dress p u b l i c hearings, normally one i n each country i n the areas af f e c t e d , at which any person, even the humblest, i s given an opportunity to com=; ment on the board's f i n d i n g and recommendations. We can get an idea of what i s meant by " f u l l dress p u b l i c hearings" from the "Rules of Procedure" of the Commission. The time of the hearings are set by the Chairmen of the Commission. A majority of 18 the Commissioners i s required to be present at the hearings. The Commission may require further evidence to be given e i t h e r v i v a voce or by d i s p o s i t i o n taken before an examiner. Subpoenas may be issued or obtained by the Commission to compel attendance of wit-19 nesses or production of documents. The Commission may authorize persons to take d i s p o s i t i o n s from witnesses for i n c l u s i o n i n the record. . The length of time (space) a l l o t t e d to t h i s testimony i s determined by the Commission through i t s secretary. B r i e f s , factums, pleadings, and documents may be submitted and the procedures for submitting these materials are s p e c i f i e d and simple. 78 The Commission may decide how many persons are to be heard. It may also decide "what interests may be united for purposes of the hearing." The Commission may determine the duration of the hearings. The hearing is to commence "from day to day" as far as 22 i t "may be practicable" in "the judgment of the Commission." Since both nations are equally represented and the Commission at-tempts to operate on a consensual basis, the duration of the hearings w i l l be based on agreements between the two sections of the Commission that the hearings have not exhausted their useful-ness. In practice, time limits have been set on witnesses and the majority of witnesses wishing to present testimony have had a.chance. In individual cases such procedures may vary, of course, since rules are at the discretion of the Commission. A report of the findings of the Commission is then made available 23 to the two governments. Should no consensus be reached by the Commission, the separate sections may make separate reports to their 24 respective governments. This latter procedure has been rare—-a tribute to the workability of the Commission's process. Once the Commission's work has been completed, i t has no further contact with the issue unless further formal instructions are forth-coming from the respective national governments. The issue is l e f t to the national governments to resolve. THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Authority The Washington State Department of Ecology i s an administrative 79 department of State government. It was established i n 1970 "to protect the right of people to l i v e in a healthful and pleasant environment and to promote the wisest use of the natural resour-ces..." This duty includes statutory responsibility for "water resource management, water pollution control a c t i v i t i e s , air 25 quality control, and solid waste management." These functions were established activities transferred to the new Department. A new duty also given to the Department was "a legislative mandate to be the 'watchdogs' 1 over the environmental resources of the - i- 2 6 state. New responsibilities were immediately added by the State Legislature which rapidly expanded the Department's powers and scope of authority. For our purposes, a new major power, granted by the "Environmental Policy Act," was for the Department to be a "vehicle for public scrutiny of major projects to insure that 27 environmental concerns are taken into consideration." Effec-tively, this meant a requirement for Departmental approval for any major project which potentially could have an effect on the state's environment. The new Department received some challenges in i t s develop-ment as i t sought to define i t s role and powers. These challenges have been met. The position of the Department was firmly estab-lished as the primary state agency with the total environmental programs and responsibilities. In this statutory delegation of authority, Department personnel have served as arbitrator, administrator, consultant and enforcer.28 80 Clearly the Department had authority to rule with the support of the legislature and executive in Washington State. The authority of the Department, however, is subject to some limitation vis-a-vis the U.S. Federal government. A Supreme Court decision in the case of Pelton Dam in the state of Oregon indicated that an applicant did not need to secure a water right under state law as a condition precedent to receiving a licence from the Federal Power Commission. This effectively means that the Federal law takes precedence in water rights issues. The Federal Power Commission 29 could over-rule the State of Washington by court action. The power of the Department could be limited, therefore, i f i t were to challenge the authority of the Federal government. It should be said that the Department's role i s not exclu-sively environmental. The State of Washington has experienced severe economic hardships in recent years. Action brought against some industrial concerns for environmental reasons were cited as prime reasons.for the closure of industry and increased unemploya ment. On the other hand, real abuses of the environment have led to criticism of lax enforcement of environmental laws'. These diverse viewpoints re-emphasized the Depart-ment's position that environmental concerns must be compatible with economic needs. As concerns increase over the best and wisest use of resources, the Department has steadily moved to a role of ar-bitrator in the traditional question between en-vironment versus economics.3^ Organization The Department's organization was the result of a special 81 in-depth management study. The model organizational design was pro-posed by the Stanford Research I n s t i t u t e . The Department i s headed by a D i r e c t o r who i s appointed by the state Governor. Under the Director are the two operating branches— the Public Services branch and the Administrative and Planning branch. Public Services manages the day-to-day operations and Administration and Planning i s concerned with supportive services and in-depth plan-ning and programme development.^ FIGURE 3.2 O^rganiza.ti of Ecology ( L e g i s l a t i v e Branch) (Executive Branch) PUBLIC — State . L e g i s l a t i o n — - Governor' s ' . PUBLIC Leg i s l a t u r e I O f f i c e I ' 1 Washington D i r e c t o r , State Department E c o l o g i c a l of Ecology Commission I Pu b l i c I 1 . P u b l i c Administration earings Services and Planning PUBLIC 82 P u b l i c Involvement The Department of Ecology has been designed f o r p u b l i c p a r t i -c i p a t i o n since i t s inception. The Department i s moving toward de c e n t r a l i z a t i o n to put i t s o f f i c e s c l o s e r to the population i n the various regions of the state. Another design feature aimed at closer l i a i s o n with the p u b l i c i s the Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission. The Commission i s a seven-member advisory body which holds p e r i o d i c meetings i n various locations throughout the state " i n order to get the greatest 32 p a r t i c i p a t i o n on environmental matters from the p u b l i c . " The Commission also holds ad hoc p u b l i c hearings on issues such as the High Ross Dam case. The Commission members are appointed by the governor and drawn according to a s p e c i f i c set of c r i t e r i a established by statute. The Commission must have one member representing organized labour, one member representing the business community, one member representing 33 a g r i c u l t u r e , and four members representing the p u b l i c at la r g e . Commissioners are also chosen with an objective of balancing repre-sentation from d i f f e r e n t regions of the sta t e . This arrangement was intended to stimulate dialogue between various groups of the soci e t y . P u b l i c Hearings The Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission may hold hearings on any matter which the Commission believes i s s i g n i f i c a n t and which f a l l s under the statutory authority of the Department of 83 Ecology. The Department is required by statute to refer any new 35 policy proposals to the Commission for i t s review and comment. In the case of the High Ross Dam, the Director of the Department of Ecology asked the Commission to obtain public input on what position the Department should adopt with reference to the dam. The Depart-ment's authority in the matter derived from i t s powers to grant or deny permits for the creation of a reservoir and the appropriation of water for a certain use. Also, the Director wanted advice on what should be the Department's position i n the Federal Power Com-36 mission Hearings. Ecological Commission hearings can result from two sources then: from an i n i t i a t i v e of the Ecological Com-mission i t s e l f or from the request of the Director of the Depart-ment of Ecology. Hearings of the Ecological Commission may be of two types. One type might be called a "meeting," since i t is more informal. The Ecological Commission meets periodically throughout the year in various locations around the state. A l l of i t s meetings are re-quired by statute to be open.to the public. The members discuss 37 issues among themselves in an informal and candid manner. They may hear witnesses from the audience who make statements and occa-sionally question members of the Department of Ecology staff. Wit-nesses may be supported by the Commission which may ask the Depart-ment staff for additional information or research. These meetings are well attended by staff from the Department, including i t s 38 Director, John Biggs. A second type of hearing held on occasion by the Commission is 84 a f u l l p u b l i c h e a r i n g . T h e s e h e a r i n g s w o u l d b e h e l d w h e n a n i s s u e h a s c r e a t e d w i d e p u b l i c c o n c e r n . T h e s u b j e c t o f t h e s e h e a r i n g s w o u l d b e c l o s e l y d e f i n e d a n d w i t n e s s e s l i m i t e d t o s t a t e m e n t s . O n l y m e m b e r s o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n o r t h e D i r e c t o r o f E c o l o g y a r e a l l o w e d t o q u e s t i o n w i t n e s s e s . R u l e s r e q u i r e d t o m a i n t a i n o r d e r a r e e s t a b -l i s h e d b y t h e C o m m i s s i o n . T h e C o m m i s s i o n h e a r s a n y w i t n e s s e s d e -s i r i n g t o make t e s t i m o n y . Some t i m e a f t e r t h e h e a r i n g s , t h e Com-m i s s i o n m e e t s a n d d i s c u s s e s t h e i s s u e a n d t h e h e a r i n g s i n a n o p e n 39 m e e t i n g . V o t e s o n t h e i s s u e a r e p u b l i c . THE P U B L I C U T I L I T I E S C O M M I T T E E 4 0 T h e P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s C o m m i t t e e i s a s t a n d i n g c o m m i t t e e u n d e r t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e S e a t t l e C i t y C o u n c i l . I t i s c h a r g e d w i t h t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f r e v i e w i n g a l l l e g i s l a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g C i t y u t i l i t i e s p o l i c y p r o p o s e d t o t h e C i t y C o u n c i l a n d m a k i n g r e c o m -m e n d a t i o n s . T h i s w o u l d i n v o l v e r e s e a r c h i n g i s s u e s a n d h o l d i n g p u b l i c h e a r i n g s w h e r e a p p r o p r i a t e . T h e C o m m i t t e e i s c o m p o s e d o f C i t y c o u n c i l m e n a n d e x - o f f i c i o s t a f f . A u t h o r i t y T h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s C o m m i t t e e i n c l u d e s a u t h o r i t y t o r e v i e w a l l l e g i s l a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e C i t y u t i l i t i e s p o l i c i e s . T h i s i n c l u d e s a n y m a t t e r s c o n c e r n i n g t h e C i t y - o w n e d u t i l i t y , S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t . W h i l e C i t y L i g h t i s o p e r a t e d s e m i -85 autonomously, i t must obtain approval of the C i t y Council f o r any major p o l i c y changes. The Mayor of Seattle also has c e r t a i n powers over C i t y Light, but h i s authority may be subject to Council review. In any case where C i t y Council decision may be contemplated, the Publi c U t i l i t i e s Committee may be c a l l e d upon to make an i n v e s t i g a -t i o n . In t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the Committee may request information from C i t y Light which the company i s obliged to report. I t should be noted that i n a l l cases the Publ i c U t i l i t i e s Committee derives from and i s subject to Council authority. Organization The P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Committee i s composed of four of the nine councilmen of the Seattle C i t y Council. The Committee has a Chair-man who presides at meetings and hearings of the Committee. During the hearings investigated i n t h i s study, the Committee u t i l i z e d the services of two hir e d consultants who sat e x - o f f i c i o on the Committee to ask questions and to make a report at the conclusion of the hearings. Hearings The hearings investigated i n t h i s study were held to make a general review of the p o l i c i e s of Seattle C i t y L i g h t . The hearings were general i n nature and rules were determined by the hearings' o f f i c e r s . 86 THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Authority The Seattle City Council is the legislative authority of the City of Seattle. The City Council has the responsibility to con-sider and make decisions on a l l matters which come under the authority of the City. The authority to administrate the policies of the Council is given to the Mayor of the City, who is the City's chief executive. With reference to the High Ross Dam controversy, the City. Council operates as owner, of City. Light with authority to pass legislation determining the general directions of company policy.. This legislation is implemented by the City Mayor through the City Lighting Department. FIGURE 3.3 Organizational Chart for the City of Seattle (Legislative Branch) (Executive Branch) PUBLIC Public U t i l i t i e s Committee I Hearings PUBLIC 'City — Council • Legislation Hearings PUBLIC Mayor's Office I Lighting Department Seattle City Light and Power Authority (City Light) 87 There have been questions r a i s e d as to the cooperation of C i t y Light with t h i s authority. I t has been said that C i t y Light has had a mind of i t s own, stubbornly pursuing p o l i c i e s which i t wanted, with l i t t l e or no supervision from the C i t y . I t has been said that the company's o f f i c e r s come mostly from the company having worked t h e i r way up through the ranks. This i n -breeding has caused a f o s s i l i z a t i o n o f company p o l i c i e s with 41 l i t t l e s p i r i t o f innovation. This has led to considerable c r i -t i c i s m , e s p e c i a l l y i n terms o f the company's lack o f a v i a b l e en-vironmental programme. Recent changes i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n have come about, including the s e l e c t i o n of a Superintendent from out-side the company. Gordon Vlckery, the new Superintendent, was f o r -merly the head o f the Seattle F i r e Department. The company has begun to develop a small embryo o f an environmental programme.4^ The independence o f C i t y Light i s perhaps p a r t l y the legacy o f a C i t y Council and Mayor which have not exercised t h e i r authority to the f u l l . However, i t i s also the legacy of e a r l i e r struggles between the Mayor, the Council, and C i t y L i g h t . In the days of the popular and i n f l u e n t i a l Superintendent James D. Ross, the p o l i -t i c a l influence o f the company may w e l l have exceeded that o f the C i t y government. The i l l u s t r i o u s Ross could appeal to the e l e c -43 torate and bring down elected o f f i c i a l s at the p o l l s . The t i d e may.be turning, however, as the C i t y Council t r i e s to reassert i t s primordial r i g h t s o f authority. But the struggle w i l l be 88 touchy, with City Light employees representing a potent electoral 44 force of over 2,000 and a capacity to frustrate City policy by 45 strikes against City appointed Superintendents. It has been said that one of the blocks to settlement of the current controvery has been the stubborn refusal of City Light to give up the dam despite the City Council's displeasure. Some op-ponents hold City Light accountable for blocking negotiations with 46 the Canadians. City Light o f f i c i a l s claim they w i l l not negotiate because i t would jeopardize their legal standing and their position before the FPC. In any event, i t does not seem that the Council w i l l choose to negotiate u n t i l i t has established some legal advantage, which may come with the possible FPC approval of the dam. In this case, Canadians w i l l have l i t t l e choice but to accept the dam or to pay some compensation to break the agreements. Under these circum-stances, i t i s li k e l y that the Council would assert i t s authority and demand that City Light hold i t s plans in abeyance pending nego-tiations with the Canadians. Of course, should i t choose not to negotiate, i t could build the dam. This does, not seem l i k e l y . Public Involvement The Seattle City Council i s the legislative arm of the City of Seattle. As such i t represents the citizens of the City of Seattle. It is not responsible to persons outside the City, even though some of i t s decisions may affect citizens elsewhere. But, in the case of the High Ross Dam, the Council had the authority to hear testimony 89 from anyone. But i n hearing t h i s testimony, the Council was not bound to act upon what i t heard, and could adopt any p o l i c y which 47 seemed to be i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t of the C i t y of S e a t t l e . Hearings procedure i s set by the Council, which has a President who i s the presiding o f f i c e r of the Seattle C i t y Council. Procedures vary somewhat between hearings. This chapter has surveyed some of the a u t h o r i t i e s which have been involved i n the High Ross Dam controversy. Each of these a u t h o r i t i e s have held hearings. The hearings of these a u t h o r i t i e s w i l l be examined i n the rest of t h i s study. Chapter IV w i l l set out the approach that w i l l be followed i n researching these hearings. Chapter V w i l l present the r e s u l t s of t h i s study. Chapter VI w i l l present the conclusions which have come from t h i s work. 90 FOOTNOTES ^International Joint Commission, 1965, op. c i t . 2 Matthew E. Welsh, "The Work of the International Joint Com-mission," Department of State Bulletin, 59:311-314, September 23, 1968. (Matthew Welsh was Chairman of the U.S. Section of the International Joint Commission at the time of writing.) 3 Griffen, op. c i t . , p. 57. 4 Welsh, op. c i t . ^F. M. •Bloomfield and Gerald F. Fitzgerald, Boundary Waters  Problems of Canada and the United States (Toronto: The Carswell Company, Ltd., 1958). • International Joint Commission, 1965, op. c i t . ^Welsh, op. c i t . g See International Joint Commission, 1965, op. c i t . g "Article IX" of Treaty in International Joint Commission, 1965, op. c i t . "^Welsh, op. c i t . ^Bloomfield and Fitzgerald, op. c i t . , p. 27. 12 Welsh, op. c i t . Ibxd. 14 Bloomfield and Fitzgerald, op. c i t . , pp. 50-51. 1 5 T k ' , l Ibxd. "^Welsh, op. c i t . 91 Ibid. 18 International Joint Commission, 1965, op. c i t . 1 9 I b i d . Ibid. Ibid. 22 Z Z I b i d . 23 Welsh, op. c i t . 24 "Article IX" of the Treaty i n International Joint Commis-sion, 1965, op. c i t . 25 Natural Resources and Recreation Agencies, Annual Report 1971 (Olympia: State of Washington, 1972). Ibid. 27 Natural Resources and Recreation Agencies, Annual Report 1972 (Olympia: State of Washington, 1973). 2 8 I b i d . 29 Federal Power Commission vs. Oregon, 349, U.S. Reports 435 (1955). 30 N.R.R.A. Annual Report 1972, op; c i t . 31 N.R.R.A. Annual Report 1971, op; c i t . 32 J Ibid. 33 Washington, The, Department of Ecology, R.C.W. 43.21 A.170. 34 Arpad'iMasley, M.D., interview, Bremerton, Washington, 1:30 P.M., April 5, 1974. Dr. Mosley i s Chairman of the Washington State Ecological Commission. 92 "^"Masley, interview. 36 John Biggs in his introduction to the March 16, 1971 hearing in Washington State Ecological Commission, Hearings (Olympia, 1971). Mr. Biggs is the Director of the Washington State Department of Ecology. 37 Mrs. Ann Widditsch, interview, Seattle, 3:30 P.M. ,> A p r i l 4, 1974. Mrs. Widditsch is a member of the Commission. 38 Observations, Meeting of the Washington State Ecological Commission, Longview, Washington, April 11, 1974. 39 MasLey, interview. Widditsch, interview. 40 Sources for information regarding the Public U t i l i t i e s Committee are: George Cooley, interview, Seattle, 3:30 P.M., April 1, 1974. Public U t i l i t i e s Committee, Hearing No. 1 through Hearing  No.. 9, March 20 through May 25, 1970 (Seattle, 1970). 41 Richard J. Brooks, interview, Seattle, 3:00 P.M., April 2, 1974. George Cooley, interview. Patrick Goldsworthy, interview. 42 Patrick Goldsworthy, interview. 43 Superintendent J. D. Ross was dismissed from his position by the Mayor of Seattle in 1931. After a recall election defeated the Mayor, Ross was reinstated as Superintendent. See "Campaign Literature on r e c a l l of Mayor Edwards," Municipal Reference Library, 307 Municipal Building, Seattle, Washington. 44 Councilman Timothy H i l l , interview, Seattle, 11:30 A.M.,-April 5, 1974. 45 Nine hundred City Light employees went on strike in April of 1974 while the author was in Seattle conducting interviews. Strikers were protesting the suspension of two line foremen for alleged violations of company policy with regard to rest breaks. Strikers demanded resignation of Superintendent Gordon Vickery, and, significantly, did not get i t . Vickery was a City Council "new blood" appointment. 93 46 Ken Farquharson, interview. David Lemarquand, interview, Vancouver, B.C., 2:30 P.M., April 17, 1974. 47 Councilman Timothy H i l l , interview. o CHAPTER IV THE RESEARCH DESIGN 95 In Chapter I the role of communication i n game type conflicts was discussed. Communication was found to be an essential pre-requisite for participation i n a game.(see pp. 16-18). The role of communication in decision-making systems was also discussed. This role was determined to be essential (see pp. 18-19). The concept of democracy was then analyzed, and some basic attributes specified. The role of communication was indicated to be essential for this form of decision-making system (see pp. 20-24). Finally, the objectives of this study were defined to include a goal of as^ sessing the role and adequacy of communication from the public in the High Ross Dam Controversy (see pp. 24-27). Communication i s thus the central concern of this inquiry. In this study we are concerned with a mechanism by which the decision-makers receive the message from the public upon which they are asked to act."'' This study w i l l seek to evaluate how openly the message was taken and what impediments were involved in the process. Until these impediments are isolated and removed where possible, the system w i l l not be operating with maximum f i d e l i t y . In this chapter, a research design for the assessment of a communication process w i l l be developed. In order to do this, this chapter w i l l proceed according to the following steps: (1) a paradigm communication model w i l l be stated in operational terms, (2) the elements to be focused upon w i l l be described i n greater detail, 96 (3) the normative c r i t e r i a to be used in assessing the specific-communication under investigation w i l l be specified i n operational terms, and (4) the methodology for gathering data for assessment of the performance of the communication system w i l l be described. A PARADIGM COMMUNICATION MODEL 2 The model used in this study i s a paradigm model. A paradigm model as defined here i s a theoretical construction which contains the elements found in any simple communication system. It does not specifically describe the situations existing in the real world. Rather, in order to make sense of this real world, the paradigm model sets a pattern which may be used as a functional overlay on the real world pattern. In this way the communication system may be mapped. This paradigm model could be applied to any communica-tion system, since i t i s an organization of the essential functional requisites of a communication system in i t s simplest form. To clar i f y what is meant by a paradigm model one can consider language paradigms. A paradigm example is used in demonstrating how to conjugate verbs and decline nouns in language training. Anyone who has taken a second language w i l l recognize this familiar form (in this case in Spanish): tengo. I have tenemos we have tienes you have teneis yyou CjCpl) )Lhave tiene he, set, i t has tienen they have In this case the Spanish verb tener—to have—was conjugated. 97 Using this paradigm as an example, a large number of verbs can be conjugated using the same pattern. The same i s true of the paradigm model of communication. It represents a pattern which, by supplying the specifics, can organize the real world communi-cation system conceptually. It can be used for looking at more complex systems. It provides the basic rules for mapping out the pattern found in the real world. The High Ross Dam decision system involves the application of the simple paradigm model to a more complex system. This system i s not the same as the formal organizational descriptions would lead us to believe. This system i s defined to include the set of a l l institutions which have some authority to make decisions which would help determine the f i n a l disposition of the plan to raise Ross Dam. As such independently operating persons and groups are assumed to be functioning as part of the same decision-making system with respect to the dam. Thus, the International Joint Com-mission and the Seattle City Council are assumed to be part of the same decision-making system. They both functionally have some power to make decisions with regard to the High Ross Dam Controversy. The same can be said for other institutions such as the U.S. Congress, the Canadian Parliament, the Federal Power Commission, the British Columbia Legislative Assembly, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and others. Collectively they are the decision-makers in the system of decision-making which determines the fate of the 98 Ross Dam. This i s true even though they are not otherwise a l l d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l y or f u n c t i o n a l l y . But i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r decision case, they form a u n i t — a system. The Paradigm Communication Model The paradigm model here i s simple. I t i s based on communi-3 cation theory, e s p e c i a l l y on the works of K a r l Deutsch ^arid David 4 Easton. This model w i l l borrow generously from each. A communication system i n i t s simplest form has several com-ponents . In a s e l f - s t e e r i n g system (which should include decision systems), a system w i l l "have receptors and e f f e c t o r s , and some feedback channels to connect them.""' Thus we are describing a cybernetic process where there i s i n t e r a c t i o n with the environment i n order to determine what course to pursue. The system has r e -ceptors (intake elements) which " l i s t e n to" or "see" the environ-ment. A walking man i s such a machine—using h i s ears f o r balance and eyes f o r d i r e c t i o n . This man also has e f f e c t o r s , i.e.,' organs f o r moving, i n t h i s case h i s legs. The feedback channels are the eyes and ears again, which t e l l him i f h i s walking i s accomplishing h i s objectives by steering him i n the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n . I f not, the feedback i s then integrated into h i s decision information and used to correct h i s course. The same i s true of any s e l f - s t e e r i n g sys-tem. I t must r e l y on input to see where to go and input to keep i t on course. I t must have e f f e c t o r s which move i t i n the desired d i r e c t i o n s . 