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.

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 R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as •conforming required  t o the  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1974  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r  an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree the  L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e  that  and study.  I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n  of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n written  s h a l l n o t be allowed without my  permission.  Department o f Community and R e g i o n a l  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada  D  a  t  e  June 1, 1974  Planning  ABSTRACT  The  High Ross c o n t r o v e r s y was  an I n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r .  An  a problem i n the management of  i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r presents a  problem because the a c t i o n s of a n a t i o n upstream may lems f o r a n a t i o n downstream or v i c e v e r s a . finite  r e s o u r c e where uses f o r one  o t h e r purposes. example, may river,  The  destroy f i s h e r i e s .  cause  prob-  A river i s also a  purpose may  use of a r i v e r  special  exclude uses f o r  f o r h y d r o e l e c t r i c power, f o r  In the case of an  c o n f l i c t i n g demands on water use may  international  present  lems i f the n a t i o n s r i p a r i a n t o the r i v e r f a i l  s e r i o u s prob-  to coordinate  their  • " <"v-»-f tip %; '  p l a n n i n g w i t h r e s p e c t to the In t h i s for  insuring  a democracy.  study,  river.  i t i s n o r m a t i v e l y assumed t h a t the b e s t  t h a t the i n t e r e s t s o f a l l concerned  system  w i l l be heard i s  In a democracy i t i s a p r i n c i p l e t h a t the d e c i s i o n  system s h o u l d respond  to the p r e f e r e n c e s of i t s c i t i z e n s .  To  t h i s i t must f i r s t be  a b l e t o p e r c e i v e these p r e f e r e n c e s .  A  h e a r i n g i s one v e h i c l e f o r a c c e p t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g  do public  the  p r e f e r e n c e s of c i t i z e n s . The g o a l of t h i s study i s t o a s s e s s c e r t a i n -public h e a r i . ^ d which wp.re h e l d _ . . . t a i n p u b l i c hearxngs which were h e l d i n r e f e r e n c e to the r a i s i n g of  Ross Dam  on the S k a g i t R i v e r i n Washington S t a t e .  whether t o r a i s e the dam  has  lasting  f o r y e a r s and  on b o t h  s i d e s of the b o r d e r .  are c e r t a i n h e a r i n g s Joint  c r e a t e d an i n t e r n a t i o n a l  involving  of 1970  The  i s s u e of  controversy  the e n e r g i e s o f hundreds of  The h e a r i n g s through  1972  persons  of i n t e r e s t i n t h i s h e l d by  study  the I n t e r n a t i o n a l  Commission, the Washington E c o l o g i c a l Commission, and  the  ii  Seattle City Council. The approach taken i n t h i s t h e s i s began w i t h i s o l a t i n g two normative  c r i t e r i a among many which any d e m o c r a t i c :,  have: openness and e f f i c i e n c y . tem  system must  Openness i s the a b i l i t y  t o p e r c e i v e the p