99 In complex systems a new element i s required. This i s some sort of memory. The memory is the screening element. It i s the use of the information present in the system including operating instructions which permit i t to evaluate new information. The new information arid the memory interact to produce a new interpre-tation of the status of the environment of a system. According to Deutsch: There must be a stream of 'intake', i.e., of incoming information from the outside world, including the system's own position in i t ; and there must be a sstream'jofrreeallediinformationffrom memory, ttotact upon selection and treatment of intake data from the outside world and on feeding back orders to the effectors for action.? FIGURE 4 .1 A Paradigm Model of Communication in a Decision System (Input (Intake (Screening (Output Element) Element) Element) Element) New —-rf Receptors:——:—:—-Memory>r*——]Decis'ion^ss—""» Effectors -—-New Input Makers Situation """""""""""••*• Feedback *^«»<it ^.-t-"^*' - 1 - ' Message Flow — — : ' 100 This i s a f a i r l y simple model incorporating the elements which most enable us to locate the communication function in the High Ross Dam decision-making system. Effort w i l l be directed at finding the parts of the system which f i t into i t . To assess the system, a rough map of the decision system w i l l be constructed showing basic organizational structures. A l l institutions with the capacity to make fi n a l or instrumental decisions having an influence on the fina l outcome of the issue are collected into the same system. Then the elements of concern are located and examined. These ele-ments w i l l be the components of the communication network of the decision system most essential to our assessment of the system. These elements w i l l be at the interface between the decision system and the citizen—the intake point. The specific intake point of concern here i s that of certain public hearings, to be specified later. The mapping of the system w i l l put these hearings into per-spective with the overall decision system of which they are a part. THE FOCUS OF THIS STUDY: THE INTAKE POINT This study w i l l not be concerned with the entire communication network. Rather, we are concerned with a part of the network where the preferences of citizens are presented to and accepted by the decision-making system. Hence we are not concerned with how c i t i -zens obtained preferences or information about the world. Also, we are concerned with only the intake point; hence we are not con-cerned with either communication or decision-making beyond the 101 intake point. Thus, communication between d i f f e r e n t actors of the decision-making system, or between c o l l e c t o r s of information and decision-makers i s not a cent r a l concern of t h i s study. What then are the points of i n t e r e s t i n the decision-system map? The elements are i n t e r e s t are: (1) the c i t i z e n or input source, (2) the receptor or intake element, and (3) the authority or screening element. These w i l l be defined below. The Input Source The input source i s e s s e n t i a l to t h i s analysis because i t i s the source of communication regarding preferences received by the intake elements. The making input i s defined here as the a c t i v i t y of int e r e s t e d c i t i z e n s i n making t h e i r preferences known to the g decision-makers. The input source i s not s t r i c t l y part of the decision-system, but rather a force which approaches the system 9 from the outside. In t h i s d e f i n i t i o n we are aware of two categories of c i t i z e n : those whouactually made input and those who did not. Those who did attempt to communicate t h e i r preferences are "known" to the system."''0 Those who did not attempt to communicate preferences are "unknown" to the system. This l a t t e r group cannot be e a s i l y spoken f o r . That they did not present input does not imply that they did not have "preferences." But, what we are concerned with here i s what Easton l a b e l s "demands" as opposed to "wants." De-mands are wants or preferences which have been a r t i c u l a t e d with a 102 goal of gaining attention from the decision-making system-; Hence we are concerned with a certain type of preference—an a r t i -culated preference. Unarticulated preferences should be and are the concern of other research,'but w i l l not be dealt with here because of research constraints. One fi n a l point regarding input. Not a l l questions need to become politicized. Preferences should be based on a r e a l i s t i c perception of the world in a rational system. Certain facts can be gathered with some objectivity and their implications evaluated according to individual preferences. In every major project there are technical questions which must be resolved. These might be responded to by an administrative arrangement designed for objec-t i v i t y and legitimacy. Here perhaps some institutional arrange-ment associated with the decision-making system can f a c i l i t a t e consideration of issues by providng reliable information, such as in the case of the IJC technical boards described in Chapters III and V. This arrangement should include the capacity to analyze technical issues according to a procedure widely accepted as ob-jective and thorough. This would mean that persons who are part of this arrangement must either be chosen to eliminate conflict of interest and p o l i t i c a l influence, or they must be balanced so that no one perspective—environmental, developmental or o t h e r — i s domi-nant in the group. These considerations might reduce the duplication involved in each interest group conducting i t s own studies. 103 The Intake Element The intake element is the reciprocal of the input source. The intake element is the mechanism or channel consisting of institutions 12 and procedures which the process employs to accept input. It exists at the interface of the society of citizens and the decision-making system. Although theoretically this mechanism could be considered quite loosely to include perceptions of "public opinion" or "public interest" for example, we are concerned only with a specific type of communication—the public hearing. Thus we are looking at how the system "hears" the preferences of citizens presented by the input source by means of the public hearing. At this point, i t should be made clear that the intake element 13 not only accepts the message, i t also conditions the message. The transmission of the message is conditioned by several factors including the perceptiveness of the receptors and the limitations on the media. If the receptors of a message are unable to ade-quately perceive what has been communicated, the message may be misinterpreted and distorted. An example of this i s the desire of French Canadians to have bilingual administrators in the federal Canadian administration. Significant meanings are lost in translation and many French Canadians are concerned with more precise interpretation of their messages. A second example i s the c a l l for local control i n decision-makings—a callobasedoon the conclusion that remote governments make decisions which do not consider local contexts. The assumption is that more special 104 perceptions of the local context are necessary in order to make local decisions. A second conditioning factor on the transmission of messages is that of the adequacy of the receptors. No single media is capable of transmitting any and every message. Concepts such as "one picture i s worth a thousand words" or "religion i s an experi-ence beyond words," point out two obvious limitations. In decision-making, the receptor of public hearings may not be as democratic in terms of sampling of a wide variety of preferences of the soci-ety at large as some other form of receptor—an opinion p o l l , a referendum, or a letter count. Where possible, a democracy should use the best and most perceptive receptors. The Screening Element The c r i t e r i a for what i s accepted as input determines what input w i l l become part of the output—the decision. The screening element is the activity of determining the scope of input to be 14 accepted. Hence i t is really a functional part of the intake element, though separated here for analytic purposes. The screening element i s controlled by authorities exogenous to the intake element (the public hearing). The screening element or scope of allowable intake for the hearings i s set by institutions and decision-makers not necessarily present at the hearings. In this study, as we shall discuss later, the scope of allowable intake w i l l be very important to our assessment. 105 There are three types of scope we are concerned with. These are: (1) the geographic scope, (2) the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l scope, and (3) the decision scope. These w i l l be defined below. The Geographical Scope. Geographical scope refers to the area of concern of the hearings. I t re f e r s to the geographical boundaries over which the intake element may accept input. This would include the geographic address of the c i t i z e n s who are e l i -g i b l e to t e s t i f y as w e l l as the geographical area to which the study i s l i m i t e d . These areas may be l o c a l , r e g i o n a l , n a t i o n a l , or i n t e r n a t i o n a l . The J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Scope. J u r i s d i c t i o n a l scope r e f e r s to the range of subjects over which the process has authority. Examples of subjects include environmental, l e g a l , resource development, eco-^ -nomic, s o c i a l , administrative, p o l i t i c a l , and so on. Here we are concerned with the range of subject content acceptable f o r intake. The Decision Scope. Decision scope ref e r s to the scope of al t e r n a t i v e decisions upon which the hearings are allowed to accept testimony. I t i s possible that a hearing may be designed not f o r aiding decision-making, but rather as s o c i a l l y therapeutic a c t i v i t i e s or mere f o r m a l i t i e s . On the other hand, they may be seen as having some d i r e c t e f f e c t on a de c i s i o n . They may be l i m i t e d to in f l u e n c i n g p o l i c y i n the way of making minor changes to soften the impact of p o l i c y on c e r t a i n groups. On the other hand, they may be seen as c o n t r o l l i n g p o l i c y i n the way of determining the f i n a l d e c i s i o n . In any case, the type of decision over which hearings may have some influence i s important. The decision could be, i n the case of the 106 High Ross Dam, a decision to block or to allow the dam, or a l e s s e r decision to mitigate environmental damages with the dam or provide f o r compensation and not allowing the-dam. The decision scope thus has a great e f f e c t on the p o t e n t i a l influence hearings may have on decision-makers. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA This study then focuses on the i n t e r f a c e between c i t i z e n s and the decision-makers—the intake point. I t looks as one s p e c i f i c type of i n t e r f a c e — t h e p u b l i c hearings. We want to look toward a set of c r i t e r i a or standards to be used i n assessing these hearings. We want to assess a p a r t i c u l a r process. To do t h i s , c e r t a i n standards must be set. These standards w i l l be normative by d e f i -n i t i o n . They say what the system should be. They w i l l measure the adequacy of the process to f a c i l i t a t e democratic communication. I t i s obvious that these are i d e a l type c r i t e r i a and no system w i l l perform p e r f e c t l y according to them. Therefore, the performance must be measured i n terms of adequate performance given the con-s t r a i n t s operating on the system. Also, these standards are not meant to be exhaustive, but rather to assess c e r t a i n aspects of the democratic nature of the communication system to be studied. The standards set here then should be considered normative i d e a l s and must be seen i n l i g h t of circumstances. The question i s how w e l l does communication support these ideals? Evaluation according to these standards, then, w i l l r e l y h e avily upon d e s c r i p t i v e and 107 analytic observations for assessment, rather than on qualitative ob-servations. We w i l l begin the development of standards by reviewing the attributes of a democracy. In Chapter I, the attributes or principles of a democratic system were li s t e d . These were (pp. 20-23). (1) that decision-makers should be under the effective control of the citizens, (2) that citizens should be able to influence decision-makers, (3) that a l l citizens should be p o l i t i c a l l y equal and have an equal opportunity to have an influence, (4) that every citizen should be free to express his preferences, whether part of the majority or a minority, and (5) that decisions should be made according to the majority principle. Not a l l of these c r i t e r i a are relevant to this study, since we are concerned only with the communication aspect of a democratic deci-sion-making system, whether the decision-makers are under the effec-tive control, i.e., chosen by, the citizens by means of the vote is not a concern of this study. We are concerned with other aspects of democratic systems. In the conduct of a public hearing we are con-cerned that every citizen should be able to influence public decisions, not just to "ventilate." We are concerned that citizens be free to express their preferences and have an equal opportunity to have an influence on decision-makers. We are also concerned that i t be possible for the majority to express a preference, while respecting the rights 108 of m i n o r i t i e s . These concerns w i l l be condensed into operational c r i t e r i a f o r assessment. These c r i t e r i a are (1) e f f i c i e n c y i n operation, and (2) openness .of operation. E f f i c i e n c y of Operation The c r i t e r i a of e f f i c i e n c y of operation i s premised on the as-sumption that a democratic system i s one that f a c i l i t a t e s the accep-tance of useful messages. E f f i c i e n c y means the r e c e i p t of the most r e s u l t s f o r the l e a s t e f f o r t . Here i t i s assumed that the l e a s t e f f o r t required from the c i t i z e n , the more he w i l l be i n c l i n e d to make h i s preferences known. The c i t i z e n ' s time i s precious and he must budget i t . As Robert Dahl puts i t w e l l : Consider time. Without getting o f f to varying p h i l o -sophical poetic, or psychological characterizations of time, l e t us accept the palpable f a c t that your own time i s l i m i t e d . There are, as we a l l too f r e -quently say, only so many hours i n a day. And also i n a year. Or i n a l i f e . The mechanism of time i s absolutely r u t h l e s s . It i s implacably i r r e v e r s i b l e . Once gone, you cannot regain that l o s t second, minute, hour, weekend, youth, l i f e t i m e . In i t s i n t e r a c t i o n s with space, time compels exclusion. When I- write, I cannot play tennis. (It i s a l l very w e l l to l e t one's fancy loose on these matters, but the f a c t i s that when I write I cannot play tennis.) Thus time i n s i s t s upon s a c r i f i c e . In order to do one thing at a p a r t i c u l a r time, I am compelled to forego doing other things. Time i s of value, whether f o r work, play, r e s t , l e i s u r e , creation, puttering, l o v i n g , fighting...15 Thus, decision-makers should consider that 2PJj?<y&&pjt££pji for c i t i z e n s has a cost f o r c i t i z e n s . This i s perhaps one of the most neglected notions i n planning. Decision-making and administration i n a modern, 109 complex society involves attention to more issues and a more.poli-ticized citizenry. Thus planning with increased emphasis on citizen 16 participation has meant citizen input on more and more issues. The danger i s that the level of participation required excludes many from participation who have competing p r i o r i t i e s on their time. The question of participation, then, for the citizen i s not a simple mat-ter. It w i l l depend on a number of factors, according to Dahl. Among these are how much the citizen enjoys participating, how impor-tant the matters under consideration are to him, the differences among possible outcomes without his participation, his a b i l i t y to make a difference in the decision by participating, the likelihood of a decision resulting that he would not l i k e , and his special com-petence with respect to the matters to be considered."^ In many matters he w i l l just not be interested in participation. Therefore, he w i l l probably not participate. This non-participation may not necessarily be detrimental to democracy, however, since as Alexis de Tocqueville said in his clas-sic book, Democracy in America, a democracy with low participation could mean that there are no important concerns about the management 18 of society's affairs. Therefore, we are concerned here with how efficient the system is for those who are participating under the assumption that the more efficient the communication i s presently, the more efficient i t would be when called upon to "hear" more de-mands . Another concern with efficiency i s based on the concern for 110 p o l i t i c a l equality. As mentioned above, different persons s e t f i different p r i o r i t i e s on their time. Thus, for some, pri o r i t i e s may be golf, work, theatre, school. For others, the p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s t , for example, the priority may be participation. They become, in a sense, e l i t e participators. Often they are the ones with the least alternatives on their use of time and money. They are often the most articulate and get the most say. This means that a minority often dominates the channels of communication with the decision-makers. The irony is that beginning with a plea for a channel for democratic input from citizens, the means of obtaining that input could under-19 mine the whole democratic nature of the system. The communication process, therefore, should allow participation within a framework as streamlined as possible, with a minimum of time and cost obstacles to participation. This might mean, for example, a limit to the number of forums to which cases might be submitted, i f this can be done with-out inhibiting responsiveness. It can mean locating hearings closer to the citizen, or at times more convenient for the citizen. If pro-cedures are complex where certain forms of expertise are required, then perhaps these procedures should be simplified where possible. Openness of Operation An important consideration in assessing an intake point is the determination of how open i t i s to citizen input. This would include a determination of what types of citizen input is excluded. In con-sidering openness we want to know what input would be acceptable for I l l intake assuming a citizen were committed to making an input at any cost in effort (level of efficiency). Broadly speaking, to be demo-cratic, decision-makers should be open to input from the citizen. The citizen should not be denied his right to speak ar b i t r a r i l y . This means that a citizen should have a channel to the decision-maker. He should know the rules of participation so that he knows how to participate. And, i f public hearings are not a channel ade-quate for conveying the message, then some alternative channel should be available. Mere openness, however, does not insure democratic communication. The scope of what input i s allowed i s important. For communication to be meaningful, i t should be premised on the possibility that the sys-20 tern can respond. . This means that communication should precede de-cision and that policy should be open to consideration of review and possible modification at a l l times. Beyond this, openness means that the system should be open to unrestricted, non-coercive input. It should give rapid hearings to problems. It should allow for equitable, non-coopted access to the decision-maker. In other words, the com-munication process should be open to input that w i l l be listened to. The question that should be asked, then, i s "how capable i s the process for listening and responding to democratic input?" The action of listening to input i s a very important element in the assessment of the democratic-ness of a p o l i t i c a l system. Communication relays messages to the decision-makers. The message is the stimulus to which the decision-maker responds. The response 112 w i l l not be forthcoming i f the stimulus is blocked. Ultimately the system is inadequate i f i t allows unexpressed feelings to be 22 ignored. Only by listening to a great deal of relevant input w i l l a democracy get the comprehensive information and participation i t needs to function best. Democracies are weakened to the extent that they rely on poor information and ignore valid input. Ultimately, 1 23 alienation can result from such neglect. If policy becomes l i k e "the laws of the Medes and the Persians," where not even the king who has made the policy can change i t , then communication of demands is irrelevant. In communication theory, i t is postulated that decisions 24 w i l l be hardened at some point. This means that at some point decision-makers w i l l necessarily conclude that they have enough i n -formation to make a valid decision and therefore stop receiving input. But hardening must not allow decisions to be frozen in a position greatly inconsistent with the current interests of citizens merely for the sake of hardening. On the other side of the issue, there are constraints upon the capacity of a system to hear input. The scope of reference of the process should be set with discretion. A part of discretion is based on f e a s i b i l i t y . The decision-making process is constrained by cer-tain factors including the availability of the time and money needed to l i s t e n to i t s constituents. Hardening, as mentioned above, is not always arbitrary, but i s necessary due to r e a l i s t i c constraints. Unless new and highly potent information comes to the attention of decision-makers after hardening, they w i l l be obliged to hold to 113 t h e i r d e c i s i o n . Otherwise, response to input from the c i t i z e n s could deteriorate into a meaningless chaos of changing decisions and p o l i c y . This unstable environment would be disastrous f o r c e r t a i n long range .investments which depend on stable d e c i s i o n s — such as hy d r o e l e c t r i c f a c i l i t i e s , education, and so f o r t h . There are some further l i m i t a t i o n s on the f e a s i b l e openness of the decision-making process. Input can greatly a f f e c t the s t a b i -l i t y and perceptiveness of the decision-making system. Input which i s too intense may overload or disable the system—a condition 25 Easton c a l l s "content s t r e s s . " An example of t h i s i n t e n s i t y would be a v i o l e n t input into a non-violent system. This system would have no means of processing the v i o l e n t input and would therefore be unable to respond. Input can also be too extensive and overload the 26 system—a condition that Easton c a l l s "demand input overload." A system which receives too much input on too many subjects thus becomes disrupted. It becomes spread too t h i n and concentrates on some input and ignores other perhaps more important input, whether the input i s too intensive or too extensive, i t can be seen that the perceptions of the decision process of the nature of the input can have an impor-tant bearing on how the process reacts to the input. A d i g e s t i b l e demand i s much more able to obtain a response. Equally r e l e v a n t — t h e d i g e s t i b i l i t y of the input can perhaps determine whether the c o n f l i c t can be resolved by the process. If the input i s too extensive or too intensive, the communication channels beyond the intake point may not be capable of handling the messages. Messages may be confused or l o s t i n transmission. 114 This myriad of messages received by some decision-makers neces-sitates some summarizing and organizing of messages into some coherent and digestible form. This w i l l mean inevitably some modification of the messages. The concern here is that the modification does not distort the input. The decision-maker should see what i s demanded by whom. On the other hand, the decision-maker should not be pre-cluded from seeing the input because i t i s too voluminous. Ultima-tely the decision-maker can only assimilate so much information in the time that he has available and therefore some modification and summarization is necessary. But the message should be accurately conveyed. This means that the channel should present the message in a form readily conveying the meaning of the citizen who sent i t . TARGET DATA The information required w i l l determine the type of methodology required to get i t . According to W. Richard Scott, an authority on organizational research, i t i s the nature of the phenomena under investigation and the objectives of the study which must determine what approaches are taken and what materials are gather-by what methods.27 In the following paragraphs, then, the relevant target data items w i l l be listed. Input Sources Earlier we discussed input sources. The assessment of public hearings must include an appraisal of the role and activities of 115 citizens in making input. The adequacy of an "ear" or receptor can-not be judged without knowing something about the "sound" or message. It i s clear from our discussion of openness that the message may con-dition the response to some degree. A well organized and articulate input may have a greater impact on the decision process than a d i f -fuse and cryptic input. Also, a large input which suggests a consensus of opinion among citizens may be significant to decision-makers. Thus we w i l l want to know certain'things about the input sources i n order to assess the intake process. These things are: (1) the identity i n broad terms of the input sources and their visible organizations and leading spokesmen, (2) an examination of the strategies open to input sources in the hearings and which they used, (3) an examination of the cost to citizens in making testimony at hearings i n terms of expertise, time, or money, and (4) an examination of special impediments and d i f f i c u l t i e s en-countered by citizens and input groups in using these hearings. Identification of input sources (1) w i l l indicate which citizens and groups were included in this study, what their position was, i n reference to the raising of the dam, and what interests or groups they came to the hearing to represent. An examination of the strategies open to these input sources and which they chose to use (2) w i l l i n d i -cate how the citizens prepared for their appearance at the hearing - and how they organized that appearance. This should give some insight i n -to the nature of the message they came with and the receptivity of the intake process to this message. 116 Items (1) and (2) r e l a t e to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the input source and the input. Items (3) and (4) deal with the means a v a i l a b l e to meet the requirements of the intended plan of action. F i r s t , the costs of the p a r t i c u l a r strategy are examined. As t h i s cost i s determined, a de s c r i p t i o n of the means of meeting these costs can be s p e c i f i e d (3). F i n a l l y , an examination of the d i f f i c u l t i e s and impediments encountered by the input sources i n using these s t r a t e g i e s sheds l i g h t on the ade-quacy of these resources and s t r a t e g i e s . I t should be remembered, of course, that the purpose of t h i s study i s to look at the openness and e f f i c i e n c y of the hearings process. Thus, examination of the input target items i s meant as an approach to.assessing t h i s process. I t i s not meant for assessment of the input sources. Intake Elements A key factor i n assessing the communication process i s an examina-t i o n of the intake element i t s e l f — t h e p u b l i c hearings. The intake element can condition the transmission of the message. This i s a basic assumption of t h i s work. I t can condition the message by not being open (openness), or making i t d i f f i c u l t to present the message ( e f f i c i e n c y ) . What we want to know i s how the intake element per-forms according to our c r i t e r i a . To make t h i s assessment, we must look at the following items: (1) an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the intake elements (public hearings) under study, (2) an examination of the p h y s i c a l arrangements, recording, and announcement of the hearings, 117 (3) an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the operating rules and procedures of the hearings, (4) an analysis of the volume of testimony received at the various hearings, (5) an analysis of the shares of time used at hearings for d i f -ferent c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of witness, (6) a d e s c r i p t i o n of the expertise a v a i l a b l e on hearings boards for understanding and perception of testimony received, and (7) an examination of the tec h n i c a l and research support a v a i l a b l e to the intake hearings boards. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the hearings to be investigated (1) indicates which hearings were included i n t h i s study. This also includes re-ference to other hearings which were pertinent. Examination of the phy s i c a l arrangements (2) helps to i d e n t i f y the hearings by gi v i n g t h e i r l o c a t i o n and times. Arrangements f o r announcement (2) indicates the attempts made by hearings o f f i c e r s to n o t i f y a l l affected persons of hearings p o t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t to them. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the operating rules of the hearings (3)^ i n d i -cates the boundaries within which the witnesses must act i n order to make use of the hearings. These rules and procedures immediately con-d i t i o n what i s accepted at the hearing. Time r u l e s , for example^, may determine the extensiveness or intensiveness of a message or b r i e f d elivered. This may encourage conciseness or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , discourage thoroughness or effectiveness. Analysis of the volume of testimony presented at the hearing (4) 118 and how i t was d i s t r i b u t e d among witnesses (5) indicates the actual a c c e s s i b i l i t y of witnesses to the ' f l o o r ' of the hearing. I t also indicates something of the enforcement of the hearings r u l e s . Examination of the expertise a v a i l a b l e on the hearings board (6) and i n supporting c a p a c i t i e s associated with the boards (7) indicates how perceptive the hearings board may be i n judging the v e r a c i t y of testimony. The Screening Element The screening element i s concerned with the scope of allowed intake. Certain types of input are c l e a r l y not permissible at a p u b l i c hearing on a h y d r o e l e c t r i c dam—such as a recipe for apple pie. On the other hand, c e r t a i n types of input should have a channel (openness) and that channel should not be unnecessarily d i f f i c u l t ( e f f i c i e n c y ) . To apply the c r i t e r i a of e f f i c i e n c y and openness to the communication process studied here, we must look at the following: (1) an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the a u t h o r i t i e s s e t t i n g the terms of reference (scope of allowed intake) for the hearings, (2) a l i s t i n g of relevant rules for determining t h i s scope, (3) the r a t i o n a l e f or p a r t i c u l a r l i m i t a t i o n s upon what i s acceptable for intake, (4) a determination of the scope of coverage these rules per-mit, and (5) an assessment of the organization of the intake necessitated by t h i s scope. 119 The identification of the authorities determining the scope of coverage of the intake process (1) is useful i n assessing the reasons for the scope of reference. It identifies the source of the limita-tions upon the scope. The l i s t i n g of the rules for determining the scope (2) is neces-sary before the rationale for this scope (3) can be determined. This rationale must be taken into consideration i n assessing the hearings process. Also relevant is the scope of coverage the rules permit (4) which indicates how open the hearing is and the organization of input required (5), which indicates how efficient the hearings are. METHODOLOGY . This study employs a package of methodologies i n i t s research design, rather than a single method. This is considered a superior approach for this study. According to W. Richard Scott, the study design specifies the kinds of data which must be assembled by the researcher to f u l f i l l the objectives of the investigation. Where a number of different kinds of material are called for, the re-searcher must be prepared to employ a variety of techniques i n his study.^ The methodologies employed i n this study were chosen on the basis of what data was needed. Where possible, the most appropriate method was used after promising opportunities presented themselves.. Availabi-l i t y of transcripts of hearings, for example, led to use of a simple form of content analysis which had large returns for minimal time involved. In this research, then, the advise of Bollens and Marshall 120 was followed: Having become f a m i l i a r with the strengths and weak-nesses of the d i f f e r e n t methods for gathering empi-r i c a l evidence, the researcher should be ready to sel e c t the methods best f i t t e d to the problems he has chosen f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The techniques he selec t s should give the most accurate and pertinent information on the to p i c . Ingenuity i s a c r u c i a l t r a i t at t h i s stage. He might ask, What i s i t I want to know? What methods w i l l give me the i n f o r -mation I need?29 A second facet of t h i s approach i s to employ a multi-method approach. Rather than employing one si n g l e method widely, a set of approaches were used. These approaches were arranged i n a pattern to r e i n f o r c e the data stemming from other approaches. According to Bollens and Marshall: T y p i c a l l y a decision i s made to combine several methods because of the strengths and shortcomings can compensate for each other. D i v e r s i t y gives h e l p f u l multiple f i x e s on a problem. Thus, unstruc-tured interviews with selected planners i n a given c i t y can supplement questionnaire r e s u l t s from a wider spectrum of planners.30 In t h i s study several avenues proved f r u i t f u l : (1) a review.of newspapers, p e r i o d i c a l s , reports, and books, (2) a simple content analysis of the t r a n s c r i p t s of testimony at pertinent hearings, and (3) directed interviews with selected persons who had been associated with the controversy or p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the hearings. The Methods Used Below i s a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the methodologies which were used i n t h i s study. (1) A review of newspapers, p e r i o d i c a l s , reports, and books. In order to understand a hearing, or any event for that matter, i t 121 i s useful to understand the context of that event. To do this an extensive newspaper survey was embarked upon which included review of over 400 news a r t i c l e s . To balance the impact of e d i t o r i a l biases a l l four of the major newspapers of Seattle and Vancouver, B.C. were searched. This was supplemented by review of various periodicals including the Seattle City Light News and the Wild Cascades. Certain books were h e l p f u l , including Waterfield's book The Continental Water-31 boy. Several reports were useful including those o f the various hearings, tribunals, and interest groups. (2) A simple content analysis of the transcripts of testimony at pertinent hearings. In t h i s study, there seemed to be a need for some indicator of the amounts of time allocated to each side of the controversy. Access to the rostrum i s a c r u c i a l indicator o f the openness o f a hearing. One way to measure access was by looking at the rules announced for p a r t i c i p a t i o n . However, the rules do not indicate exactly how the hearing was operated. Thus, a rough measure of time a l l o c a t i o n was used. This consisted simply o f counting the 32 l i n e s o f testimony appearing i n the transcripts o f the hearings. The number of l i n e s allocated to each side and to various c l a s s i f i c a -tions of witness \was= determined. Insight gained from this method was compared with evidence gathered through interviews. (3) Interviews with selected persons. Several people were interviewed. Each o f these was i n some way a participant i n th i s issue. The sample i s not considered large or representative i n the sense o f a survey research modality. Rather, these interviews were 122 an attempt to reach a balanced group of key i n d i v i d u a l s . These i n d i v i d u a l s were not rank and f i l e p a r t i c i p a n t s , but leaders on both sides of the issue and on the hearings boards. I t i s con-ceded that a d i f f e r e n t set of answers might be obtained from the rank and f i l e or from those not involved. The conclusions of t h i s study must bear t h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n . The interviews themselves varied from an interview i n the lobby of theSSeattleKMuMcipal Building to one i n the o f f i c e of the Super-intendent of Seattle C i t y L ight. Without exception interviewees were gracious and unexpectedly candid i n l i g h t of t h e i r very busy schedules and the t r i c k y l e g a l and p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s at the time. The interviews were dire c t e d at gathering s p e c i f i c pieces of information, but were not structured c l o s e l y . Respondents were not held r i g i d l y to plan and frequently opened new and highly pertinent avenues with t h e i r ideas. The r e s u l t of t h i s semi-structured approach was a great deal of valuable i n s i g h t based on much c o l l e c t i v e experience. The important point to remember i s that these methods are i n -tended to be used i n tandem, not separately. In t h i s way there, are checks on the v a l i d i t y of information gathered by one source i n i n -formation gathered from another. The next chapter w i l l apply t h i s approach to an analysis and assessment of the pu b l i c hearings concerning the r a i s i n g of Ross Dam on the Skagit River. 123 FOOTNOTES "''See David Eastern, A Systems Analysis of P o l i t i c a l L i f e (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965), p. 25 f f . 2 For a t h e o r e t i c a l discussion of paradigms, see Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of S c i e n t i f i c Revolutions (Chicago: The Unive r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1962). 3 K a r l W. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (New York: The Free Press, 1963). , Nationalism and S o c i a l Communication (Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1953), esp. pp. 165-186. , The Analysis of International Relations (Engle-wood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1968), esp. pp. 74-86, 112-132. , "Communication Models and Decision Systems," i n James G. Charlesworth (ed.), Contemporary P o l i t i c a l Analysis (New York: The Free Press, 1967), pp. 273-299. 4 Easton, op. c i t . ^Deutsch, 1965, op. c i t . Deutsch, 1965, op. c i t . , p. 167. Easton, op. c i t . , p. 55. Easton c a l l s memory "withinputs." ^Deutsch, 1965, ibp. c i t . , p. 167. 8 Easton, op. c i t . , pp. 26-27. 9 Easton, op. c i t . , pp. 38-39. "^Easton, op. c i t . , pp. 41-47. "'""'"Easton, op. c i t . , p i 70 f f . 1 2 I b i d . , pp. 87-97. 1 3 I b i d . , p. 90. 1 4 I b i d . , p. 128 f f . 124 ^Robert Dahl, After the Revolution? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), pp. 42-43. """^Easton, op. c i t . , p. 64. """^ Dahl, op. c i t . , pp. 46-47. 18 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (New York: The New American Library, 1965). 19 Dahl, op. c i t . , pp. 40-56, and Easton, op. c i t . , pp. 57-68. 20 Easton, op. c i t . , p. 18. 21 Ibid., p. 66. 22 Ibid., pp. 31-33, and Amatai Etzioni, P o l i t i c a l Unification (New York: Holt, Rine-hard and Winston, Inc., 1965), pp. 74-77. 23 Etzioni, op. c i t . 24 Deutsch, 1953, op. c i t . , pp. 165-186. Easton, op. c i t . 2 6 I b i d . , pp. 57-59. 27 W. Richard Scott, "Field Methods in the Study of Organizations," in James G. March (ed.), Handbook of Organizations (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1965), p. 269. 28 Scott, op. c i t . , p. 269. 29 John C. Bollens and Dale Rogers Marshall, A Guide to P a r t i c i -pation (Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973), p. 40. Ibid. Donald Waterfield, The Continental Waterboy (Toronto: Clarke, Irwin Company Ltd., 1970). 125 In this case, the definition of a "line" i s any portion of a line over one-half of a line on a transcript of a hearing. This is about.ten words or six seconds i f a reader covers 100 words per minute. CHAPTER V • RESULTS AND'ANALYSIS 127 The purpose of this chapter i s to reveal what was discovered through research conducted upon the hearings held in connection with the raising of Ross Dam. This w i l l begin with a rough descrip-tion of the larger decision system to which these hearings belong. Following this, the pertinent elements of that system which were defined in Chapter IV w i l l be examined more closely. THE DECISION SYSTEM In Chapter IV, the concept of a paradigm communication model was discussed. It was shown how a paradigm model i s used to find patterns in real world activities or phenomena. In the case of the High Ross Dam, we are concerned with a decision-communication model which includes the set of a l l institutions which have some authority to make decisions which would help to determine the f i n a l disposition of the plan to raise Ross Dam. This would include the Seattle City Council, the State of Washington and i t s Department of Ecology, the U.S. Federal Power Commission, and the International Joint Commission. It would also include the United States and Canadian federal governments and the British Columbia government. Figure 5.1 gives an interpretation of how these institutions are interrelated in the same system with respect to decision-making on the Ross Dam. Note that each of these institutions i s related to the others either directly or indirectly. A more precise des-cription of the separate institutions i s found in Chapter III. This map was constructed according to the procedure outlined FIGURE 5.1 Citizen Communication Map of High Ross Dam Decision System U.S. Federal Government CITIZENS International Authority U.S. — CITIZENS Can. CITIZENS U.S. Govt. U.S. State Dept. Canadian Dept of External Affairs • Can. Govt, HEARINGS State Executive ' (Governor) / Department  of Ecology Washington State Government State —^Legislature CITIZENS Washington State Ecological Commission HEARINGS CITIZENS Lighting Department I Seattle City Council HEARING CITIZENS *Underlined authorities are institutions holding hearings on the issue. Seattle City Government CITIZENS CITIZENS HEARING I CITIZENS 129 i n Chapter IV. The information supporting t h i s model i s taken from Chapter I I I and from interviews."'" The hearings of i n t e r e s t soon become cl e a r . These w i l l be l i s t e d l a t e r . The intercon-nections between hearing boards (intake elements) should be borne i n mind i n succeeding analyses. THE COMMUNICATION ELEMENTS The elements of a communication system i s o l a t e d in^Chapter IV as relevant to t h i s inquiry were the input source, the intake e l e -ment, and the screening element. For the sake of c l a r i t y , the order of presentation used so f a r w i l l be a l t e r e d — t h e input element being considered l a s t . In the following pages a summary of the data gather-ed concerning these elements w i l l be given. , THE INTAKE ELEMENT The .'.n:aVe E l e m ^ ' The intaketelementcwasudefihedrxinyGhap.teroIVtsdThe intake e l e -ments to which t h i s study i s l i m i t e d are the pertinent p u b l i c hearings. The information important to assessment of the openness and e f f i c i e n c y of the p u b l i c hearings i s s p e c i f i e d i n the target items l i s t e d i n Chapter IV. These were: (1) an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the intake elements (public hearings) underdstudy, (2) an examination of the p h y s i c a l arrangements, re-cording, and announcement of the hearings, (3) an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the operating rules and pro-cedures of the hearings, (4) an analysis of the volume of testimony received aatt'thevvarioushheaf ings, (5) an analysis of the shares of time used at hearings I f o r d i f f e r e n t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of witness, 130 (6) a description of the expertise available on hearings boards for understanding and perception of testimony perceived, and (7) an examination of the technical research sup-port available to the intake hearings boards. These w i l l be considered below. (1) Identification of the intake elements (public hearings) under  study. From searching the newspapers, transcripts of hearings, and interviews, the relevant hearings were determined. Relevant hearings are defined here to include a l l hearings at which testimony (input) on the High Ross Dam was made in 1970 or after. There were at least 14 hearings at which testimony on the Skagit was delivered. These are: 1. The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee, Hearing # 1, March 20, 1970. Seattle City Council 2. The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee, Hearing # 2, March 26, 1970. Seattle City Council 3. ' The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee, Hearing # 3, March 31, 1970. Seattle City Council 4. The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee, Hearing # 4, April 8, 1970. Seattle City Council 5. The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee, Hearing # 5, April 16, 1970. Seattle City Council 6. 1 The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee, Hearing # 6, May 1, 1970. Seattle City Council 7. The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee, Hearing # 7, May 7, 1970. Seattle City Council 8. The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee, Hearing # 9, May 25, 1970. Seattle City Council (The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee hearings were held as a general review of a l l of the policies of Seattle City Light and dealt with other issues in addition to the High Ross Dam. Hearing # 8 did not deal with the issue at a l l . See Appendix A for a description of individual hearings.) 9. The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee', Seattle City Council Special Public Hearing, December 1970. 131 10. The Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission, Seattle Hearing, March 16, 1971. 11. The Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission, Mt. Vernon Hearing, March 17, 1971. 12. The International J o i n t Commission, aeir±nghatt'«Hearing-J»f-une '3|7l971. 13. The International J o i n t Commission, Vancouver, B.C. Hearing, June 4 and 5, 1971. 14. The Seattle C i t y Council Hearing, Seat t l e , March 31, 1972. In addition to these hearings, the U.S. Federal Power Commission i s planning to hold three hearings on the High Ross Dam. These hearings have been repeatedly postponed. They are: 1. The Federal Power Commission, Seattle Public Hearing (date undetermined) 2. The Federal Power Commission, Bellingham Pu b l i c Hearing ( A p r i l 23, 1974) 3. The Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C. Evidentiary Hearing (date un-determined) This study does not d i r e c t l y consider the Federal Power Commission hearings. Mention of them i s made to include a l l known hearings i n 1970 or a f t e r . At the conclusion of the F.P.C. hearings, 17 hearings w i l l have been held on the High Ross Dam, assuming no other agencies undertake hearings on the issue. (2) An examination of the p h y s i c a l arrangements, recording, and  announcement of the hearings. The p h y s i c a l arrangements of the p u b l i c hearings u s u a l l y involved the h i r i n g of a pu b l i c auditorium or theatrei-or u t i l i z i n g government f a c i l i t i e s . E f f o r t was made to provide enough room f o r the expected crowd. Hearings were located i n a c e n t r a l l o c a t i o n i n each c i t y . 132 In the paragraphs below, the c i t i e s where hearings were held are s p e c i f i e d . Hearings were recorded i n a l l cases and a d e s c r i p t i o n of r e -cording procedures i s found below. 2 The importance of wide n o t i f i c a t i o n was w e l l recognized. Interest groups saw the job of getting supporters to the meeting as 3 having a c r u c i a l impact. The P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Committee Hearings. The hearings of the Publ i c U t i l i t i e s Committee were a l l held i n the Seattle Municipal B u i l d i n g . The hearings were held on weekday evenings of d i f f e r e n t weeks. Hearings were recorded on tape and transcribed to typed copy and xeroxed. They were sold at cost to the p u b l i c . The q u a l i t y of the t r a n s c r i p t s v a r i e d , due to poor q u a l i t y tape. There were f r e -quent to occasional gaps i n text. Witnesses were wrongly • i d e n t i f i e d i n places. I t should be stated at t h i s point that producing trans-c r i p t s i s sometimes expensive and taping i s r e l a t i v e l y l e s s expensive. The tape system used in.1970 was replaced i n 1971.'' Written statements were presented at several of the hearings. These were included with the t r a n s c r i p t s f o r pu b l i c release. They represent a small amount of time i n most cases, but i n some cases do e n t a i l s u b s t a n t i a l e f f o r t . In the case of City Light, f o r example, the costs were very high. N o t i f i c a t i o n of hearings was p r i n c i p a l l y c a r r i e d out through a mailing l i s t which grew between hearings. Ultimately, i t reached 133 over 500 names of interested persons and groups. Some notification was accomplished through citizen efforts at encouraging their peers to show concern through numbers.7 The Washington State Ecological Commission Hearings. The W.S.E.C. hearings were held in Seattle and in Mount Vernon, Washing-ton. The hearings were held during the day and occupied a f u l l day's time each. They were held during working days (Tuesday and Wednes-day, respectively). The hearings were recorded by special reporters who transcribed testimony to typed copy which was xeroxed and made available to the public at cost. Hearings transcripts were of high quality. Written statements were often included along with or in place of oral testimony. In some cases, written statements represented great g expense and effort by the witnesses. These efforts were given great 9 attention by the Commission which "read everything" presented. This included "two boxes" of written statements. Obviously, to print this material for public sale at cost would not be economic. Written statements were not included in the transcript release. Notification of the hearings was implemented through a legally prescribed procedure supplemented by special attempts at getting the message spread. These procedures include such activities as dis-tributing press releases, using selected mailing l i s t s , and making telephone contacts with the media. In addition, newspapers in the United States and Canada carried stories on the hearings. New pro-cedures adopted following May of 1973 have strengthened this policy 134 of wide notification.."'"""' The International Joint Commission Hearings. Hearings were held in Bellingham on Thursday, June 3, 1971, and in Vancouver, B.C., on Friday.and Saturday, June 4 and 5, 1971. No hearings were held in Seattle presumably because the hearings were meant to consider en-vironmental effects in Canada from the High Ross Dam. Testimony was recorded by Commission reporters, transcribed to typed copy, xeroxed, and made available to the public at cost. The transcripts are of high quality. There were a certain number of written statements f i l e d with the Commission. These were not released with the transcripts because the volume of written statements precluded economic reproduction. The public owas notified through announcements published by the Commission in local newspapers. News articles gave substantial coverage to the hearings, giving them substantial publicity. Interest groups also helped to spread the word. The Seattle City Council Hearing. The Seattle City Council held a hearing on Friday, March 31, 1972, at the Seattle Center in Seattle. The hearings were taped. There was a rumor that the tapes were transcribed, but the whereabouts of both tapes and transcripts i s unknown."'""'" Copies of written statements submitted are on f i l e at the Seattle Municipal Building. The exact procedures used for notification of the public were not ascertained. There were news stories covering the hearings. 135 (3) An identification of the operating rules and procedures of the  hearings. Two types of rules were evident in the hearings: rules respec-ting order and rules respecting the allocation of time among wit-nesses . Rules respecting order were established to maintain an atmos-phere conducive to orderly presentation of testimony and protection 12 of the witnesses from interruptions by the crowd. In a l l hearings questioning of the witnesses was the prerogative of the hearings boards, although there were occasional questions from the crowd in some hearings. Questions could be suggested to the boards during oral testimony. Applause was generally limited to the period im-mediately following the witness' oral statement and was discouraged during the presentation'of the statement. At the Public U t i l i t i e s Committee hearings, placards were prohibited. Rules were not a l -ways rigidly enforced and exceptions could be allowed as long as the hearings were not disrupted. Witnesses were generally allowed substantial freedom in choosing how they wanted to make their statement. Witnesses deliver-ed testimony in the form of slide shows and self-written songs and 13 poems. These forms of testimony seemed generally accepted but there were respondents who f e l t such testimony was a misuse of 14 time. Testimony where witnesses delivered emotional speeches with l i t t l e informational or rational content were generally dis-A 15 couraged. Rules respecting time allocations varied somewhat among hearings. The necessity for some type of time limit on speakers 136 was unquestioned. The exact rules, however, are disputed. One respondent indicated that listening to a l l witnesses was wasteful and unnecessary. He suggested that at a busy hearing, every f i f t h person on the speakers l i s t should be heard. It was his opinion that open hearings are fine, but i f the hearings are too open the people who are most affected are driven away. Lack of ri g i d time 16 limits can lead to a "f i l i b u s t e r " of the issue. Most respondents, however, f e l t that everyone could state his position briefly and hand in a longer written statement."''7 Brevity 18 was considered important, but i t was f e l t that everyone should 19 have a f a i r and equal say. A problem,hhowever, was recognized in granting a f a i r and equal say. Time rules at the hearings usually granted a special block of time to City Light. There were complaints of a lack of 20 time for rebuttal. Finding some group to represent the opposite 21 side was suggested. There was some question as to who, in fact, 22 represented "the party of the second part." The rebuttals thus 23 were piecemeal in most cases, testimony of the N.C.C.C. coalition and the R.O.S.S. Committee excepted. Another problem mentioned was the problem of,hearing individual 24 witnesses at the end of the hearing. This discouraged citizens who might be "scared," or might, not allow them a chance to speak. The procedures for registering to speak were simple in a l l cases, usually amounting to signing up when arriving at the hearing. The procedure was frequently announced during the hearing. 137 The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee Hearings. There were eight P.U.C. hearings which dealt with the dam. There were su b s t a n t i a l differences i n the rules applied with regard to time between i n d i v i d u a l hearings. It should be remembered that these hearings were often not designed to look s p e c i f i c a l l y at the Skagit. Other issues such as Cit y Light f i -nancing, the Kiket Island nuclear plant, and underground w r i t i n g p o l i -c i e s were also considered (see Appendix A). The intended plan of time a l l o c a t i o n s which was started at the beginning of the hearings was to allow blocks of time to three c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of witness: (1) a block of time, usually an hour or more, was all o c a t e d to Cit y Light o f f i c i a l s to describe company po s i t i o n s and p o l i c i e s with r e -gard to the topic selected for the hearing, (2) a second block of time was devoted to public input, usually an hour or more, and (3) a smaller block of time, usually h a l f an hour, was a l l o c a t e d to hearings board members and s t a f f to ask questions of any witnesses. This format was not c l o s e l y adhered to. Generally speaking, c i t i z e n witnesses were implored to take f i v e minutes or less to state t h e i r testimony. Ten minutes was set as the upper l i m i t . Upper l i m i t s were not s t r i c t l y enforced. The Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission Hearings. The format of the W.S.E.C. hearings allowed f o r two blocks of time. The f i r s t period was devoted to the presentation of the case f o r the dam by testimony from Ci t y Light and i t s o f f i c i a l witnesses, followed by a second period with testimony from the general p u b l i c . The testimony i n the l a t t e r period was to be l i m i t e d to f i v e minutes f o r groups and three minutes f o r i n d i v i d u a l s . In several cases testimony was 138 allowed to exceed the limits. During this second period, testimony was f i r s t heard from government representatives, then from groups and organizations, and f i n a l l y from individuals. Toward the end of the hearing, witnesses were implored to avoid repeating testimony made by earlier witnesses and several witnesses did not deliver a l l of their statements. The reason for this was the length of the hearings and the number of witnesses. Toward the end of the hearing, the chairman encouraged witnesses to hand in written statements and summarize them orally. The International Joint Commission Hearings. A substantial block of time was reserved at the beginning for City Light to pre-sent o f f i c i a l witnesses to explain i t s case for the dam. Following this presentation, witnesses from the general public were allowed five minutes per group and three minutes per individual to make statements. These rules were not always enforced s t r i c t l y . Toward the end of the hearing, as i n the W.S.E.C. hearings, witnesses were encouraged to avoid repeating earlier testimony. The Seattle City Council Hearing. The exact rules for the a l -location of time among witnesses was not ascertained. (4) An analysis of the volume of testimony received at the various  hearings. (5) An analysis of the shares of time used at hearings for different  classifications of witnesses. The analysis of the volume of testimony heard at the hearings and i t s distribution among witnesses relies upon the transcripts of the hearings. The index used for measuring this time was based on 139 the number of l i n e s i n the t r a n s c r i p t s used f o r a s p e c i f i c purpose. This means that the S.C.C. hearing can not be gauged since trans-c r i p t s were unavailable. Consideration of the P.U.C. hearings i s li m i t e d mainly to P.U.C. hearings # 5 and # 7, since these are the hearings where testimony concentrated upon the High Ross Dam. There are several variables which we w i l l consider i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . These are: A. The t o t a l number of witnesses appearing at each hearing and the p o s i t i o n they represented. B. The t o t a l volume of testimony delivered i n favour of and against the dam. C. The t o t a l amount of testimony delivered by selected c l a s s i -f i c a t i o n s of public witnesses i n c l u d i n g : 1. C i t y Light witnesses vs. a l l other witnesses, 2. Canadian witnesses vs. American witnesses, and 3. C o a l i t i o n witnesses vs. a l l other witnesses. The data c o l l e c t e d w i l l be presented below. A. The t o t a l number of witnesses appearing at each hearing and the p o s i t i o n they represented. In a l l , witnesses made 212 appearances at the hearings studied. Some of these witnesses appeared at several of the hearings. Table 5.1 l i s t s the number of witnesses at each hearing by hearing and by the p o s i t i o n they represented. I t should be noted that many of the witnesses i n favour of the dam were representing City Light. 140 TABLE 5.1 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Witnesses by Hearing and P o s i t i o n P o s i t i o n Hearing Pro Con Neutral Unknown Tota l P.U.C. # 5 5 22 1 0 28 P.U.C. # 7 3 3 1 0 7 W.S.E.C. (Seattle) 24 43 1 7 75 (Mt. Vernon) 19 35 2 0 56 I.J.C. (Bellingham) 5 9 2 0 16 (Vancouver) 4 26 0 0 30 TOTAL 60 138 •7 7. 212 B. To t a l volume of testimony delivered i n favour of and against the dam. In order to measure the volume of testimony delivered at the hearings, the l i n e s of testimony appearing i n the t r a n s c r i p t s of the hearings were counted. Any portion of a l i n e over one h a l f of a l i n e was counted as a l i n e . The r e s u l t s are reported i n Table 5.2. 141 TABLE 5.2 Lines of Testimony at Hearings, by P o s i t i o n on Dam Lines Lines Lines To t a l Hearing Pro Con Neutral P.U.C. Hearing # 5 516 1394 0 1910 Hearing # 7 713 563 0 1276 W.S.E.C. Seattle 2334 2439 70 4843 Mt. Vernon 2141 2369 54 4564 I.J.C. Bellingham 1426 1961 226 3613 Vancouver 1291 134652 .222 6165 TOTAL 8421 13,378 572 "22,371 I t i s clear from the above that witnesses i n opposition to the dam had more time at the rostrum c o l l e c t i v e l y than those i n favour. In f a i r n e s s , i t should be said that most witnesses who came to the hearings were heard from. Also, the reader should note that i n the end, i t i s not how much i s said , but what i s said and how w e l l i t i s said, which counts. The above f i g u r e s , however, give-an i n d i c a t o r of access to the rostrum. It should be noted, however, that C i t y Light witnesses had s p e c i a l , blocks of time a v a i l a b l e to them. This time was not regulated by the normal time r u l e s . On the other hand, the opponents were under time 142 rules which s p e c i f i e d l i m i t e d periods from three minutes to f i v e or ten minutes for presentations. Thus, while these figures i n d i c a t e that opponents to the dam did have access, they ddri not i n d i c a t e that they had the same type of access. Indeed, i t could e a s i l y be posited that, i f there were no s p e c i a l time r u l e s , opponents would have given a good deal more testimony. C. The t o t a l amount of testimony delivered by selected c l a s s i -f i c a t i o n s of p u b l i c witnesses. In Table 5.3 the volume of o r a l testimony given by C i t y Light i n favour of the dam i s compared with the testimony given by a l l other witnesses. TABLE 5.3 Lines of C i t y Light Testimony i n Comparison with Other Testimony Hearing Cit y Light Other Pro A l l Pro T o t a l ( A l l Witnesses) P.U.C. Hearing # 5 309 207 516 1910 Hearing # 7 f713 0 £71-3 1276 W.S.E.C. Seattle 1232 1102 2334 4843 Mt. Vernon 1363 778 2141 4564 I.J.C. Bellingham 716 710 1426 3613 Vancouver 1023 258 1281 6165 TOTAL 3>JK6 3055 i814>ri 22,371 1 4 3 I t i s c l e a r t h a t C i t y L i g h t t e s t i m o n y w a s a s u b s t a n t i a l c o m p o n e n t o f t e s t i m o n y i n f a v o u r o f t h e dam. C i t y L i g h t t e s t i m o n y a c c o u n t e d f o r 63 p e r c e n t o f t e s t i m o n y i n f a v o u r o f t h e dam a n d 2 3 p e r c e n t o f a l l t e s t i m o n y a t t h e h e a r i n g s . I n T a b l e 5.4 t e s t i m o n y f r o m C a n a d i a n s i s c o m p a r e d w i t h t h a t o f A m e r i c a n s b y h e a r i n g . T h i s i s d o n e t o i n d i c a t e a c c e s s t o t h e r o s t r u m b y n a t i o n a l i t y . T A B L E 5.4 L i n e s o f T e s t i m o n y b y N a t i o n a l i t y H e a r i n g U.S. C i t i z e n s C a n a d i a n C i t i z e n s T o t a l . P.U.C. H e a r i n g # 5 H e a r i n g # 7 1 0 5 9 1 2 7 6 8 5 1 0 1 9 1 0 1 2 7 6 W.S.E.C. S e a t t l e M t . V e r n o n 4 5 2 2 2 6 6 9 3 2 1 1 8 9 5 4 8 4 3 4 5 6 4 I . J . C . B e l l i n g h a m V a n c o u v e r 3 3 4 3 3 5 3 2 7 0 5 8 1 2 3 6 1 3 6 1 6 5 TOTAL 1 3 , 2 2 2 9 1 4 9 2 2 , 3 7 1 I t i s c l e a r f r o m t h i s t a b l e t h a t A m e r i c a n s d o m i n a t e d t h e h e a r i n g s . T h e y a c c o u n t e d f o r a b o u t 59 p e r c e n t o f t h e t e s t i m o n y . T h i s may b e p a r t l y a t t r i b u t e d ; t o t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e h e a r i n g s . O f 144 the s i x hearings above, f i v e were held i n the United States. In only one case, the I.J.C. hearings held i n Vancouver, Canada, did the Canadians dominate the hearings. fTable 5.5 indicates the volume of testimony given by the two c o a l i t i o n s at the hearings. TABLE 5.>5 Lines of Testimony by C o a l i t i o n s at the Hearings Hearing N.C.C.C. C o a l i t i o n R.O.S.S. Committee Both C o a l i t i o n s A l l Testimony P.U.C. Hearings (Nos. 5 & 7) 207 516 723 3186 W.S.E.C. Hearings 1507 8:87 2394 9407 I.J.C. Hearings 1917 2837 4754 9778 TOTAL 3631 4240 78^ 71 22,371 I t i s evident from t h i s table that the c o a l i t i o n s accounted f o r a s i z a b l e share of the testimony at the hearings. The R.O.S.S. Com-mittee accounted f o r 46 per cent of Canadian testimony and 19 per cent of a l l testimony given at a l l of the hearings. The N.C.C.C. C o a l i t i o n accounted for 27 per cent of the American testimony and 16 per cent of a l l testimony. Together the c o a l i t i o n s accounted f o r 35 per cent of a l l testimony. Ci t y Light and the c o a l i t i o n s combined 145 accounted for 59 per cent of the testimony, leaving 41 per cent to a l l other witnesses. (6) A d e s c r i p t i o n of the expertise a v a i l a b l e on hearing boards f o r understanding and perception of testimony received. The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee. The backgrounds of the members of the Public U t i l i t i e s Committee were general. The committee was composed of elected c i t y councilmen. Among the members, there was a drug s a l e s -man (Chairman Cooley), an ex-police o f f i c e r (Larkin), a housewife 25 (Williams), and two lawyers (T. H i l l , Tuai). U Members of the com-mittee expressed some d i f f i c u l t y i n understanding the frequently technical and complicated issues with which the committee had to deal 26 i n i t s consideration of the High Ross Dam. The Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission. The Commission has members who were knowledgeable i n a v a r i e t y of matters relevant to the High Ross issue. Commission members were appointed with an ob-j e c t i v e of reviewing projects and issues with reference to the environ-ment. They were chosen to give representation to d i f f e r e n t sectors of the general population with s p e c i a l representatives from industry, a g r i c u l t u r e , labour and the general p u b l i c . A review of the back-grounds of the members gives an i n d i c a t i o n of the expertise of the Commission. Dr. Arpad Masley, the Chairman, i s a physician with i n s i g h t into environmental health issues. Professor Gordon Orians i s an ecologist at the University of Washington. Ann Widditsch i s an a c t i v i s t formerly with the American C i v i l L i b e r t i e s Union and the Washington Environmental Council. Harold Heacock i s an employee of 146 Douglas United Nuclear and has special knowledge of nuclear power issues. John McGregor owns a large farm in eastern Washington and has wide experience in the agricultural industry. Charles Stewart Sargent i s an expert on pollution control and solid waste management who works for Boeing Aviation. Sam Kinville i s a professional labour leader with knowledge of labour issues. While the Commission may perhaps have had some gaps in representation of minority groups and expertise, i t was chosen with a view to depth and balance. The International Joint Commission. The Commission has two sec-tions: an American section and a Canadian section. Each section i s chosen to interpret the issues before the Commission in light of the needs and policies of i t s respective nation. Commissioners are thus chosen with a view toward balance and technical expertise. At least one of the commissioners in each section w i l l be an engineer who can interpret complex and technical engineering issues. Another w i l l be a lawyer who can grapple with international legal questions which fre-quently arise during Commission business. The third member w i l l be of some other profession such as an economist i n order to add special expertise. There is also an attempt to balance the Commission by region is that not a l l of the Commissioners are from one area of their country. The Seattle City Council. The 1972 hearing on the High Ross Dam was held to "brief" new councilmen who had won a recent ci v i c election. This briefing particularly involved two new councilmen who had re-placed pro-dam incumbents. Because of a lack of transcripts, i t was 147 not ascertained who sat on the hearings board. Since i t was a C i t y Council hearing, however, the composition of the board would be e n t i r e l y composed of elected councilmen. These councilmen were s i m i l a r i n background to the Public U t i l i t i e s Committee which i s a part of the larger c o u n c i l . (7) An examination of the t e c h n i c a l and research support a v a i l a b l e  to the intake hearings boards. The expertise on a hearings board may be supplemented by s t a f f s which can look into questions r a i s e d by the hearings. These s t a f f s would serve the function of independent researchers. In examining the expertise of a hearings board, then, the r o l e of t e c h n i c a l sup-port may be c r u c i a l . The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee. The P.U.C. hired two consultants from the University of Washington Department of Economics: Professor Douglass C. North and Professor Yoram Barzel. Both sat on the hearings board to ask questions and supplement the gaps i n background and ex-p e r t i s e of the Committee. Their purpose was to give p r o f e s s i o n a l support to the Committee. There was some doubt as to the usefulness 28 29 of the consultants, and the influence of t h e i r report. Another source of research support was the C i t y Light s t a f f who were c a l l e d upon to give information and to advise on the damming proposal. While i t i s clear that the Cit y Light had a vested i n t e r e s t a i n the outcome, the Committee had no independent t e c h n i c a l board from which to get the same information. The Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission. The E c o l o g i c a l Com-mission had access to the s t a f f and services of the Washington State 148 Department of Ecology. The Commission has authority to review the p o l i c i e s of the Department and c a l l upon the Department, i n the name of c i t i z e n s , f o r information concerning matters the Commission deems 30 relevant. Hence, i n the matter of the High Ross Dam, the Commission had access to a large p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f of environmental experts who could be c a l l e d upon f or te c h n i c a l assistance. The International J o i n t Commission. The Commission had at i t s assistance a s p e c i a l ad hoc t e c h n i c a l board which was charged with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of conducting whatever studies were desired by the Commission. The te c h n i c a l board drew on the expertise of other government bodies to form a group f u l l y capable of researching the issues presented to i t . A l i s t i n g of the members of the t e c h n i c a l board of the I.J.C. chosen to study the High Ross issue i s found i n Appendix C. The Seattle C i t y Council. The Cit y Council, as a l e g i s l a t i v e arm of government, could appropriate money for research or c a l l upon the Mayor's o f f i c e f o r information. The p o l i c y f o r the 1972 hearing was not ascertained. The hearing, however, was not envisioned as adding new knowledge since " b r i e f i n g " implies a passive function. The purpose of a te c h n i c a l board i n such a context would be neces-s a r i l y l i m i t e d . In the pages above, a d e s c r i p t i o n of the Intake Element was given. This d e s c r i p t i o n points out s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the organization of hearings under d i f f e r e n t a u t h o r i t i e s . Before analysis and discussion of some of these d i f f e r e n c e s , i t w i l l be h e l p f u l to 149 complete the picture of the hearings by consideration of the other two elements studied here: the Screening Element and the Input Source. THE SCREENING ELEMENT The screening element was defined i n Chapter Iv. In the f o l -lowing pages the operation of the screening element i n reference to the public hearings studied w i l l be examined. Again, the purpose here i s to assemble data which w i l l be of assistance i n the assessment of openness and e f f i c i e n c y i n these hearings. The necessary information i s s p e c i f i e d by the target items developed i n Chapter Iv as follows: (1) an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the a u t h o r i t i e s s e t t i n g the terms of reference (scope of allowed intake) f o r the hearings, (2) a l i s t i n g of relevant rules f or determing t h i s scope, (3) the r a t i o n a l e f or p a r t i c u l a r l i m i t a t i o n s upon what i s acceptable f o r intake, (4) a determination of the scope of coverage these rules permit, and (5) an assessment of the organization of the intake neces-s i t a t e d by t h i s scope. These w i l l be considered below. (1) An i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the a u t h o r i t i e s s e t t i n g the terms of  reference (scope of allowed intake) f o r the hearings. The Pu b l i c U t i l i t i e s Committee Hearings. The authority for s e t t i n g the terms of reference (scope of allowed intake) for the P.U.C. hearings was the Public U t i l i t i e s Committee, subject of 31 course to the implied consent of the Seattle C i t y Council. The Committee has the authority to review p o l i c i e s i n v o l v i n g the C i t y 150 of Seattle's u t i l i t i e s programme. This includes s p e c i f i c a l l y the operations of Seattle C i t y Light. The Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission. The issue of the High Ross Dam was referred to the Commission by the Director of the Washington State Department of Ecology. The purpose was said to be providing c i t i z e n input toward deciding the p o s i t i o n of the State of Washington on the issue. The Commission, however, i s empowered to make c e r t a i n decisions regarding the scope of i t s i n q u i r y . "In con-s i d e r i n g a matter submitted to i t by the d i r e c t o r , the commission s h a l l conduct such p u b l i c hearings and make such i n v e s t i g a t i o n s as i t deems 32 necessary." (emphasis added) In addition, the Commission may i n -vestigate "any matter pertinent to the purposes of t h i s act by consent 33 of a majority of the members." The Commission thus has wide powers 34 to determine the scope of what i t w i l l hear. The International J o i n t Commission Hearings. The issue of the High Ross Dam was referred to the Commission by a j o i n t reference of the two n a t i o n a l governments. The reference s p e c i f i e d what could be considered and what could not. This reference was binding and the Commission had very l i m i t e d powers to modify the scope of i t s i n q u i r y . The Seattle C i t y Council. The c i t y c o u n c i l had wide powers to set the scope of i t s i n q u i r y . I t can consider anything within the authority of the C i t y of Seattle. This includes any matter concerning the p o l i c i e s of Seattle C i t y Light. (2) A l i s t i n g of relevant rules for determining t h i s Scope. (3) The r a t i o n a l e for p a r t i c u l a r l i m i t a t i o n s upon what i s  acceptable fOr intake. 151 (4) A determination of the scope of coverage these rules permit. The three target items above are considered together i n t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n . Generally speaking, respondents f e l t there should be some focus to 35 the hearings. But the rules concerning content of testimony to be allowed should not be unduly confining as they were i n the I.J.C. hearings. In any case, the rules should be known to everyone and enforced i m p a r t i a l l y . 3 * ' The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee Hearings. The P.U.C. hearings generally had wide scope. They were oriented toward a general review of the t o t a l range of p o l i c i e s of Seattle C i t y Light. Geographic Scope. The hearings accepted testimony from Canadians i n the matter of the High Ross Dam. On the other hand, the hearings as a c o l l e c t i o n dealt widely with the en t i r e g r i d of Cit y Light from i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p s with the Bonneville Power Administration to i t s Hanford and Kiket Island nuclear plants to the underground wiring system within the Cit y of Seattle. High Ross Dam was one issue among many. The dam was the p r i n c i p a l issue i n two h e a r i n g s — t h e f i f t h and the seventh (see Appendix A). J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Scope. The P.U.C. hearings were un s p e c i f i c as to the content of the messages which were acceptable.. The issues ra i s e d ranged widely from environmental damage i n Canada from the High Ross Dam to economic and p o l i t i c a l arguments f or and against many issues including the dam. The hearings did not focus on any one issue at a time. The High Ross was brought up i n eight of the nine 152 hearings held by the Committee to look at City Light policies. Decisional Scope. The hearings were directed at a review of policy with a view toward making any changes which might appear advisable in light of information learned from the hearings and other sources. In reference to the High Ross Dam, hearings could have taken testimony bearing on a recommendation to the Seattle City Council to drop the project or to proceed with applications and planning. The hearings also considered altering other policies ~ which could have indirectly affected the project, includingiffor example, the issue of rate or t a r i f f structure. A rise in the rate structure (i.e., the price of electricity) would result in a change in the demand for e l e c t r i c i t y and, hence, for the dam. Consideration of alternatives could have led to dropping the dam in favour of some other option. This is not to imply that these issues were adequately 37 considered, or that decisions would be based on testimony, but rather that the opportunity for making testimony to these issues was potentially available. Generally speaking, the P.U.C. hearings had wide scope for allowable intake. There were no serious restrictions on what could be heard. The Washington State Ecological Commission-Hearings. The W.S.E.C. hearings generally had a wide scope, but focussed principally on the High Ross Dam. Geographic Scope. The authority of the Department of Ecology, and hence of i t s Commission, tends to limit consideration to issues within Washington and significant, to Washington residents. However, 153 the Commission did l i s t e n to Canadians and heard testimony on impacts within B r i t i s h Columbia. It was stated that Canadians could t e s t i f y 38 even though State authority stopped at the International.Boundary. In considering i t s p o s i t i o n , however, the Department of Ecology would have to stay within i t s authority and base i t s d e c i s i o n on i t s 39 assessment of impacts within the state. Environmental damage i n neighbouring j u r i s d i c t i o n s could not be considered. J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Scope. The E c o l o g i c a l Commission has a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for consideration of environmental impacts of proposed developments within the state. In t h i s consideration the Commission looked at economic issues such as economic growth, unemployment, and 40 so on, i n addition to the environment. By law the Commission i s to look at trade-offs between economics and the environment and 41 a l t e r n a t i v e s between d i f f e r e n t p r o j e c t s . This broad focus led the Commission to admit testimony on a wide spectrum of issues r e l a t e d to the High Ross Dam. However, i n contrast to the P.U.C. hearings, the focus did l i m i t testimony to the IBdsghRoss Dam and associated issues. Decisional Scope. The hearings were dire c t e d at two types of decisions. The f i r s t was to consider a C i t y Light a p p l i c a t i o n for renewal of permits to create a r e s e r v o i r and to appropriate water. These permits were required by Washington.State Law and were issued by the Department of Ecology. The second type of decision was to consider what should be the p o s i t i o n of the Department of Ecology and the State of Washington regarding the High Ross Dam. This p o s i t i o n would be taken before the U.S. Federal Power Commission. 154 The E c o l o g i c a l Commission i t s e l f had powers to advise the Director of Ecology i n t h i s matter. The Commission could not determine 42 Department p o l i c y , but could have great influence. Generally speaking, then, the Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Com-mission hearings had wide scope for allowable intake with respect to the High Ross Dam. The International J o i n t Commission Hearings. The I.J.C. hearings generally had a narrow scope for allowable intake. This scope was dictated by the terms of reference for the hearings, which came from the na t i o n a l governments. The r a t i o n a l e for t h i s l i m i t a -t i o n might be termed "national i n t e r e s t . " The respective nations had c a r e f u l l y discussed with each other what they would allow the Commission to consider. The exact reasons f o r these r e s t r i c t i o n s on the hearings were not announced. I t might be i n f e r r e d , however, that the n a t i o n a l governments wanted to defuse a very v o l a t i l e regional issue by hearing the p a r t i e s to the c o n f l i c t and looking for a compromise short of a r e v e r s a l of p o l i c y . A look at the scope of these hearings i s i n s t r u c t i v e . Geographic Scope. The Commission.could and did hear both Canadian and American witnesses. I t could only consider issues concerning impacts within Canada, however. The Commission's terms of references thus barred consideration of issues within the United States. Since the lake would floo d a few thousand acres i n the United States and have downstream e f f e c t s , t h i s r e s t r i c t i o n was protested by environmentalists. The Commission was powerless to respond. 155 Jurisdictional Scope. The Commission was limited to considera-tion of environmental effects. Thus, i t was discouraged from consider-ing economic, p o l i t i c a l , and social issues among others. The Com-mission in practice viewed these restrictions with some latitude, and did not interrupt or rule out of order witnesses who strayed tem-porarily from the environmental focus. Decisional Scope. The Commission was specifically barred from recommending a reversal of the 1942 I.J.C. Order of Approval for the dam and i t s 1967 enabling agreement'between the City of Seattle and the Province of British Columbia. Thus, the Commission was limited to recommending ways of mitigating environmental impacts. The Commission li b e r a l l y interpreted this restriction and recommended further study with the possible implication that this further study would bode poorly for the damming plan. Thus while the decisional scope was narrow, i t was widened slightly by the Commission. The Seattle City Council Hearing. The scope for the hearing by the Seattle City Council was generally wide, and focussed on the High Ross Dam. Geographic Scope. While transcripts of this hearing were un-43 available, i t i s known that Canadians were allowed to testify. Testimony was accepted on matters relating to the Canadian side of the border, as well as the American side. There were no obvious restric-tions placed on the geographic scope of the hearings. Jurisdictional Scope. The hearings were designed to review the decision on the dam. Presumably this implied a wide interpretation 156 of the relevancy of testimony on environmental, economic, engineering and other matters. There were no obvious r e s t r i c t i o n s placed on the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l scope of the hearings. Decisional Scope. The Council had powers to continue the p o l i c y of b u i l d i n g the dam, or to reverse t h i s p o l i c y and drop the plan. In the former case, Council plans would be subject to ap-proval of other agencies, e.g., the U.S. Federal Power Commission, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and various other a u t h o r i t i e s . In dropping the dam, the Council's powers would be f i n a l and d e c i s i v e . Thus, the scope of p o l i c y upon which t h i s hearing could have a bearing was d e f i n i t i v e . A t h i r d p o s i t i o n was a v a i l a b l e , however, and was followed. This was the p o s i t i o n of continuing with plans u n t i l the plans were stopped and hopefully 44 compensation gained. The Council's hearing thus had wide scope with reference to the High Ross Dam. (5) An assessment of the organization of intake necessitated by  t h i s scope. In Chapter IV we discussed how the scope of input which i s taken by a communication system can necessitate.some form of labour aimed at synthesis and t e s t i n g . In a l l of these hearings, a great deal of information and other input was received. Some of t h i s may have been erroneous or r e p e t i t i o u s or h e u r i s t i c . Part of. screening i s the process of s i f t i n g the testimony to determine what i s u s eful to decision-makers. This includes judging what has been 157 heard i n terms of i t s v e r a c i t y , pertinence, and s i g n i f i c a n c e . In the following paragraphs we w i l l look at the attempts made to organize the input received into a meaningful form. The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee Hearings. A f t e r the P.U.C. hearings, a report was made by the s t a f f consultants on the High Ross Dam, based on issues r a i s e d i n the hearings. This report was a somewhat l i m i t e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n based mainly on the hearings themselves and on discussions with some of the p a r t i c i p a n t s , including C i t y Light. The Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission Hearings. The W.S.E.C. hearings uncovered a number of issues which had a bearing on the De-partment of Ecology's p o s i t i o n . The Department looked at'these issues, as w e l l as at others, and framed an "in-house'Vreport e n t i t l e d Environ-45 mental Assessment—High Ross Dam. The report, not widely a v a i l a b l e to the public as of t h i s w r i t i n g , contains a p i e r c i n g and l u c i d con-s i d e r a t i o n of the issue. The report i s i n point form and contains a candid d e f i n i t i o n of the Department's evaluation of each issue r a i s e d i n the hearings and elsewhere. The International J o i n t Commission Hearings. The I.J.C. hearings uncovered a v a r i e t y of issues many of which had a r i s e n i n e a r l i e r hearings of other a u t h o r i t i e s . The issues raised were investigated by the Commission and i t s t e c h n i c a l board. The conclusions were reported i n a 191-page document e n t i t l e d Environmental and E c o l o g i c a l Consequences 46 i n Canada of Raising Ross Lake i n the Skagit V a l l e y to E l e v a t i o n 1725. This report takes each of the issues within the scope of. the Commission's reference and makes an analysis of i t . The analysis i s followed by 158 s p e c i f i c recommendations. The analyses are p r o f e s s i o n a l and sophis-t i c a t e d i n nature, but e a s i l y followed by the layman. The report was published for p u b l i c release. The Seattle C i t y Council Hearings. The S.C.C. hearings i n 1972 were not followed by a report or post facto a n a l y s i s . Analysis was l e f t to the Councilmen who may or may not have been present f o r the hearing. In the pages above, we have considered the Intake Element and the Screening Element. Below we w i l l look at the work of c i t i z e n s who developed a p o s i t i o n and appeared on behalf of that p o s i t i o n at the hearings. We w i l l consider t h i s part of the p r o c e s s — t h e Input Source. THE INPUT SOURCE The input source was defined i n Chapter IV. In the following pages we w i l l examine the input sources operating i n reference to the p u b l i c hearings being studied. The purpose here i s to continue to develop data necessary to the assessment of openness and e f f i c i e n c y i n these hearings. The necessary information i s s p e c i f i e d by the target items developed i n Chapter IV as follows: (1) the i d e n t i t y i n broad terms of the input sources and t h e i r v i s i b l e organizations and leading spokesmen. (2) an examination of the s t r a t e g i e s open to input sources i n the hearings and which were used. (3) an examination of the cost to c i t i z e n s i n making testimony i n terms of expertise, time , or money. 159 (4) an examination of s p e c i a l impediments and d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered by c i t i z e n s and input groups i n using these hearings. These w i l l be considered below. (1) The i d e n t i t y i n broad terms of the input sources and t h e i r  v i s i b l e organizations and leading spokesmen. Input sources g i v i n g testimony at. the hearings were of two very broad c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . There was one side favouring the dam and one side opposing i t . These w i l l be described below. A. Those Favouring the Dam. The input sources favouring the dam included three general c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . These were: 1. the C i t y of Seattle and Seattle C i t y Light, 2. commercial and i n d u s t r i a l organizations, and 3. c e r t a i n p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l s . 1. The C i t y of Seattle and Seattle C i t y Light. The p r i n c i p l e prpponentoofttheddamwwasSSeatt'leCCity Light. Seattle C i t y Light i s the publicly-owned u t i l i t y providing e l e c t r i c i t y to the C i t y of Seattle. C i t y Light was the applicant under the various a u t h o r i t i e s for permission to r a i s e Ross Dam. C i t y Light's costs were paid out of c i t y and company revenue. These costs, according to Superintendent Gordon Vickery, were "s u b s t a n t i a l . " Mr. Vickery declined to release the exact amount, but indicated that these costs would include r e t a i n i n g 47 three law firms and several consultants. In a d d i t i o n , C i t y Light u t i l i z e d i t s own s t a f f f o r various reports and testimony. These i n d i v i d u a l s represented and defended C i t y Light's p o s i t i o n at the hearings. They were supported by a s u b s t a n t i a l research 160 staff a l l of whom were payrolled employees or consultants. (See Appendix E) 2. Commercial and industrial organizations. The High Ross Dam was expected to have economic benefits for industry and commerce within the State of Washington. This was seen by Washington business interests which responded through in-dustry associations. These groups include at least ly or-ganizations of the following classifications: 7 groups of a chamber of commerce nature or representing general business interests (one of which was from Hope, B.C.), 6 groups repre-senting energy using industries or trades, 2 corporations, and 2 groups representing agricultural interests. These groups are listed in Appendix F. A number of industry wit-nesses also appeared privately or on behalf of their com-panies . 3. Certain private citizens. A number of persons appeared on behalf of themselves to support the dam. These individuals included two former Seattle Mayors, as well as other private citizens. In addition, there was testimony from persons re-presenting other citizens such as the Mayor of Sedro Woolley, Washington^ Mr. William Pearson, who appeared on behalf of 48 his City government. Certain labour representatives also appeared. B. Those Opposing the Dam. The ''citizens opposing the dam included three classifications: 1. large ad hoc coalitions organized 161 specifically to oppose the dam, 2. other environmental and sporting groups, and 3. other citizens and groups. 1. Large ad hoc coalitions organized specifically to oppose the dam (see Appendix E). The issue of the High Ross Dam was a central issue for a number of organizations concerned with environmental and sporting issues. In order to oppose the dam, these groups joined in two loosely organized co-alitions. One of these coalitions was the Seattle-based coalition led by the 2,000-member North Cascades Conservation Council (the N.C.C.C.). This group had been extensively involved in studied and in lobbying with reference to the North Cascades National Park i n northern Washington. Its familiarity with the area and i t s size gave i t special claim to leadership of a coalition, including 11 other en-vironmental groups. The N.C.C.C. coalition had several o f f i c i a l "expert witnesses" who.represented i t s position and the group had an attorney. These witnesses appeared at the hearings to discuss specialized aspects of the damming plan. A l l were well-informed i n their speciality. (See Appendix E) A second coalition was based i n British Columbia and called "the R.O.S.S. Committee." R.O.S.S. was an acronym standing for "Run Out Skagit Spoilers." This group was a collection of 9 groups who claimed to represent 45,000 citizens of Canada. The group had several spokesmen who appeared to give expert testimony on the issues before 162 the hearings. While the R.O.S.S. Committee did insure co-ordination between the testimony of various witnesses, i t did not have the same l e v e l of organization as the N.C.C.C7. c o a l i t i o n (see Appendix E). These c o a l i t i o n s financed some though not a l l of the studies and reports made at the hearings. A vast amount of professional expertise and time was volunteered by experts who appeared at the hearings or helped with study. The two c o a l i t i o n s had s u b s t a n t i a l p r o f e s s i o n a l talent at th e i r d i s p o s a l . The advantages of forming c o a l i t i o n s such as these were cl e a r . No one rejected t h e i r importance or v a l i d i t y . Co-a l i t i o n s served to organize testimony into l e s s r e p e t i t i o u s 49 and more intensive order. They were w e l l received by hearings boards."' 0 There was an attempt at l i a i s o n across the border between the N.C.C.C. group and the R.O.S.S. Committee."'"'" This sort of c o a l i t i o n was seen as an impor-52 tant development f o r the pro t e c t i o n of the environment. 2. Environmental and sporting groups. In addition to the large c o a l i t i o n s , i n d i v i d u a l groups with the same concerns about the environment and sporting issues also made input at the hearings. Some of the spokesmen f o r the c o a l i t i o n s were also among the representatives of smaller groups. There were at l e a s t 47 environmental groups and sporting groups from both sides of the border o f f e r i n g testimony e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or through a . c o a l i t i o n i n opposition to 163 the dam. There were 24 groups independent of c o a l i t i o n s g i ving testimony. There were many witnesses appearing at some of the hearings from these groups. These groups are l i s t e d i n Appendix H. 3. Other c i t i z e n s and groups. In addition to the co-a l i t i o n s and the other environmental and sporting groups, there was a sizeable number of c i t i z e n s who appeared i n an i n d i v i d u a l capacity. Among the most active i n Seattle were Richard J . Brooks and Theodore Beck, both of whom are engineers. A prominent Canadian who frequently spoke at the hearings was David Brousson, a B r i t i s h Columbia M.L.A. from the L i b e r a l Party.and an engineer. Other witnesses appearing included several students and student groups from junior high through the u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l . These witnesses brought wide ranging challenges to City Light testimony. (2) An examination of the s t r a t e g i e s open to input sources i n the  hearings and which were used. The object of any strategy used by input sources i n a hearing i s to make a p o s i t i o n c l e a r and to influence the hearings board to adopt that p o s i t i o n i n subsequent recommendations and a-tion. To do t h i s there are several strategies of varying e f f i c a c y . One,strategy i s to have no s t r a t e g y — t o j u s t appear and argue a case, extemporaneously. This strategy could be strengthened by some forethought and a written set of notes to argue from. A more sophisticated strategy would be to 164 research the issue and d r a f t a c a r e f u l l y worded document to be read or summarized o r a l l y and then submitted to the hearings board. If i t i s a group which desires to make a statement, some way of l e g i t i m i z i n g a p o s i t i o n for the group may be necessary. This would include a vote of the membership with exact d e t a i l s to be worked out by the executive o f f i c e r s , or simply a p o s i t i o n taken by the executive o f f i c e r s committing the group to a p o s i t i o n . How-ever, dissenting members may challenge the statement and embarrass the spokesman. Frequently a simple statement of a p o s i t i o n may be considered adequate representation of the group, or perhaps some statement of p o s i t i o n along with research and a c a r e f u l l y worded statement—either written or o r a l . I f there are several groups with common p o s i t i o n s , these groups might be joined i n a c o a l i t i o n . A c o a l i t i o n has the advantage of v i s i b i l i t y because of i t s s i z e and greater strength due to agree-ments to pool resources. In any case, e i t h e r a group or a c o a l i t i o n may allow for s p e c i a l i z a t i o n with s p e c i a l i s t s taking component sub-issues and applying t h e i r time and work toward developing a w e l l -53 researched statement. In the case of the hearings of the High Ross Dam, a l l of these approaches were used. The wide range of s t r a t e g i e s employed i n making input was very evident.. . The most sophisticated presentations came from Seattle C i t y Light which had a cadre of p r o f e s s i o n a l witnesses each with a s p e c i f i c assignment.to cover certain, aspects of the issue. The Seattle (N.C.C.C.) c o a l i t i o n was also w e l l organized with a planned programme of presentations. The R.O.S.S. Committee was 165 loosely organized but testimony was well-coordinated. A f t e r these groups, groups and i n d i v i d u a l s appeared with decreasingly w e l l or-ganized s t r a t e g i e s . Certain i n d i v i d u a l s , however, evidenced w e l l planned testimony despite t h e i r mostly u n i l a t e r a l s t r a t e g i e s , e.g., David Brousson, R. J . Brooks and Theodore Beck. (3) An examination of the cost to c i t i z e n s i n making testimony at  hearings i n terms of expertise, time, or money. The strategies above have varying costs associated with them. In some cases, a witness walked a few blocks and deli v e r e d a s t a t e -ment and l e f t without staying for the balance of the hearing. This 54 might take only a couple of hours i n a l l , i n cluding preparation. On the other hand, c e r t a i n witnesses attended several hearings with well-researched statements based on t h e i r own research. In t h i s case, the cost i n time may have been s u b s t a n t i a l , both i n preparing statements and s i t t i n g through hearings to hear r e s p o n s e s . I n each of these cases out of pocket cost of p a r t i c i p a t i o n was i n s i g n i -f i c a n t . The r e a l cost was i n the a p p l i c a t i o n of pr o f e s s i o n a l t a l e n t which the witness may possess by v i r t u e of previous t r a i n i n g . I f th i s talent has a monetary value when applied to an occupation, then there i s a s a c r i f i c e when t h i s time i s applied to t e s t i f y i n g . The cost of the opportunities which the witness foregoes i n order to t e s t i f y . I f an engineer has to take time from h i s consulting work to volunteer testimony, t h i s time can not be also applied.to making a l i v i n g . In terms of t h i s type of cost, r e f e r r e d to by economists as opportunity cost, the costs of c i t i z e n input varied, s u b s t a n t i a l l y . 166 Collectively, the Seattle coalition, for example, engaged in exten-sive studies to support their testimony. In fairness, i t should be said that some of this work was also applied to other ends, such as proposals for planning or parklands"'""' or writing of books (Harvey Manning). But extensive organizational work and special research work was necessary to implement the strategy that the coalition members fe l t was absolutely essential."' 7 It is safe to say that the coalition members volunteered substantially in excess of a thousand 58 hours of time collectively toward opposition of the dam. Valued at ten to twenty dollars an hour professionally, this -time could be work tens of thousands of dollars. When the testimony of the R.O.S.S. Committee i s computed, as well as the time of independent citizens and groups for and against the dam, i t i s easy to see that the hearings involved a very substantial investment of public p o l i t i c a l capital. Direct out-of-pocket costs, though substantial, are a small share of the total costs.. There are some questions, however, about how the costs were distributed. Some anti-dam respondents indicated they f e l t they were at a disadvantage in opposing the well-organized and financed 59 campaign of City Light. R. J. Brooks, an opponent of the dam, estimated that City Light had spent between $1,000,000 and $1,250,000 on promotion of the dam."'0 Meanwhile, the N.C.C.C. coalition had to go to Vancouver to hire some special witnesses because those in 61 Seattle were already retained. The b i l l was paid by one group, the N.C.C.C. The costs of the hearings in terms of expertise are also worth 167 noting. Reviewing the professional backgrounds of witnesses appearing at the hearings quickly indicates that the level of ex-pertise was very high. Figuring prominently in the roster of wit-nesses on both side are very well respected experts. There were lawyers, engineers, professors, economists, biologists, and planners at many of the hearings. It i s equally clear that professional ex-pertise was not required of witnesses and testimony was heard without regard to qualifications or background. Thus testimony was heard from housewives, junior high school students, and ordinary citizens of a l l types. On this issue, however, there was some agreement from hearings officers that informed testimony was much more effective, thus giving substantial weight to.professional testimony. The representatives and impartiality of paid witnesses and con-sultants, however, was strongly questioned. It was said that paid 62 witnesses would say whatever the employer wanted. Professionals 63 can easily become "prostitutes" in such a situation. On the other hand, both sides f e l t that the issue was complex enough to 64 warrant paid consultants. (4) An examination of special impediments and d i f f i c u l t i e s en- countered by citizens and input groups i n using these hearings. The principal d i f f i c u l t i e s experienced by input sources in using the hearings were occasioned by the competition in presenting the most persuasive argument before, the various hearings boards. For those who opposed the dam, the principal obstacle to "winning the debate" was in the superior resources which the chief proponent 168 of the dam, C i t y L i g h t , had. C i t y Light had immense resources to apply to studies and consultants' fees. The resources of the dam 66 opponents were highly r e s t r i c t e d . This weakness was overcome i n part by the large numbers of persons who were w i l l i n g to volunteer services to the f i g h t against the dam. There were some complaints as to the l o c a t i o n of hearings. This was due mainly to fear of the influence of groups located near the locations of some hearings. Some of the pro-dam groups feared hearings i n northern Washington because of the ease with which 67 Canadians could make testimony. On the other hand, some people i n northern Washington resented hearings i n Seattle i n d i c a t i n g that 68 people i n the Skagit v a l l e y should determine what happens there. To them, c i t i z e n s i n Seattle were outsiders. Both of these arguments seemed to be based on f r u s t r a t i o n since the "outside" groups make more work f o r those on the other side of the issue. One type of outsider which received l i t t l e sympathy was the person from com-p l e t e l y outside of the area. Witnesses from Portland, Oregon, f o r example, were perceived to have l i t t l e v a l i d concern over the issue. Canadians, northern Washington residents, and Seattle residents were a l l seen to have affected i n t e r e s t s i n the. v a l l e y , but not persons 69 from outside the region. There was one more source of s p e c i a l f r u s t r a t i o n i n t r y i n g to have influence on the decision-makers. The r o l e of the media i n i n f l u e n c i n g decision-makers and i n leading public opinion was seen as a force to be reckoned with i n making a case. I t was believed that two newspapers took a side i n the issue. The Vancouver Sun 169 i n B r i t i s h Columbia tended to oppose the dam giving much p u b l i c i t y to the issue. On the other hand, the Seattle Times took a stand which seemed to favour the dam.^ This l e d to e f f o r t s to n e u t r a l i z e the e f f e c t of the press. I t cannot be said j u s t how s i g n i f i c a n t t h i s factor was i n the i s s u e , ^ but c e r t a i n l y i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t enough to merit some study. No analysis was made i n t h i s i n q u i r y , however. DISCUSSION The hearings were the subject of concern to a good many people. Each of the people interviewed expressed a unique p i c t u r e of the r o l e and proper operation of the hearings process. Part of the purpose of interviewing p a r t i c i p a n t s was to capture some of t h i s diverse perspective. Below we s h a l l look at some of these i n s i g h t s . The Hearings Process. The hearings on the High Ross Dam were regarded by the p a r t i c i p a n t s (witnesses or hearings boards) as neces-sary. Respondents did indic a t e that some hearings, not nec e s s a r i l y 72 on the High Ross Dam, were a waste of time. Public o f f i c i a l s who attend numerous hearings as a part of t h e i r duties may get t i r e d 73 of them. In the case of the High Ross, one respondent said that 74 the issue was "heard to death." But the necessity of the hearings process i t s e l f was unchallenged. The hearings process means to c i t i z e n s that whether or not they agree with the ultimate decisions, they know how these decisions were arri v e d at. The c i t i z e n f e e l s that things are not going on behind h i s b a c k . ^ This i s important i n a system where often both sides are u n s a t i s f i e d with the ultimate 170 76 77 decisi o n . In many cases, the decision i s hard to reach, and the public hearing i s an important a i d to decision-making. Hearings are a c o s t l y process. Dr. Pat r i c k Goldsworthy, leader of the N.C.C.C. c o a l i t i o n , said.that the High Ross issue was "the most expensive issue" h i s group was involved i n . But, even consider-ing the expense, the issue was e s s e n t i a l to the group, which was interested i n the future of the North Cascades, and costs were ac-78 cepted as part of the ongoing a c t i v i t i e s of h i s group. In any case, Goldsworthy seemed to echo the sentiment of many of the res-pondents when he s a i d , "In a democratic society e f f i c i e n c y i s not one of the goals—one of the pr i c e s i s a c e r t a i n amount of slippage • ..79 i n e f f i c i e n c y . The Canadians were not so sure, however. R.O.S.S. Committee spokesman Ken Farquharson indicated much concern about the costs of the hearings. He said that the issue had cost him several thou-sand d o l l a r s i n personal income as pr o f e s s i o n a l time was devoted to an in c r e a s i n g l y c o s t l y venture i n protecting the v a l l e y . Costs came close to preventing R.O.S.S. p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the Federal Power Com-mission hearings u n t i l the Canadian f e d e r a l government gave the committee f i n a n c i a l a i d . 8 0 D e f i n i t i o n of Affected Interests. One consistent theme i n the interviews was the d i f f i c u l t y i n defining the "affected i n t e r e s t s " to which the hearings boards should l i s t e n . No one seemed to f e e l that Canadians should not be heard at the hearings i n the United 81 States. On the other hand, groups from w e l l outside the region 82 were not seen as "affec t e d . " Witnesses from "Portland" were 171 83 singled out as intruders. One northern Washington respondent i n -dicated that Seattle residents should not "run the hearings" on a 84 northern Washington matter. Generally speaking, i t was proposed that hearings boards should listen to persons who are directly i n -volved. ^  Hearings should be held in the areas affected.^ On the input side, local groups should be used in pursuing local 87 issues. Representativeness. There were varying opinions on how repre-sentative hearings were. John Biggs, the Director of Ecology, f e l t that the testimony depended a great deal on the day and place where hearings were held. The opinions given at the hearings must be weighed and the testimony should not be taken as necessarily 88 representative.. Others f e l t that interest groups do have a f o l -89 lowing and do represent a segment of.society. Oral Testimony. There was some disagreement about the role of oral testimony. In some cases hearings board members may be absent 90 or not listening to the testimony. Many suggested that oral statements should be short and written statements f i l e d . But, while some hearings offers indicated, that everything which was received 91 was read, others expressed doubts about how much time certain 92 hearings board members had for reading written statements. Oh-the bthefrhand^foral!testimonycmaymreachsimportantepef'sonsfpresent at 94 93 theshearings unofficially, or may be quoted in the newspapers. The hearings o f f i c i a l s may take summaries of the hearings from the 94 newspapers. 172 Organized Testimony. The importance of organized testimony at the hearings was widely recognized. P a r t i c u l a r l y important i s the 95 avoidance of r e p e t i t i o n . This may involve coordination with other groups or foregoing testimony which duplicates e a r l i e r t e s t i -96 mony. Testimony should be presented as a c l e a r , l o g i c a l argument 97 based on the fact s and knowledge. Emotional testimony i s frequently 98 discounted, but there should be some place f o r pu b l i c expression 99 of f e e l i n g s . Sworn Testimony. The idea of swearing witnesses to t e l l the truth was suggested as a means of keeping testimony to the facts."'' 0 0 But other respondents disagreed, i n d i c a t i n g that such a procedure would f r i g h t e n witnesses and l i m i t t h e i r free expression."'"0"'" In any case, i t i s possible that whether testimony i s sworn or not 102 would have l i t t l e e f f e c t on the decision makers. Ann Widditsch of the E c o l o g i c a l Commission indicated that i n evaluating honesty 103 she would "see which guy she would buy a used car from." SUMMARY S i f t i n g through t h i s material, one cannot but be impressed with the p o s i t i v e seriousness with which the hearings process i s seen. In some cases they are scoffed at and i n other cases i d e a l i -zed, but i n no case are they rejected a s , i n s i g n i f i c a n t . The p o l i t i c a l influence of hearings i s widely supported. Openness i s a s i g n i f i c a n t concern of people involved i n the hearings. Hearings are cl o s e l y watched by hearings boards and c i t i z e n s f o r signs of r e s t r i c t e d openness. The watchdog e f f e c t of 173 public censure encourages openness. On the other hand, pu b l i c scrutiny can encourage excessive openness where too much non-germaine testimony i s admitted because of a desire f o r f a i r n e s s . E f f i c i e n c y i s also a clear concern of people involved i n the hearings. Suggestions of time l i m i t s and organizing testimony are numerous. The c i t i z e n s and hearings o f f i c e r s a l i k e seemed to be f u l l y w i l l i n g to expedite e f f i c i e n c y wherever t h i s can be done without compromising openness. The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee Hearings Openness. The scope of the Public U t i l i t i e s Committee hearings was too wide to screen out extraneous issues and focus on any si n g l e issue adequately. On the other hand, the hearings board had l i m i t e d t e c h n i c a l understanding of the issues i t faced. Since perception i s an important part of openness, the hearings were les s able to r e ^ ceive input. The hearings also allowed blocks of time to City Light which allowed the Cit y s p e c i a l access to the rostrum, but adequate access was also allowed the opponents to the dam. The opponents availed themselves of t h i s opportunity. Opponents, however, had not yet formed c o a l i t i o n s and thus were s t i l l a b i t random and d i s -organized i n making input. A l l things considered, however, the hearings were open and with the above reservations d i d allow ade-quate access to decision-makers. E f f i c i e n c y . The costs of p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the P.U.C. hearings were minimal. The c i t i z e n s had not yet organized and. simply appeared and made statements. In some cases these statements did involve sub-1 7 4 s t a n t i a l preparation, but costs had not yet risen to prohibitive l e v e l s . The Washington State Ecological Commission Hearings Openness. The W.S.E.C. hearings were characterized by wide scope for allowable intake and technical proficiency for compre-hending this input. The hearings simply limited scope to the High Ross Dam and pertinent issues. The professional and voca-t i o n a l background of the hearings board insured.a sound understanding of the issues. In addition, the hearings were w e l l announced, w e l l located and had a minimum of r e s t r i c t i o n s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . As i n the' case of the P.U.C. hearings, however, City Light had a special block of time, but cit i z e n s managed to obtain adequate access to the rostrum. Coalitions aided these c i t i z e n s i n making a coherent and e f f e c t i v e presentation at the hearings. Eff i c i e n c y. The hearings of the W.S.E.C. were simple to use, but the cost of testimony began to r i s e with the development of sophisticated statements- by the c i t i z e n s . The ease of using the hearings was notable, however, and a large number of witnesses made statements. The two large c o a l i t i o n s made a great impact by pooling t h e i r resources to make more organized and sophisticated presentations, thus making a substantial contribution toward repre-senting "the party of the second part." This also s i m p l i f i e d the requirements of the ordinary c i t i z e n who needed only to state his position and whether he agreed with either City Light or the c o a l i t i o n s . 175 This c i t i z e n ' s input of new testimony might be l i m i t e d to coverage of issues which he f e l t C i t y Light or the c o a l i t i o n s d i d not ade-quately cover. The International J o i n t Commission Hearings Openness. The hearings of the International J o i n t Commission were characterized by l i m i t e d scope of allowed intake with respect to a l l categories: geographic, j u r i s d i c t i o n a l , and d e c i s i o n a l . However, the I.J,.C. did not r i g i d l y adhere to i t s terms of reference. In addition, the I.J.C. had wide te c h n i c a l p r o f i c i e n c y at i n t e r p r e t i n g the issues and su b s t a n t i a l technical, support. The l a t t e r may have p a r t l y ameliorated the impact on openness of the r e s t r i c t e d scope of reference. However, i t must be noted that the r e s t r i c t e d scope of reference of the only i n t e r n a t i o n a l authority holding, hearings and the only authority even p a r t l y under the auspices of Canadian a u t h o r i t i e s , must c e r t a i n l y be regretted. As i n previous hearings, the I.J.C. hearings allowed a s p e c i a l block of time to C i t y Light while l i m i t i n g opponents and other proponents to short statements. Again, as in. the case of previous hearings, t h i s did not mean opponents were not allowed access to the rostrum. Their greater numbers insured a s i g n i f i c a n t volume of testimony. E f f i c i e n c y . The e f f o r t involved i n using the hearings was not great i f the c i t i z e n only wanted to make a simple statement. However, c i t i z e n s had determined, that a major e f f o r t was required and t h e i r expenditures had r i s e n accordingly. The use of l e g a l 176 assistance and the conducting of sophisticated studies cost sub-s t a n t i a l sums. In f a i r n e s s , much of t h i s cost had been incurred i n preparation f o r e a r l i e r hearings and the incremental cost of preparing for the I.J.C. hearings was thus not as great as i t would have been i n the s i t u a t i o n where these were the f i r s t hearings on the subject. In terms of e f f i c i e n c y , the I.J.C. hearings point to another issue. The authority of the I.J.C. as the i n t e r n a t i o n a l body as-sociated with the issue highlighted.the c r u c i a l nature of these hearings, encouraging c i t i z e n s to engage i n extensive preparation. However, i f e f f i c i e n c y i s the process of. gaining the most output for the l e a s t input, i t must be concluded that the l i m i t e d scope of allowable intake f r u s t r a t e d e f f i c i e n c y i n these hearings. In t h i s chapter the r e s u l t s of research on the High Ross hearings were presented. In Chapter VI a s e r i e s of conclusions based on these r e s u l t s i s presented. 177 FOOTNOTES "'"See Appendix I for biographical d e s c r i p t i o n of interviewees. 2 William Pearson, interview, Sedro Wooley, Washington, A p r i l 9, 1974, 8:30. Biggs, interview, Longview, Washington, A p r i l 111.,•'J]iW-h^  10;:3.0. 3 Goldsworthy, interview. John Nelson, memorandum to Gordon F. Vickery, Seattle, 1972. Timothy H i l l , interview. Clay Leming, conversation, A p r i l 4, 1974, 2:30 P.M. ^Leming, conversation. c Public U t i l i t i e s Commission, Hearings, March 25, 1970 through May 25, 1970, Seattle. Cooley, interview. ^Goldsworthy, interview. 8 Interviews: Masley, Brooks, Goldsworthy. 9 Interviews: Masley, Widditsch. "^Masley, interview. Lemxng, conversation. 12 Masley, Cooley, interviews. 13 Masley, Widditsch, interviews. •^John C. H i l l , interview, Mt. Vernon, Washington, A p r i l 9, 1974, 2:00 P.M. •^Masley, interview. 16 J. H i l l , interview. 1 7Goldsworthy, Brooks, J . H i l l , other, interviews. •1 Q Gordon Vickery, interview, A p r i l 1, 1974, 1:30 P.M. 19 Bxggs, interview. 2°Brooks, interview. 21 T. H i l l , interview. 22 J. H i l l , interview. 23 Brooks, interview. 24 • Goldsworthy, interview. 25 T. H i l l , interview. 26 Brooks, Cooley, T. H i l l , interviews. 27 T. H i l l , interview. 28 Brooks, Cooley, interviews. 29 T. H i l l , interview. Masley, interview. 31 Cooley, interview. 32R.C.W. 43. 21A.200. 33R.C.W. 43. 21A.210. •XL Widditsch, Masley, Biggs, interviews. Cooley, others, interviews, 'widditsch, interview. T. H i l l , interview. 35 36. 37 179 38 Masley, interview. 39 Biggs, Masley, interviews. 40 N.R.R.A. Annual Report, 1972, op. c i t . Ibxd. 42 Masley, Widditsch, interviews. 4 3 T h e Vancouver Sun, A p r i l 11, 1972. Seattle P o s t - I n t e l l i g e n c e r , A p r i l 1, 1972. Seattle Times, A p r i l 2, 1972. 44 Cooley, T. H i l l , interviews. 45 Environmental Evaluation Team, Washington State Department of Ecology, Steve M i t c h e l l (ed.), Environmental .Assessment: High  Ross Dam (Olympia, 1974). 46 International J o i n t Commission, Environmental and E c o l o g i -c a l Consequences i n Canada of Raising ROss Lake i n the Skagit  Valley to Elevation 1725 (Ottawa-Washington, D.C., 1971). 47 Gordon Vickery, interview. 48^ . , Pearson, interview. 49 Goldsworthy, interview. "^Goldsworthy, others, interviews. "'"'"Goldsworthy, Farquharson, interviews. 52 Goldsworthy, interview. Ibid. 54 J. H i l l , interview. "'"'Brooks, interview. ^Goldsworthy, interview. "^Goldsworthy, Brooks, interviews. "^Brooks, interview. 59 Goldsworthy, Brooks, Widditsch interviews. "^Brooks, interview. 61 T... Ibid. ^^Masley, Goldsworthy, Brooks, interviews. "^Masley, interview. 64 Brooks, Vickery, interviews. "^Goldsworthy, interview. 66 Brooks, Farquharson, interviews. 67„. . «. Biggs, interview. 68 Pearson, interview. 69 Goldsworthy, J . H i l l , Pearson, others, interviews. 7°Goldsworthy, T. H i l l , interviews. 7"""Widditsch, interview. Mrs. Widditsch was s c e p t i c a l . 72 J. H i l l , interview. 73 J. H i l l , Goldsworthy, Pearson, interviews. 7 4Brooks, interview. 7 "^Goldsworthy, interview. 181 76T, ., Ibid. ^Masley, interview. 78 Goldsworthy, interview. Ibid. 80^ . ^ Farquharson, interview. Q-| J . H i l l , Pearson, Cooley, Widditsch, others, interviews. ^^Masley, Goldsworthy, Pearson, interviews. Pearson, J . H i l l , interviews. 84 . . Pearson, interview. 85 J. H i l l , others, interviews. 86 Pearson, interview. 87 Goldsworthy, interview. 88 Biggs, interview. 89 Goldsworthy, interview. Ibid. asley, Widditsch, Cooley, interviews. 92 T. H i l l , interview. 93 Goldsworthy, interview. 94 T. H i l l , interview. J. H i l l , Brooks, Goldsworthy, interviews. 9 6 J . H i l l , Brooks, Goldsworthy, Masley, interviews. 97 Goldsworthy, J, H i l l , interviews. 98 J . H i l l , Masley, Cooley, interviews. 99 Brooks, interview. Vickery, interview. 1 0 1Goldsworthy, Brooks, others, interviews. 102 T. H i l l , interview. 103 Widditsch, interview. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS -AND: IMPLICATIONS i 184 In Chapter V, the r e s u l t s of the research on c e r t a i n public hearings held with reference to the High Ross Dam were discussed. This research supports several conclusions with regard to open-ness and e f f i c i e n c y . In t h i s chapter, these conclusions w i l l be discussed. F i n a l l y , some of the implications these conclusions hold for the management of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s w i l l be explored. CONCLUSIONS The conclusions below are based on the research of Chapter V. They indicated that the hearings as a c o l l e c t i o n were democratic i n terms of the c r i t e r i a established. Nevertheless, the hearings process has exhibited c e r t a i n weaknesses which merit our attention as we design more responsive and democratic i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrange-ments for i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s management. The conclusions below are l i m i t e d i n reference, however, to the Skagit and should not be assumed to apply i n a l l cases of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s manage-ment. I t should be said that the context of many i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r c o n f l i c t s d i f f e r s g r e atly from that of the Skagit. In t h i s l i g h t the conclusions below are offered. Conclusions Respecting Openness Conclusion I. The hearings as a collective were open. Based on the model of multiple channels leading to the d e c i s i o n -185 makers, i t can be concluded that there was adequate access to channels where c i t i z e n s may f r e e l y make input. This i s substan-t i a t e d by the wide scope of information accepted c o l l e c t i v e l y at the various hearings as seen i n the t r a n s c r i p t s and by the i n t e r -views of p a r t i c i p a n t s . Conclusion I I . The openness of individual hearings varied considerably: the 1971 I.J.C. hearings were not fully open and the 1970 P.U.C. hearings were too open. The differences between various hearings were s t r i k i n g . The I.J.C. hearings were characterized by l i m i t e d geographic, j u r i s d i c t i o n a l , and d e c i s i o n a l scope. The concern of these hearings was too. narrowly delimited to consideration of mit i g a t i n g measures f o r the protection of -he <"rr:.ronmeii;. :'.n. U+oxqi*. from the .g.ass..'D T e . . of the environment i n Canada from the Ross Dam. In f a i r n e s s , i t should be said that these r e s t r i c t i o n s were not r i g i d l y adhered to. On the other hand, the P.U.C. hearings d i d not focus attention on one issue at a time, but allowed testimony f r e e l y on a v a r i e t y of subjects at each of i t s several hearings i n 1970. Conclusion I I I . There is reason to believe that the hearings were influential in affecting the position of decision-makers. Discussions with decision-makers and review of events subsequent to the p u b l i c hearings lead to a conclusion that these hearings did tra n s l a t e to action. While i t can not be argued that the hearings represented a cross s e c t i o n of the population, i t can be said that those c i t i z e n s who t e s t i f i e d at the hearings represented a potent p o l i t i c a l force. In one case, public expression may have l e d to a 186 change i n the decision-makers through voter action at the p o l l s . In another, the neutral response of the hearings commission v a l i -2 dated the p o s i t i o n of the decision-maker. Strong p u b l i c pressure thus d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y affected p o l i t i c a l p o s i t i o n s of decision-makers. Conclusion IV. Openness of a public hearing may be affected by the technical proficiency of the hearings board or sup-porting staff. The l e v e l of perceptiveness which the hearings board or i t s s t a f f may have i s strongly affected by the l e v e l of knowledge and exper-t i s e evidenced by the background of i t s . personnel. Thus, the International J o i n t Commission and the Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission evidenced a strong background on t h e i r boards and sup-porting s t a f f , while the Public U t i l i t i e s Committee suffered from i t s more l i m i t e d expertise. The P.U.C. board members expressed an awareness of these l i m i t a t i o n s and hi r e d consultants which did not f u l l y resolve the problem. Conclusion V. The goal of encouraging free expression by. citizens means that an open public hearing must admit some testimony of varying quality and veracity. As any j u r i s t knows, i t i s possible to b u i l d two s u r p r i s i n g l y cogent cases from the same set of f a c t s . Frequently the t o t a l range of fact s surrounding an issue are unknown or disputable. Much f a c t u a l and s p e c i a l i z e d information was presented at the 187 hearings. In the above sets of hearings, concern was expressed for means of t e s t i n g the accuracy of t h i s testimony within a system which would not discourage or intimidate witnesses. Conclusion VI. Openness of a hearing can be affected by the volume of input which is expected by the hearings officers. A consensus e x i s t s that some l i m i t on the volume of testimony i s necessary to allow a f a i r a l l o c a t i o n of time to a l l affected i n -te r e s t s . The widely used system of a short o r a l statement coupled with written statements seemed acceptable. Some doubt was expres-3 sed as to whether everything written was read, but equally of 4 doubt i s that everything said i s l i s t e n e d to. Ultimately, t h i s would depend upon the decision-makers and the amount of input. Broadly speaking, i t was found that both c i t i z e n s and hearings of-f i c e r s respected conciseness and br e v i t y as most e f f e c t i v e . Conclusion VII. Openness of a hearing can be and was af-fected by rules granting special time privileges to some parties and not to others. Inmost of the hearings on the issue, the applicant f o r the dam, Ci t y Light, was offered a s p e c i a l and lengthy block of time to make a case f o r the dam. Following t h i s , l i m i t e d time was allowed for organizations and, f i n a l l y , f o r c i t i z e n s . This procedure gives the protagonists greater opportunity to make t h e i r p o s i t i o n c l e a r , i f the time i s w e l l used. Without a free and equal opportu-188 nity for the party of the second part, the opponents, to make a position, this special opportunity means the hearings are more open to some than to others. Conclusion VIII. Notification procedures were very important in determining the openness of these public hearings. In a l l cases, hearings officers had a procedure for attempting to notify citizens. In a l l cases, this process of notification was conceived to be a d i f f i c u l t and sensitive task. A primary tactic for strengthening the hearings process was seen as improvement in notification procedures. There is no way of knowing i f a l l af-fected interests knew of the hearings, but i t may be concluded that there was an attempt made to reach as many as possible. None of the interviewees indicated doubts about the fairness of the notification procedures. Conclusion IX. The identity of witnesses and their af-fected interest in the. proposals considered were not always determined. In reviewing transcripts and through interviews, confusion was found as to who was testifying and why. While no one challenged the relevance of the concern of Canadian witnesses, there was some concern about witnesses appearing from "Portland.""' Others expres-sed the greater credibility and effectiveness of local groups. The representativeness of a group position with respect to i t s mem-bers has been challenged (U.B.C. student government, Mountaineers, 189 Hope Board of Trade). Numerous groups l a r g e l y unknown to the hearings board presented testimony. On the other hand, consul-tants paid by the various groups offered testimony without d i s -c l o s i n g f i n a n c i a l support. Concern was expressed i n interviews that hearings boards should know who they are l i s t e n i n g to and what d i r e c t concern the witness has with the issue. I f hearings boards are to l i s t e n to " a l l a ffected persons," they must know what the s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s of each witness are. Conclusion X. With the exception of the International Joint Commission hearings> the hearings authorities investigated were not required to consider the affected interests of Canadians. The Ci t y Council of Seattle i s a municipal l e g i s l a t u r e with a re-el u-* reTnp"*>~ quirement to be responsible to the Seattle electorate. The Depart-ment of Ecology, to which the E c o l o g i c a l Commission,reports, i s a Washington State agency responsible only to the c i t i z e n s of the State of Washington. The Federal Power Commission i s responsible only to c i t i z e n s of the United States. In each of these cases, i t could not be held l e g a l l y responsible for Canadian af f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s , though perhaps moral r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was f e l t . Perhaps, that the U.S. boards did l i s t e n i s a unique event not found e l s e -where i n the world: the a u t h o r i t i e s of one nation accepted testimony from the c i t i z e n s of another. Nevertheless, i t i s c l e a r that there were no hearings held e x c l u s i v e l y under the authority of Canadian a u t h o r i t i e s . Thus, Canadian a u t h o r i t i e s have not sought p u b l i c 190 input through the hearings process from their citizens. In a con-text of transboundary p o l i t i c a l involvement, this also indicates that Americans have not had access to Canadian authorities via hearings. Conclusions Respecting Efficiency Conclusion XI. The cost involved in presenting testimony to these hearings was very heavy. Those who attempted to make testimony at these hearings as a group spent very large blocks of money and time on this issue. City Light, the applicant, had expenses involved which would have been incurred in any case, but i t s special costs in these hearings were substantial. 7 Substantial may be taken to mean several hund-reds of thousands of dollars. On the other side, one group, the N.C.C.C. Seattle Coalition, had direct expenses of at least $10 to $15 thousand. In addition, i t "invested" the time of i t s mem-bers, which had an opportunity cost associated with i t . Based on review of the results of this labour and on interviews, this expense i s undoubtedly worth tens of thousands of dollars. Conclusion XII. For the citizens who participated in these hearings, the costs were not too heavy. No one interviewed suggested that there should not have been hearings on this issue. This issue was considered very important by both sides and opportunity to present input was accepted or 191 welcomed. One extremely important q u a l i f i c a t i o n i s that i n every case those interviewed were i n a socio-economic and educational p o s i t i o n which gave them the resources with which to do the neces-sary preparation and cover the expenses they incurred. This study did not deal with the p o l i t i c a l c a p a b i l i t i e s of low income persons. Conclusion XIII. There were substantial advantages to City Light in terms of its ability to absorb effort costs. The revenue base of a large bureaucracy which attempts to make a po s i t i o n at a hearing i s c l e a r l y a s i g n i f i c a n t advantage. T e s t i -mony presented by C i t y Light was presented by paid o f f i c e r s and consultants. Testimony of other witnesses f o r and against was not n e c e s s a r i l y paid. Researching issues to make i n t e l l i g e n t testimony i s an expensive proposition. In f a i r n e s s , i t should be said that the burden of proving the f e a s i b i l i t y of a dam i s c l e a r l y on the applicant. On the other hand, an incumbent p o s i t i o n such as the High Ross Dam plan has already been l e g i t i m i z e d and the burden of proof f o r re v e r s a l of the decision may we l l be on the opponents. These pro s c r i p t i o n s aside, i t i s s t i l l c l e a r that there i s advantage to the bureaucracy. Conclusion XIV. Substantial efficiency and effectiveness in presentation of testimony can be achieved by organiza- . tion of testimony by ad hoc coalitions of citizens. A forum which hears copious testimony from many c i t i z e n s has a great 192 amount of overlap and duplication, as well as gaps in coverage of some issues. A coalition may allow witnesses to specialize without concern about other points of interest being neglected. Specializa-tion allows more intensive concentration on certain issues while s t i l l covering the same range of topics. As well, i t presents the consensual position of i t s member groups. It allows for pooling of expertise and financial resources toward a common position. Conclusion XV. The demand for sophisticated testimony and expensive preparation in hearings of this nature may poten-tially limit the role of persons of limited socio-economic and educational background. These hearings accepted testimony of varying sophistication. How-ever, the most sophisticated testimony required financial resources to enable preparation and appearance. Many of the presentations required substantial preparation including f i e l d work, materials, and leisure time. This preparation necessitated spending con-siderable sums of money and time. On the other hand, special biological and technical testimony required some specialized and sophisticated educational achievement. The widely documented existence of classes with l i t t l e discretionary income and low educational achievement leads to concern for the capacity of these persons to make tangible impact upon decision-makers through the hearings process. This study merely indicates a conclusion that the cost may be too high for these persons. 193 Conclusion XVI. The location of a hearing substantially affects the effort involved in using it and who can testify. A check of the roster of witnesses f o r each of the hearings i n d i -cates a su b s t a n t i a l tendency f o r witnesses to favour attendance at hearings close to home. I t might be stated as a proposition that the witness has a propensity for attending a hearing which i s i n versely proportional to the distance to that hearing. C l e a r l y , holding the hearings close to the affected c i t i z e n s supports an open and e f f i c i e n t hearings process. Conclusion XVII. The public media have a large influence on decision-makers which affects the level of effort re-quired for citizens to obtain the attention of these decision-makers. The p o s i t i o n of an ostensibly representative and neutral press corps can have a great influence on decision-makers. I t can manu-facture issues and have great impact on the p o l i t i c a l fortunes of decision-makers. I t i s convenient to discharge complaints against the press as attacks upon someone else's opinion. I t i s fashionable to stand on the doctrine of freedom of the press. I t was cl e a r i n the case of the High Ross Dam that the various newspapers took strong stands and supported these stands.with news s e l e c t i v i t y . These positions affected the l e v e l of e f f o r t necessary by c i t i z e n s to a f f e c t the decisions through hearings. The press, i n creating 194 an aura of severe c r i t i c i s m of a,project, can necessitate great e f f o r t toward n e u t r a l i z i a t i o n by the project proponents. This study makes no assessment of the press's r o l e except to i n d i c a t e that t h i s r o l e i s large and perhaps l a r g e l y unrecognized. Conclusion XVIII. Openness and efficiency are synergistic factors which operate in an inter.relatedepatte'rn'-in-whick';. changes in the level of efficiency cause changes in the level of openness and vice versa. ' I t became evident during t h i s research that the l e v e l of openness a f f e c t s the l e v e l of e f f i c i e n c y . I f hearings are not s u f f i c i e n t l y open, the access to the decision-makers i s l i m i t e d . This means that the e f f o r t s of c i t i z e n s have les s reward i n r e l a t i o n to e f f o r t . The hearings i n t h i s case would not be e f f i c i e n t . On the other hand, i f hearings are not focussed, the channels may become over-loaded and the c i t i z e n ' s message on a p a r t i c u l a r subject i s l o s t i n the masses of. input. Again, h i s e f f o r t i s wasted. It i s easy to see that the l e v e l of e f f i c i e n c y also a f f e c t s openness. I f hearings processes are d i f f i c u l t to use, c i t i z e n s may be discouraged from p a r t i c i p a t i n g . While openness was defined as the receptiveness of the system to input without regard to the costs to the c i t i z e n ( e f f i c i e n c y ) , i t i s clear that one possible and e f f e c t i v e screen i s the l e v e l of e f f o r t required to make a statement. Thus openness i n the wider sense i s s a c r i f i c e d . 195 Conclusion XIX. The efficiency and openness of the public hearing relative to other forms of input requires analysis of other forms of input in comparison. This thesis has sought to determine the system of public hearings was open and efficient. To measure adequately how open and efficient the hearings were, some form of measure or index of openness or ef-ficiency i s necessary. In this thesis, time constraints inhibited re-search of alternative channels of communication as standards of com-parison. This would involve the assessment of the comparative open-ness and efficiency of the different methods based on some index of comparison. The approach used i n this thesis was not to assess the hearings based on comparison with alternatives, but rather on the performance given a set of c r i t e r i a . The question then was "were the hearings open and efficient?" The question of how efficient and open the hearings were, in terms of the "second best" alternative, was le f t to further study in other research. This further study is very important should merit immediate attention. IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL RIVERS MANAGEMENT The conclusions above have certain implications for the manage-ment of international rivers. The hearings process was found to be an open process feeding useful information on citizen preferences to decision-makers. In terms of the management of international rivers, this would imply that a democratic arrangement would u t i l i z e the public hearings channel wherever i t s decisions affected a sizeable segment of the citizens for whom i t is responsible. 196 Of course, the l i m i t a t i o n s of the International J o i n t Commission should be kept i n mind. The I.J.C. i s not an elected body, but an administrative arrangement between the two na t i o n a l governments. As such i t has the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to represent the na t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s of the respective nations. Local i n t e r e s t s may be s a c r i f i c e d i n the national i n t e r e s t . However, the governments must have a means of weighing what these i n t e r e s t s are. I f p o l i t i c s i s a process of bargaining, then the bargainers should know what the stakes of the game are. They should l i s t e n to l o c a l input. In the case of the Canadians, l o c a l input went i n t e r n a t i o n a l . There were no hearings under ex c l u s i v e l y Canadian c o n t r o l . And, the only i n s t i t u t i o n with i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , the I . J . C , had l i m i t e d openness. So Canadian a u t h o r i t i e s did not receive Canadian or, f o r that matter, American input v i a the hearings pro-cess . There was no dialogue between Canadian and American authori-t i e s on a l o c a l l e v e l . American hearings were not required to take Canadian affected i n t e r e s t s i n t o account. Perhaps the hearings were open and democratic, but, i f so, then perhaps i t i s a l l the more important that they should be sponsored by a l l a u t h o r i t i e s with a r o l e i n the issue. A relevant suggestion would thus be that i n issues such as the High Ross Dam, Canadians could hold hearings with respect to the p o s i t i o n respective governments should take and why. The mechanics of t h i s suggestion are not simple. Canadians may have a d i f f e r e n t view of the hearings process than Americans. The Canadian governments, p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l , operate on a 197 parliamentary system where the dec i s i o n to hold hearings may be at the i n i t i a t i v e of the government and thus highly p o l i t i c a l . The government could decide to hold hearings when i t would serve the i n t e r e s t s of the government, and not nec e s s a r i l y the i n t e r e s t s of the c i t i z e n s . Thus c e r t a i n automatic provisions would be necessary to insure openness. An example of an automatic process i s the Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission. The Commission has the independent authority to decide to hold hearings on any issue under the authority of the Department of Ecology. The Commission also contains representatives of several segments of society. Thus, i t acts as a watchdog on the actions of the Department. This procedure insures that the hearings w i l l be held when c i t i z e n i n t e r e s t s d i c t a t e and not when hearings are p o l i t i c a l l y expedient. Another i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s study i s that the costs of c e r t a i n types of p a r t i c i p a t i o n are very high. This may lead to great advan-tage to the input source with the greatest f i n a n c i a l and te c h n i c a l resources. To quote Dr. Ian E f f o r d , a Canadian opponent to the dam: It i s generally accepted that every accused should be defended at h i s t r i a l and that, i f he i s poor, the state should pay for h i s defense. Unfortunately, i t i s not yet accepted p r a c t i c e f o r the state to pay for the defense of our environment when i t i s on t r i a l . A proposal to develop or use an environmental resource i s accompanied usually by a powerful argu-ment supported by expert testimony which i s both funded and edited by the developer. Arguments that the natural resource might be better used i n other ways or j u s t l e f t untouched—as an investment i n the f u t u r e — a r e usually presented by amateurs and r a r e l y funded by more than a few dollars.8 198 Somehow, to have a f a i r hearing of a problem, some form of balance i s necessary. There i s some merit i n f i n a n c i a l , or t e c h n i c a l sup-port of the "party of the second part" where necessary. The mechanics of how to d e l i v e r t h i s support are not at a l l c l e a r . To leave i t to p o l i t i c a l government a u t h o r i t i e s would mean p o l i t i c a l choices would be involved i n the a l l o c a t i o n of monies and t e c h n i c a l support. Rather, support would have to be c a r e f u l l y j u s t i f i e d . In the l a s t a n a l y s i s , any support a l t e r s the e x i s t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n of resources and i s thus highly p o l i t i c a l . In t h i s vein, the Canadian f e d e r a l government i s giving aid to the R.O.S.S. Committee i n support of i t s presentation at the 9 Federal Power Commission hearings. The Federal Power Commission i s h i r i n g c e r t a i n spokesmen of the U.S. opposition to the dam to t e s t i f y 3° exp ."it witnesses. Anv means xf. supw . *- hps strong, t e s t i f y as expert witnesses. Any means of support has strong p o l i -t i c a l overtones, but some way of overcoming the organizational or f i n a n c i a l advantages of the strong side should be explored. Meanwhile, c i t i z e n s should be encouraged to form c o a l i t i o n s where t h i s makes for more e f f i c i e n t use of t h e i r resources. The s i m p l i f i c a t i o n and s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of t h e i r work greatly aids i n the process of accepting input. I t provides aatangible party of the second part. I t abbreviates testimony and leaves more time to other witnesses. F i n a l l y , i n l i g h t of t h i s research, c e r t a i n p r i n c i p l e s of a democratic hearing may be i n f e r r e d . Hearings should have balanced time r u l e s , adequate n o t i f i c a t i o n , and so f o r t h . I t would seem a 199 p o s i t i v e step f o r hearings a u t h o r i t i e s to adopt a clear procedure. This procedure should be f l e x i b l e , but the reasons f o r dis c r e t i o n a r y action should be thought about and made e x p l i c i t . In t h i s way, we use a very important v e h i c l e of p o l i t i c a l communication i n a thought-f u l way. The hearings process i s an ostensibly simple v e h i c l e f o r com-municating with decision-makers. I t has become an important part of North American p o l i t i c a l communication. Beneath the simple e x t e r i o r , however, are suble v a r i a b l e s which may fluc t u a t e from hearing to hearing. Hearings may be open i n terms of t h e i r scope of allowed intake and yet closed i n terms of the a b i l i t y of the hearings board to understand what i s presented. Hearings may be meant as therapy sessions to r e l i e v e p o l i t i c a l f r u s t r a t i o n s , or meaningful vehicles of c i t i z e n communication and control. These and many other variables can determine how open and easy the hearing i s to use. In the end, with a p o l i t i c a l system i n c r e a s i n g l y dependent upon the hearings process f o r information, knowledge concerning these variables may have a tremendous influence on the character of North American democracy. 200 FOOTNOTES •"T. H i l l , Cooley, interviews. 2 Biggs, interview. 3 T. H i l l , interview. 4 Goldsworthy, interview. ^J. H i l l , Pearson, interviews. "^Goldsworthy, interview. ^Vickery, interview. 8 I a n E f f o r d , Ph.D., "Preface," The Future of the Skagit  V a l l e y , op. c i t . 9 Farquharson, interview. BIBLIOGRAPHY 202 GENERAL ALMOND', GABRIEL A. and G. BINGHAM POWELL, JR. Comparative Poli t i e s ': A'Developmental Approach'. Boston: L i t t l e , Brown and Company, 1966. ALMOND, GABRIEL A. and SIDNEY VERBA. The C i v i c Culture. Boston: L i t t l e , Brown and Company, 1963. ALTSHULER, ALAN A. Community Control. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1970. BACH, GEORGE. The Intimate Enemy. New York: Avon Books, 1968. BERBER, F. J . Rivers i n International Law. London: Stevens and Sons, Ltd.,. 1959. BISHOP, A. BRUCE. P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Water Resources Planning. Alexandria, V i r g i n i a : I n s t i t u t e for Water Resources, December, 1970. BLALOCK, HUBERT M., JR. Causal Inferences i n Non-Experimental Research. Chapel H i l l : The U n i v e r s i t y of North Carolina Press, 1964. BLAU,-PETERM. and W. RICHARD SCOTT. Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach. San Francisco': Chandler Pub-l i s h i n g Company, 1962. BLOOMFIELD, F. M. and GERALD F. FITZGERALD. Boundary Waters  Problems of Canada and the United States. Toronto: The Carswell Company, Ltd., 1958. BOWER, BLAIR T. "Some P h y s i c a l , Technical, and Economic Charac-t e r i s t i c s of Water and Water- Resources Systems Implica-tions for Administration," Natural Resources' Journal, II I (October, 1963), 215-38. BUTRICO, R. F., C. J . TOUHILL, and I. L. WHITMAN (eds.). Resource  Management i n the Great Lakes Basin. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and Company, 1971. CAMPBELL, THOMAS H. and ROBERT 0. SYLVESTER. Water Resources  Management and Public P o l i c y . S e a t t l e : U n i v e r s i t y of Wa shington, 1968. CHACKO, CHIRAKAIKARAN J . The International J o i n t Commission. New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1932. 203 CHAPMAN, J . D. (ed.)- The International River Basin. Vancouver, B.C.: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Publications Centre, 1963. CHARLESWORTH, JAMES G. (ed.). Contemporary P o l i t i c a l A nalysis. New York: The Free Press, 1967. CHEVALIER, MICHAEL. S o c i a l Science and Water Management: A Planning Strategy. Ottawa: Queens P r i n t e r , 1970. CHILSON, HATFIELD. "Federal-State Relations i n the F i e l d of Water Rights," State Government, XXXIII (Winter, 1966), 32-38. CHURCHMAN, C. WEST. The Systems Approach. New York: D e l l Publishing Company, 1962. COLEMAN, JAMES S. , AMATAI ETZIONI, and JOHN PORTER. Macro- sociology: Research and Theory. Boston: A l l y n and Bacon Inc., 1970. COLLINSON, J. D. "Water Management i n Canada," The Forestry  Chronicle,-42 (March, 1967), 24-33. CRUTCHFIELD, JAMES A. "The Marine F i s h e r i e s : A Problem of International Cooperation," American Economic Review, LIV (May, 1964), 207-218. DAHL, ROBERT. Aft e r the Revolution? New Haven: Yale U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1970. . . Modern P o l i t i c a l A n a l y s i s . Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . : Prentice H a l l , Inc., 1963. DAVIES, JAMES C. "Toward a Theory of Revolution," American  S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. February, 1962, 5-19. DAVISON, W. PHILLIPS." International P o l i t i c a l Communication. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1965. DEUTSCH, KARL W. The Analysis o f - I n t e r n a t i o n a l Relations. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1968. . Nationalism and Social" Communication. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press, 1953. . The Nerves of Government. New York: The Free Press, 1963. 204 DOWNS, ANTHONY. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: L i t t l e , Brown and Company, 1967. DWORSKY, LEONARD (ed.). S o c i a l and Economic Aspects of Water Resources' Development. Proceedings of a symposium held by the American Water Resources Association i n Ithaca, New York, June 21-23, 1971. Urbana, I l l i n o i s , 1972. EASTON, DAVID. The P o l i t i c a l System. New York: A l f r e d A. Knopf, 1953. . . A Systems Analysis of P o l i t i c a l L i f e . New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965. ETZIONI, AMATAi: P o l i t i c a l U n i f i c a t i o n . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965. FAGAN, RICHARD R. P o l i t i c scvand Communication. Boston: L i t t l e , Brown and Company, 1966; Federal Power Commission vs. Oregon, 349 U.S. Reports 435 (1955). "The Federal Role i n Water Management," Water and P o l l u t i o n  Control, 107 (September,-1969), 19-23. FESTINGER, LEON, HENRY W. RIECKEN, and STANLEY SCHACHTER. When  Prophesy F a i l s . New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1956. FISHER, HEINTZ-DIETRICH and JOHN-CALHOUN MERRILL (eds.). . Inter- national Communication: Media, Channels, Functions. New York: Hastings House, Publishers, 1970. FOX, IRVING K. "Work Plan f or Project on International Rivers." Vancouver, B.C.: Westwater'Research Centre, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973. (Mimeographed) GARSON, G. DAVID. Handbook of P o l i t i c a l Science Methods. Boston: Holbrook Press,' Inc., 1971. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF PERMANENT JUSTICE. The Lotus Case. P.J.I.C., Ser. A, No. 10. INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION." Rules'- of- Procedure and Text of Treaty. Ottawa, Canada and Washington, D.C, 1965. INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION." H e l s i n k i Rules on the Uses of Waters of International Rivers. Resolution adopted by i t s Fifty^Second Conference held i n H e l s i n k i , Finland, August 20, 1966. 205 INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION. P r i n c i p l e s ' of' Law Governing the  Uses of International Rivers. Resolution adopted by Association at i t s Conference held i n Dubrovnik, Yugo-s l a v i a , August, 1956. KUHN, THOMAS S. The Structure of S c i e n t i f i c Revolutions. Chicago: The Uni v e r s i t y of Chicago'Press,'1962. LANE, ROBERT E. and DAVID 0. SEARS. Public Opinion. Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1964. LIPSET, SEYMOUR MARTIN. ' P o l i t i c a l Man. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1960. MAC CALLUM, J . L. "The International Joint Commission," Canadian  Geographic Journal, LXXII (March, 1966), 76-78. MADGE, JOHN.. The Tools of S o c i a l Science. New York: Anchor Books, 1965. MARCH, JAMES G. (ed.). Handbook' of'Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNalley and Company, 1965. MARPLE, WARREN H. and LEONARD' E. DWORSKY." "Regional Planning: Some Problems i n the P a c i f i c Northwest," Western  Resources Papers 1960. Boulder: U n i v e r s i t y of Colorado Press, I960', 35-61. MAYO, H. B. An. Introduction to Democratic Theory. New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1960. MERRITT, RICHARD L. Systematic Approaches to Comparative P o l i - t i c s . Chicago: Rand McNalley and Company, 1970. MICHAEL, H. P. (ed.). Water Development i n Less Developed Areas. Transactions of an International Conference held i n B e r l i n , Germany, May 17 and 21, 1963. B e r l i n : Duncker and Humblot, 1965. MILLIMAN, HER0ME W. "Economic Considerations for the Design of Water In s t i t u t i o n s , " " "Public' Administration, XXV (December, 1965). MITCHELL, JOYCE and WILLIAM C. Introduction to P o l i t i c a l A nalysis . Chicago: Rand McNalley, 1968. NORTH, ROBERT C , OLE R. H0LSTI, M. GEORGE ZANINOVICH, and DINA A. ZINNESY Content A n a l y s i s : A Handbook with Ap p l i c a - tions f o r the Study of International C r i s i s . Chicago: Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1963. 206 PETERSON, KENNETH and IRVING K. FOX. "A Normative Structure for Evaluating Water Quality Management I n s t i t u t i o n s . " Vancouver, B.C. Westwater Research Centre, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. July, 1973. (Mimeographed) PORTER, DONALD E. and PHILIP B.' APPLEWHITE. Studies i n Organiza- t i o n a l Behaviour and Management. Scranton, Penn.: International Textbook Company, 1964. SEWELL, W.R. DERRICK, RICHARD W. JUDY, and LIONEL OUELLET. Water  Management Research: S o c i a l Science P r i o r i t i e s . Ottawa: Queens P r i n t e r , 1969. . "The Columbia River Treaty: Some Lessons and Implica-t i o n s , " The Canadian Geographer, 10 (1966),- 145-156. DE TOCQUEVILLE, ALEXIS. Democracy i n America. New York: The New American L i b r a r y , 1965. UNITED NATIONS, OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION. Yearbook of the United Nations,-1970. New York, 1970, 817-819. . UNITED STATES, DEPARTMENT OF STATE. "Legal Aspects of the Use of Systems of International Waters." E i g h t y - F i f t h Congress, Second Session, Document" No. 118. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing" O f f i c e , 1958. WASHINGTON STATE ECOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Observation of Meeting held i n Longview, Washington, A p r i l 11, 1974. WASHINGTON STATE, NATURAL RESOURCES AND RECREATION AGENCIES. Annual Report 1971. Olympia: State of Washington, 1972. . Annual Report 1972. Olympia: State of Washington, 1973. WASHINGTON STATE, Department of Ecology Act 1970. R.C.W. Chapter 43.21A. "Water Diversion—Touchy B.C. Subject," Water P o l l u t i o n Control, 107 (November, 1969), 44-46. WATERFIELD, DONALD. The Continental Waterboy. Toronto: Clarke, Irwin Company, Ltd., 1970. WELSH, MATTHEW E. "The Work of the International Joint Commission," Department of State" B u l l e t i n , 59 (September 23, 1968), 311-314. 207 WESTERN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS RESEARCH COUNCIL. Conference Proceedings. Portland, Oregon, 1961. WILSON, J . W/ People i n the Way. Toronto: The Un i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1973. YINGER, F. MILTON. "Anomie, A l i e n a t i o n , and P o l i t i c a l Behaviour," i n Jeannie N. Knutson Ced . ) . Handbook of P o l i t i c a l Socio- logy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1973, 171-202. 2 0 8 THE S K A G I T R I V E R ( I t e m s l i s t e d b y d a t e ) A n I l l u s t r a t e d H i s t o r y o f S k a g i t a n d S n o h o m i s h C o u n t i e s ; T h e i r  P e o p l e , t h e i r C o m m e r c e a n d t h e i r R e s o u r c e s . C h i c a g o : I n t e r s t a t e P u b l i s h i n g C o m p a n y , 1 9 0 6 . " P o w e r r e s o u r c e s o f t h e S k a g i t R i v e r , " T h e C o a s t ./(December, 1 9 0 8 ) , 3 8 6 3 8 6 . " C h e c k i n g u p o n Mr.- R o s s ' , " Town' C r i e r y ( A u g u s t 8, 1 9 1 4 ) , p 7.7-" W h a t ' s t h e h u r r y ? ( S k a g i t R i v e r P r o j e c t ' , " T o w n C r i e r , (May 1 1 , 1 9 1 8 ) . " S k a g i t R i v e r D e v e l o p m e n t , " P o w e r , 47 ( J u n e 1 1 , 1 9 1 8 ) , 8 5 3 . U h d e n , C F . " S e a t t l e b u i l d i n g l a r g e m u n i c i p a l h y d r o e l e c t r i c d e -v e l o p m e n t , " E n g i n e e r i n g N e w s - R e c o r d t- ( N o v e m b e r 1 8 , 1 9 2 0 ) , 9 9 4 - 6 . SCOTT, W.A. " S k a g i t R i v e r H y d r o e l e c t r i c D e v e l o p m e n t , " E l e c t r i c  R e v i e w , 79' ( D e c e m b e r 3, 1 9 2 1 ) , 8 4 0 - 1 . " P r o g r e s s o n t h e S k a g i t R i v e r P o w e r P r o j e c t , " E n g i n e e r i n g News ( D e c e m b e r 8, 1 9 2 1 . " F u r t h e r D e v e l o p m e n t s o n S k a g i t R i v e r D e f e r r e d , " E n g i n e e r i n g  N e w s - R e c o r d ( J u l y 2 4 , 1 9 2 4 . A d v e r t i s e m e n t . S e a t t l e T i m e s ( S e p t e m b e r 2 6 , 1 9 2 4 ) . " S e a t t l e C e l e b r a t e s C o m p l e t i o n o f S k a g i t P o w e r P r o j e c t , " S e a t t l e  D a i l y T i m e s ( S e p t e m b e r 2 8 , 1 9 2 4 ) . " P o w e r f o r S e a t t l e f r o m S k a g i t R i v e r , " P o w e r P l a n t E n g i n e e r i n g , X X V I I I ( N o v e m b e r 1 5 , 1 9 2 4 ) , 1 1 7 0 - 1 1 7 2 . " S k a g i t R i v e r D e v e l o p m e n t f o r S e a t t l e S y s t e m , " P o w e r ( J u n e 1 6 , 1 9 2 5 ) , 9 7 0 . HORNER, T. R. " M o u n t a i n s L i g h t a C i t y : S e a t t l e ' s A m b i t i o u s P o w e r - - - D e v e l o p m e n t , " S c i e n t i f i c A m e r i c a n , 1 3 3 (August, 1 9 2 5 ) , 1 1 2 - 1 1 3 . 209 ROSS, J . D. "Skagit River Development of the C i t y of S e a t t l e , " Journal of E l e c t r i c i t y (August, 1925) . ROSS, J . D. C i t y Light, The Municipal Light and Power System of  Seattle, Washington. Chicago: The Public Ownership League of America, 1928. "Campaign L i t e r a t u r e on the R e c a l l of Mayor Edwards." F i l e . Municipal Reference L i b r a r y , Seattle Municipal B u i l d i n g , Seattle, Washington. BURMASTER, VIOLET. "The History of Skagit County." Unpublished manuscript i n U n i v e r s i t y of Washington L i b r a r y , S e a t t l e , 1931. BANKER, E. F. "The Skagit River," The New American (October, 1935). BURN, JUNE. "I'PugetSSbuhdi^ : 'Sounder,\2p ( J u l y V S 1 9 3 6 ) l r & 6. BROWN, GILBERT. The Romance of C i t y L i g h t . S e a t t l e : Star Pub-l i s h i n g Company, 1937. BURN, JUNE. "Skagit River of Puget Sound," The Puget Sounder ( A p r i l , 1 9 3 8 ) , 1 f f . BENSON, LUCILE. Community Surveys of Counties', 1937-38. Olympia: Washington State S o c i a l Security Department, 1938. COLEMAN, M. "America's Best-Lighted C i t y , " Nation (August 19, 1939 ) , 193-5. INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION. A p p l i c a t i o n of_ the C i t y of Seattle for Approval of the Proposal to Raise the Water  Level of the Skagit River, State of" Washington, at and above the International Boundary. Hearing, September 12, 1941. "Raising Ross' Dam to 475 f t . height'," EngineeringsNews (September 20, 1 9 4 5 ) , 378-81. BRITISH COLUMBIA. The Skagit V a l l e y Lands Act. ( 1 9 4 7 ) . "Ross Dam t h i r d step nears completion," Engineering News-Record ? ( A p r i l 1, 19 4 8 ) , 487-9. "Waffle-face Dam," L i f e (September 12, 1949). 210 COOPER, CARL L. "Skagit Story," Seattle P o s t - I n t e l l i g e n c e r , 1951. MC WILLIAMS, MARY. Seattle Water Development History. Seattle: C i t y of Seattle, 1955. "Seattle-B.C. dispute goes to j o i n t board," Seattle - Times (October 10, 1958), 12. "$5,000,000 Spent i n Good F a i t h , Seattle to Stress at B. C. Hearing," Seattle Times (October 12, 1958), 9. " F i f t h highest i n the world—Ross Dam," Seattle Post-Intelligencer (February 2, 1959). "Power U t i l i t y Founded i n 1902," Seattle P o s t - I n t e l l i g e n c e r (February 8, 1959), 25. Seattle C i t y Light News, June, 1959. "Seattle seeks'new t a l k s ' i n B.C. Dispute," Seattle Times (January 15, 1960), 39. SPARKS, WILLIAM 0'. " J . D. Ross-and' Seattle C i t y L i g h t , " Unpublished Master's t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, 1964. "Control of Skagit River needed f o r Development," Bellingham  Herald (October 13, 1964), 1. DICK, WESLEY. "The Genesis of C i t y L i g h t , " Unpublished Master's th e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, 1965. " C i t y Light seeking 'tame' Skagit flow," Seattle Times (May 2, 1965), 89. PITZER, PAUL CURTIS. "A History of the Upper Skagit V a l l e y , 1880-1924," Unpublished Master's t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Washing-ton, 1966. "Man and the River," Seattle C i t y Light News, November, 1967, 5-7. "Looking over C i t y Light's Skagit P r o j e c t , " Seattle Sunday Times  P i c t o r i a l (May 19, 1968) ,.> 28-33. The Province, January, 1969 through A p r i l , 1974. The Seattle P o s t - I n t e l l i g e n c e r , January, 1969 through A p r i l , 1974. 211 Seattle Times, January, 1969 through A p r i l , 1974. The Vancouver Sun, January, 1969 through A p r i l , 1974. Public U t i l i t i e s Committee, Seattle City Council. The Goals of  Ci t y Light. Hearings, March 20 and March 26, 1970. Seattle, Washington, 1970. ._. The Role of City Government. Hearing, March 31, 1970. Seattle, Washington, 1970. " . Environment. Hearings, A p r i l 8 and A p r i l 16, 1970. Seattle, Washington, 1970. . Finances. Hearings, May 1 and May 7, 1970. Seattle, Wash-ington, 1970. . Underground WWif.ings • Hearing, May 15, 1970. Seattle, Washington, 1970. _. Financial Obligations of Public U t i l i t y to Municipal Govern- ment. Hearing, May 25, 1970. Seattle, Washington, 1970. F. F. SLANEY AND COMPANY. Skagit Valley and Ross Lake Reservoir i n Canada. Vancouver, B.C., 1970. WASHINGTON STATE ECOLOGICAL COMMISSION. State of Washington Eco- l o g i c a l Commission Hearing Regarding Proposal to Raise  Ross Dam. Hearing, March 16, 1971, Seattle, and March 17, 1971, Mount Vernon, Washington. 2 v o l . Olympia, Washington, 1971. CITY.OF SEATTLE, DEPARTMENT OF LIGHTING. Memorandum to the Inter- national Joint Commission: Environmental Investigations  Skagit Valley i n Ganada and Indications of Consequences  from Raising the Level of Ross Lake. Seattle, June, 1971. EEFQRD, IAN (ed.). The Future of the Skagit Valley. Vancouver, B.C.: I n s t i t u t e of Animal Resource Ecology, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971. BIGGS, JOHN A. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY. "Position Statement on High Ross Dam; F.P.C. Project No. 553," Letter to the Federal Power Commission, Olympia, Washington, 1971. INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION. Environmental and Ecological Con- sequences of Raising-Ross Lake i n the Skagit Valley to  Elevation 1725. Ottawa, Canada and Washington, D.C, 1971. "'33... -123, CITY OF SEATTLE. 1':':n/ • OEPARIMN M--t -i ri-.-n 3, \_-. v - Sf 212 NELSON, JOHN. CITY OF SEATTLE. LIGHTING DEPARTMENT. Memorandum to Gordon F. Vickery. Seattle, 1972. WASHINGTON.STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION TEAM. Environmental Assessment: High Ross Dam. Olympia, 1974. VICKERY, GORDON. Personal interview. 1:30 P.M., A p r i l 1, 1974. Seattle, Washington. COOLEY, GEORGE. Personal interview. 3:30 P.M., A p r i l 1, 1974. Seattle, Washington. GOLDSWORTHY, PATRICK. Personal interview. 11:30 P.M., A p r i l 2, 1974. Seattle, Washington. BROOKS, RICHARD J . Personal interview. 3:00 P.M., A p r i l 2, 1974. Seattl e , Washington. LEMING, CLAY. Conversation. 2:30 P.M., A p r i l 4, 1974. Seattle, Washington. WIDDITSCH, ANN. • Personal interview. 3:30 P.M., A p r i l 4, 1974. Seattle, Washington. HILL, TIMOTHY. Personal interview. 11:30 A.M., A p r i l 5, 1974. Seattle, Washington. MASLEY, ARPAD, M.D. Personal interview. 1:30 P.M., A p r i l 5, 1974. Bremerton, Washington. PEARSON, WILLIAM R. Personal interview. 8:30 A.M. ,- A p r i l 9, 1974. Sedro Woolley, Washington. HILL, JOHN C. Personal interview. 2:00 P.M.', A p r i l 9, 1974. Mount Vernon, Washington. WASHINGTON STATE ECOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Observation of Meeting. A p r i l 11, 1974. Longview, Washington. BIGGS, JOHN. Personal interview. 10:30 A.M., A p r i l 11, 1974. Longview, Washington. LEMARQUAND, DAVID. Personal interview. 2:00 P.M., A p r i l 15, 1974. Vancouver, B.C. FARQUHARSON, KENNETH. Personal interview. 8:00 A.M., A p r i l 17, 1974. Vancouver, B.C. APPENDICES 214 APPENDIX A A SURVEY OF THE CONTENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE HEARINGS, SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL, MARCH 20, 1970 TO MAY 25, 1970 The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee of the Seattle C i t y Council held a set of nine hearings from March 20, 1970 to May 25, 1970. These hearings were i n i t i a t e d because of a recognized i n t e r e s t of Seattle c i t i z e n s i n reviewing a wide range of pcpblicresB of the c i t y ' s u t i -l i t y , Seattle City Light. Concern had been expressed that the u t i -l i t y ' s p o l i c i e s were out of step with the wishes of the c i t y and i t s residents. The following i s a survey of these hearings meant as background to analyses found i n the text. This review w i l l consist of two parts: the d e s c r i p t i o n of hearings with minimal testimony on the High Ross Dam, and then a d e s c r i p t i o n of the hearings with extensive testimony on the dam. Hearings with Minimal High Ross Testimony 1. Hearing Number One, March 20, 1970. The topic announced f o r the hearing was the "Goals of C i t y L i g h t . " The Dam was mentioned i n scattered places as part of more general testimony. One c i t i z e n , Mr. R. J . Brooks of S e a t t l e , delivered testimony i n d i c a t i n g opposi-t i o n to C i t y Light's High Ross p o l i c y as part of a more general c r i t i c i s m of C i t y Light. 2. Hearing Number Two, March 26, 1970. The topi c announced for t h i s hearing was also the "Goals of C i t y L i g h t . " There were scat-tered references to the Dam by C i t y Light o f f i c i a l s , but no intensive 215 treatment of the issue. There was a group of c i t i z e n s t e s t i f y i n g . Four of these c i t i z e n s spoke against the Dam. There were no speakers i n favour. These witnesses were R. J. Brooks ( S e a t t l e ) , Ken Farquharson and F. J . Bartholomew ( B r i t i s h Columbia, repre-senting several environmental/outdoor groups), and Theodore Beck (Seatt l e ) . Testimony of these witnesses represents about a quarter of the time of the hearing. °' - Hear1 nK 3. Hearing Number Three, March 31, 1970. The topic of t h i s hearing was "The Role of Cit y Government." Very l i t t l e testimony was d i r e c -ted toward the High Ross, with no witnesses speaking d i r e c t l y to the issue of the Dam. References were occasionally made to the Dam i n r e l a t i o n to some other issue. 4. Hearing Number Four, A p r i l 8, 1970. The announced subject of th i s hearing was the "Environment." Five environmentalists appeared on the Dam, including Dr. P a t r i c k Goldsworthy, Margaret M i l l e r and Brock Evans of the North Cascades Conservation Council, and Charles Dolan of the S i e r r a Club of Western Washington. Another witness mentioning the Dam was P o l l y Dyer. These witnesses accoun-ted f o r about a quarter of the testimony at the hearing. They a l l spoke i n opposition to the Dam. Cit y Light did not present t e s t i -mony at the beginning of the hearing as was the usual p r a c t i c e . 5. Hearing Number Six, May 1, 1970. The topic of t h i s hearing was "Finances." Testimony on the Dam was minimal, with P a t r i c k Goldsworthy, R. J . Brooks, and Theodore Beck making short statements and requesting c e r t a i n information at the hearing. 216 6. Hearing Number Eight, May 15, 1970. This hearing was on "Under-ground Wiring" and contained no testimony on the Dam. 7. Hearing Number Nine, May 25, 1970. This hearing was the l a s t of the s e r i e s and was on the " F i n a n c i a l Obligations of Public U t i l i t y to Municipal Government." The High Ross was mentioned by four speakers including Theodore Beck, R. J . Brooks, David H i l l , and Katie Madsen. A l l spoke i n opposition to the Dam. Hearings with Extensive High Ross Testimony The above hearings were more general hearings and dealt with subjects i n addition to the High Ross Dam. They were mentioned to give some assessment of t h e i r r o l e i n the presentation of the Skagit issue. The above hearings represent a minor amount of testimony pre-sented on the Dam. Two hearings of the t o t a l nine did deal mainly with the Dam. These w i l l be surveyed b r i e f l y here. 1. Hearing Number Five, A p r i l 16, 1970. The purpose of this.hearing was to discuss the "Environment." The focus quickly became the High Ross Dam. About 97 per cent of the hearing dealt with the Dam. There were twenty-eight witnesses present to t e s t i f y and Canadians were included among the speakers. Twenty-one witnesses were against the Dam. The hearing was longer than the other hearings and many of the speakers presented written b r i e f s along with testimony. There were 19 written submissions t o t a l l i n g 89 pages. 2. Hearing Number Seven, May 7, 1970. The purpose of t h i s hearing was to discuss "Finances," but i t was announced at an e a r l i e r hearing 217 that the High Ross Dam would also be considered. About 68 per cent of the hearing dealt with the Dam. The main witness was Cas Bradeen, the Power Manager of Ci t y Light, speaking for the Dam. In addition to Mr. Bradeen, Ci t y Light Superintendent John Nelson and Norm Jacox spoke for the Dam. Three witnesses spoke i n opposition, i n c l u d i n g P a t r i c k Goldsworthy, Theodore Beck, and R. J . Brooks. Summary The High Ross Dam was the primary subject of two hearings, Hearings Number Five and Seven. Statements on the Dam were made at four other hearings including Hearings Number One, Two, Four, and Six. There was discussion but no formal statements i n reference to the Dam i n Hearing Three. Hearing Eight did not consider the issue. Thus hearings contained amounts of testimony on the Dam varying from zero to 97 per cent. Hearings Five and Seven are analyzed i n more d e t a i l elsewhere i n t h i s i n q u i r y . APPENDIX B COMPOSITION OF THE HEARINGS BOARDS The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee, Seattle C i t y Council. Members: Chairman George Cooley Councilman Liem Tuai Councilwoman Jeanette Williams Councilman Wayne Larkin Councilman Timothy H i l l Special Consultants: Professor Douglass C. North, University of Washington Professor Yoram Barzel, U n i v e r s i t y of Washington The Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission. Chairman Arpad Masley, M.D. Vice Chairman Harold Heacock Ann Widditsch John McGregor Charles Stewart Sargent Professor Gordon Orians Sam K i n v i l l e The International J o i n t Commission. Canadian Section: Chairman Louis Robichaud Professor Anthony Scott 5 c a . : : i Mr. Beaupre American Section: Chairman C h r i s t i a n Herter, J r . Charles Ross Eugene Weber The Seattle C i t y Council. Hearings Chairman Wayne Larkin The Council 219 APPENDIX C LISTING OF TECHNICAL BOARD PERSONNEL OF THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION The International J o i n t Commission i s supported by ad hoc te c h n i c a l boards i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of issues before the Commission. Boards are normally assembled to inve s t i g a t e an issue with personnel coming from various l o c a l and national agencies and pri v a t e l i f e , and re-turning to t h e i r normal pursuits at the conclusion of t h e i r i n v e s t i -gations. - Below i s a l i s t of the i n d i v i d u a l s who a s s i s t e d the Inter-n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission i n i t s 1970 i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the environ-mental consequences i n Canada of r a i s i n g Ross Dam to elevation 1725. Gary Bowden (Leader of the te c h n i c a l group) with Pearce, Bowden Economic Consultants Vancouver, B.C. Dickson MacKinnon F i s h e r i e s B i o l o g i s t Department of F i s h e r i e s and Forestry Province of B r i t i s h Columbia , Vancouver, B.C. R. B. Smith Research S c i e n t i s t Department of F i s h e r i e s and Forestry Province of B r i t i s h Columbia V i c t o r i a , B.C. Dennis Lundblad Hydrographies Engineer Geologist Environmental Review and Evaluation Section Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington Henderson Mclntyre Chief, Branch of Power Resources Bonneville Power Administration Portland, Oregon Robert McNeil Plans Coordinator P a c i f i c Northwest River Basins Commission 220 APPENDIX D LINES OF TESTIMONY BY POSITION AND NATIONALITY TESTIMONY BY POSITION HEARING LINES PRO-DAM CON-DAM NEUTRAL TOTAL FOR HEARING PUC # 5 Seattle PUC # 7 Seattle WSEC Seattle WSEC Mr. Vernon IJC Bellingham IJC Vancouver 516 713 2334 2141 1426 1291 1394 563 2439 2369 1961 4652 0 70 54 226 222 1910 1276 4843 4564 3613 6165 TOTAL 8421 13,378 572 22,371 HEARING LINES OF CANADIAN TESTIMONY BY POSITION CON-DAM NEUTRAL LINES PRO-DAM TOTAL FOR HEARING PUC # 5 Seattle PUC # 7 Seattle WSEC Seattle WSEC Mt. Vernon IJC Bellingham IJC Vancouver 0 0 0 535 189 938 851 0 321 1360 37 4652 0 0 0 0 44 222 851 0 321 1895 270 5812 TOTAL 1662 7221 266 9149 Seattle C i t y Light hired Canadian consultants to t e s t i f y at the various hearings. Their testimony accounted for 670 l i n e s of Canadian testimony. 221 LINES OF AMERICAN TESTIMONY BY POSITION HEARING LINES PRO-DAM CON-DAM NEUTRAL TOTAL FOR HEARING PUC # 5 Seattle 516 543 0 1059 PUC # 7 Seattle 713 563 0 1276 WSEC Seattle 2334 2118 70 4522 WSEC Mt. Vernon 1601 1009 54 2664 IJC Bellingham 1237 1924 182 3343 IJC Vancouver 357 0 0 357 TOTAL 6759 6157 306 13,222 Seattle C i t y Light testimony given by Americans at the various hearings accounted for 4,666 l i n e s , a l l of which was i n favour of the dam. DISCUSSION Testimony i n opposition to the dam accounted f o r 60% of a l l t e s t i -mony at the hearings. Of th i s testimony, 62% was Canadian. About 60% of the American testimony was i n opposition to the dam. About 79% of the Canadian testimony was i n opposition to the dam. Testimony i n favour of the dam accounted f o r about 40% of the testimony at a l l the hearings. City Light witnesses presented about 63% of th i s testimony. Ci t y Light witnesses accounted f o r about 30% of Canadian testimony i n favour of the dam. Testimony by Canadians accounted f o r 41% of a l l testimony, with 59% presented by Americans. 222 APPENDIX E THE SEATTLE CITY LIGHT HEARINGS ORGANIZATION Seattle C i t y Light had a number of witnesses appearing at the hearings to represent the company's p o s i t i o n on the dam. C i t y Light as the applicant had to prove that the dam would b e n e f i t society and not cause the damages claimed by opponents. To do t h i s , Seattle used s t a f f and consultants to present i t s case. Some of these are: Arthur Lane Corporate Counsel for C i t y Light Cas Bradeen C i t y Light Power Manager John Nelson then Superintendent of C i t y Light Richard White Corporate Counsel F. F. Slaney F. F. Slaney and Company Resource Planning Consultants Vancouver, B.C. Professor Grant Sharpe Special Consultant Professor, U n i v e r s i t y of Washington Professor Herschel Jones Special Consultant Professor, University of Washington In addition, the company hired three law firms, one each i n Vancouver, B.C., Seattle, and Washington, D.C. The company also hired a public r e l a t i o n s f i r m i n Vancouver, B.C., Torresan and Associates. C i t y Light spent several hundred thousand d o l l a r s on i t s pre-sentation. It should be noted that much of t h i s would have been necessary i n any case to plan f o r the dam. But the t o t a l expendi-tures are l i k e l y to be w e l l over a m i l l i o n , e s p e c i a l l y i f C i t y Light regular s t a f f time i s included. 223 CITY LIGHT TESTIMONY Ci t y Light testimony represented 24% of a l l testimony and 63% of a l l testimony i n favour of the dam. Below i s a l i s t of the testimony of C i t y L i g h t , a l l of which, of course, i s i n favour of the dam. LINES OF TESTIMONY HEARING HEARING TOTAL CITY LIGHT BALANCE PUC # 5 1910 PUC # 7 1276 WSEC 4843 (Seattle) WSEC 4564 (Mt. Vernon) IJC 3613 (Bellingham) IJC 6165 (Vancouver) 309 stm 1232 .U363 7<16 1023 1601 bm 3611 3201 28!9> 5142 TOTAL 22,371 fS35:6 17,0«1'5 APPENDIX F BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE DAM Seattle C i t y Light and Power Authority Association of Washington Business Bendix Skagit Corporation E l e c t r i c a l Women's Round Table E l e c t r i c League of the P a c i f i c Northwest Hope (B.C.) Board of Trade I n d u s t r i a l Energy Users Committee Mount Vernon Chamber of Commerce Mount Vernon Junior Chamber of Commerce National E l e c t r i c a l Contractors Association Northwest Public Power Association RugetLSbund Power and Light Ross Lake Resorts Seattle Area I n d u s t r i a l Council Seattle Chamber of Commerce Skagit Building Trades Council Skagit County A g r i c u l t u r a l Coordinating Council Washington P.U.D. Association Washington State Grande 225 APPENDIX G ORGANIZATION OF ANTI-DAM COALITIONS There were two main c o a l i t i o n s who appeared at hearings i n op-p o s i t i o n to the proposal to r a i s e Ross Dam. These c o a l i t i o n s have been c a l l e d the N.C.C. C o a l i t i o n and the R.O.S.S. Commit-tee. The N.C.C.C. C o a l i t i o n The N.C.C.C. C o a l i t i o n i s a Seattle-based c o a l i t i o n appearing mainly to argue against the dam because of environmental impacts which would occur i n the United States' section of the r e s e r v o i r . In p a r t i c u l a r , they opposed flooding of a p a r t i c u l a r t r i b u t a r y v a l l e y — t h e Big Beaver V a l l e y . The N.C.C. C o a l i t i o n has no formal name, but i s usually c a l l e d "the N three C" because the leading group i n the c o a l i t i o n i s the two thousand-member North Cascades Conservation Council. The twelve groups composing the c o a l i t i o n are: the North Cascades Conservation Council (2000 members) Friends of the Earth (600 members) Areo Club National Parks Conservation Association the Wilderness Society the National Audubon Society X'ihe Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs of Mountaineers (25,000 members) the Elk Park Association the Seattle Audubon Society (2000 members) the Skagit Environmental Council the Washington Environmental Council The N.C.C.C. C o a l i t i o n had several spokesmen. The member groups pooled t h e i r resources and time at hearings to allow expert witness(*) to appear on various subjects. Below i s a l i s t of the c o a l i t i o n ' s witnesses and the volume of testimony they de-l i v e r e d at the various sets of hearings: 226 LINES OF TESTIMONY BY N.C.C.C. COALITION WITNESS (HEARING) PUC WSEC IJC TOTAL Dr. Pa t r i c k Goldsworthy Chairman of the C o a l i t i o n , leader of the N.C.C.C. and a biochemistry professor, University of Washington 134 147 225 506 Brock Evans* the Northwest Representative of the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs 0 222 563 785 Joseph M i l l e r * 42 141 172 355 Margaret M i l l e r * the M i l l e r s are two b i o l o g i s t s who were conducting a two-year study of Big Beaver Va l l e y near the Skagit 0 82 328 410 Dr. Jerry F r a n k l i n * U.S. Forest Service 0 94 0 94 Dr. Dale Cole* a f o r e s t r y professor at the U n i v e r s i t y of Washington 0 82 244 326 Harvey Manning* author of several books on the North Cascades 0 115 0 115 John Knowles* a c i v i l engineer with a Vancouver, B.C. consulting f i r m 0 73 104 177 Dr. Mary Eysenbach* an assistant professor of economics at the University of Washington 0 96 161 257 Tom Brucker lawyer for the C o a l i t i o n 0 36 83 119 Others 31 282 37 487 TOTAL 207 1370 1917 3631 227 The R.O.S.S. Committee The R.O.S.S. Committee i s a Vancouver, B.C.-based c o a l i t i o n ap-pearing mainly to argue against the dam because of environmental impacts which would occur i n Canada due to the flooding. The reserv o i r would cover over 5,000 acres of the Skagit Va l l e y i n Canada. This would flood a prime r e c r e a t i o n a l area which the Canadians claimed was of growing importance to a fa s t developing urban complex i n B r i t i s h Columbia and Washington. "R.O.S.S." stands for "Run Out Skagit S p o i l e r s " and i s a s p e c i a l group set up for t h i s issue. The c o a l i t i o n has t h i r t e e n member groups in c l u d i n g : the B.C. W i l d l i f e Federation (40,000 members) the B.C. Federation of N a t u r a l i s t s (6,000 members) the Alpine Club of Canada (500 members) the B.C. S i e r r a Club (500 members) the Lower Mainland W i l d l i f e Federation (6,000 members) the Totem F l y Fishing Club (100 members) the Society f o r P o l l u t i o n and Environmental Control (S.P.E.C., 3,000 members) Simon Fraser University Outdoor Club (200 members) the Alma Mater Society (Student government of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia) the B.C. Mountaineering Club (500 members) the B.C. Natural History Society Community Organization i n the Environment Environmental Systems Association Membership figures must be taken as approximations and are not additi v e since persons may belong to more than one group. Spokes-men for the R.O.S.S. Committee l i s t e d t h e i r membership as 45,000 members at the hearings. The R.O.S.S. Committee had several spokesmen. Spokesmen appeared to represent the Committee, member groups, or both. While spokesmen agreed on the strategies for the hearings, they were not as formally organized at the hearings as the N.C.C.C. C o a l i t i o n . Below i s a l i s t of the committee's witnesses and the volume of testimony they presented: 228 WITNESS LINES OF TESTIMONY BY R.O.S.S. COMMITTEE (HEARING) PUC(5&7) WSEC IJC TOTAL John Massey Chairman of R.O.S.S. & member of Totem F l y Fishing Club Ken Farquharson a hydro engineer & Chairman of the B.C. S i e r r a Club; R.O.S.S. Secretary Geoff Warden b i o l o g i s t with B.C. Fis h and W i l d l i f e Branch Bryan Gates b i o l o g i s t with B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch Charles Dunham professor of f o r e s t r y Howard Paish president of Howard Paish and Associates, a w e l l respected resource planning consultants' f i r m i n Vancouver, B.C. John Fraser environmental lawyer & now Member of Parliament for the Progressive Conservative Party Dr. Ian Effor d professor of Animal Resource Ecology at the Univ e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia F. J . Bartholomew engineer G. I. Culhane Dr. Robin Harger Mickey Rockwell Others 276 72 (0) 74 appeared at other PUC hearings 28 132 26 64 0 0 0 0 14 34 134 118 0 103 78 85 165 212 302 560 376 79 239 26 98 252 325 325 574 80 669 124 91 381 574 80 772 202 176 560 TOTAL 516 887 2837 4240 229 The C o a l i t i o n s C o l l e c t i v e l y The C o a l i t i o n s did have knowledge of the existence of one another and met on occasion to discuss the issue and how to pursue i t . They retained t h e i r separate i d e n t i t i e s , however, and appeared separately as two d i s t i n c t groups. However, t h e i r testimony c o l -l e c t i v e l y did represent a su b s t a n t i a l segment of input at the hearings. VOLUME OF TESTIMONY BY COALITION TOTAL COALITION (Hearing) PUC(5&7) WSEC IJC COALITIONS N.C.C.C. C o a l i t i o n 207 1507 1917 3631 R.O.S.S. Committee 516 887 2837 4240 TOTAL COALITION TESTIMONY 723 2394 4754 7871 This volume of testimony represents a sizeable percentage of the testimony at the hearings. Below i s a table showing percentages: PERCENTAGES OF TESTIMONY BY COALITION COALITION  Type of Testimony R.O.S.S. Committee N.C.C.C. C o a l i t i o n BOTH Canadian testimony 46% 0% 46% Canadian Testimony without C i t y Light portion 50% 0% 50% American Testimony 0% 27% 27% American Testimony without C i t y Light testimony 0% 42% 42% To t a l Testimony 19% 16% 35% Total Testimony without C i t y Light portion 25% 21% 46% 230 APPENDIX H LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SPORTING GROUPS OPPOSED TO THE DAM Alpine Club of Canada (R.O.S.S.) Areo Club (N.C.C.C.) Audubon Society of Bellingham (N.C.C.C.) B. C. Environmental Council B.CC .F«F<ed;ecatd-on6MN»a*u=raM-'s-ts(l(B»OS Sf. S>) B. C. Natural History Society (R.O.S.S.) B. C. Sierra Club (R.O.S.S.) B. C. Wildlife Federation (R.O.S.S.) Burlington Edison Environmental Club Chilliwack Fish and Game Protective Association Community Organization in Environment (R.O.S.S.) Council of Trout Unlimited, Northwest Steelheaders Association Dogwood Canoe Club (Burnaby, B.C.) Elk Park Association (N.C.C.C.) Environmentally Concerned Students (Sedro Wooleey High School) Environmental Systems Association (R.O.S.S.) Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs of Mountaineers (N.C.C.C.) Fraser Valley T r a i l Hound Association Friends of the Earth (N.C.C.C.) Kamloops Pollution Programme Lower Mainland Wildlife Association (R.O.S.S.) The Mountaineers (Officers) M.S.A. Fish, Game, and Forest Protective Association National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada National Audubon Society (N.C.C.C.) National Parks Conservation Association (N.C.C.C.) North Cascades Audubon Society North Cascades Conservation Council (N.C.C.C.) Olympic Parks Association O.M.A. Committee Richmond Rod and Gun Club Seattle Audubon Society (N.C.C.C.) Sierra Club (International) Sierra Club—Pacific Northwest Chapter Skagit Alpine Club Skagit Environmental Council (N.C.C.C.) Society for Pollution and Environmental Control (R.O.S.S.) Totem Fly Fishing Club (R.O.S.S.) Unit 26 Army, Navy, and Air Force Veterans, Rod and Gun Club Washington Alpine Club Washington Environmental Council Washington State Big Game Council Washington Youth for Environment the Wilderness Society (N.C.C.C.) Represented by R.O.S.S.: Alma Mater Society (Student government, University of British Columbia) B.C. Mountaineering Club Simon Fraser University Outdoor Club 231 APPENDIX I BIOGRAPHICAL LISTING OF INTERVIEWEES JOHN BIGGS Mr. Biggs i s the Director of the Department of Ecology of the State of Washington. He sat with Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Com-mission i n t h i s capacity as Director. He delivered a statement to Public U t i l i t i e s Committee hearings when head of the State Game Department. Mr. Biggs opposed the dam and when the E c o l o g i c a l Commission became deadlocked and unable to make a de c i s i o n , he committed the Department of Ecology to opposing the dam. R. J . BROOKS Mr. Brooks i s an engineer with the Chemithon Corporation of Seattle. He has appeared at several hearings to oppose the dam, including several of the P.U.C. hearings and the Seattle W.S.E.C. hearing. GEORGE COOLEY v Mr. Cooley was a C i t y Councilman f o r the Cit y of Seattle at the time of the hearings. He sat as Chairman of the Public U t i l i t i e s Committee during i t s hearings. He delivered a statement to the W.S.E.C. hearings favouring the dam on behalf of a majority of the Ci t y Council. Mr. Cooley i s a drug salesman by occupation but i s currently employed with the C i t y Treasurer's o f f i c e . He l e f t the Ci t y Council i n 1974. KEN FARQUHARSON Mr. Farquharson i s an eningeer with wide experience i n hydro-e l e c t r i c project planning. He i s chairman of the B.C. S i e r r a Club and secretary of the R.O.S.S. Committee. He spoke at several hearings i n opposition to the dam, including P.U.C. hearings, the W.S.E.C. Mt. Vernon hearing, sand the I.J.C. Vancouver hearing. Mr. Farquharson i s one of the s t r a t e g i s t s of the Canadian opposition to the dam. PATRICK GOLDSWORTHY Dr. Goldsworthy i s a biochemistry professor at the Un i v e r s i t y of Washington. He i s Chairman of the North Cascades Conservation Council and leader of the N.C.C.C. C o a l i t i o n . He has been active for a num-ber of years i n support of the North Cascades. National Park proposals and other proposals for conservation i n northern Washington. He has been on a study team and a consultant to the National Parks Service and has appeared i n numerous hearings of a l l descriptions. With reference to the Ross Dam, Dr. Goldsworthy has appeared at the P.U.C. hearings, the W.S.E.C. hearings, and the I.J.C. hearings. JOHN C. HILL Mr. H i l l i s the manager of the Mount Vernon Chamber of Commerce. As such, Mr. H i l l represents the Chamber at hearings. He has a Master's degree i n s o c i a l psychology. Mr. H i l l presented a b r i e f for the Chamber i n favour of the dam at the W.S.E.C. hearing held i n Mount Vernon. 232 TIMOTHY HILL Mr. H i l l i s a C i t y Councilman f o r the C i t y of Seattle and a member of the Public U t i l i t i e s Committee at the time of i t s hearings. He i s a lawyer. Mr. H i l l presented a b r i e f on behalf of a minority of the C i t y Council i n opposition to the dam at the W.S.E.C. Seattle hearing. DAVID LEMARQUAND Mr. Lemarquand was one of eight co-authors of the book The Future  of the Skagit V a l l e y , which was written on a grant from the Opportu-n i t i e s for Youth programme. The book was submitted to the Interna-t i o n a l J o i n t Commission. Mr. Lemarquand was present at the I.J.C. hearings, but did not t e s t i f y . A f t e r f i n i s h i n g a Master's degree at the Un i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia School of Community and Regional Planning, he was employed i n the B i l a t e r a l A f f a i r s s e c t i o n of the Canadian Department of the Environment. His assignment was the Skagit. He i s currently with the Westwater Research Centre, Univ e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. CLAY LEMING Mr. Leming i s the person responsible for recording of hearings and meetings of the Seattle C i t y Council. ARPAD MASLEY Dr, Masley i s the Chairman of the Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission and was Chairman at the time of the hearings. He i s one of the opponents of the dam on the Commission. Dr. Masley i s a physician from -"&i?eWe:r#onV- Wa%tiU*n'g#om. WILLIAM PEARSON Mr. Pearson i s the Mayor of Sedro Woolley, Washington, and delivered a statement favouring the dam at the W.S.E.C. hearings i n Mount Vernon. Mr. Pearson i s the former owner of W.RiJP. Lumber Company i n Sedro Woolley, and now i s employed as a consul-tant to the company. He i s a long time resident of the c i t y . ANN WIDDITSCH Mrs. Widditsch i s a member of the Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission and was so at the time of the W.S.E.C. hearings. She was opposed to the dam. Mrs. Widditsch was an a c t i v i s t with the American C i v i l L i b e r t i e s Union and the Washington Environmental Council. She works as a consultant on environmental and other matters. GORDON VICKERY Mr. Vickery i s the Superintendent of Seattle C i t y Light. He has been at that post f o r almost two years, but was not with the company at the time of the hearings. He was formerly the chief of the Seattle F i r e Department and was appointed to h i s present p o s i t i o n as a r e c r u i t from outside the company. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0099932/manifest

Comment

Related Items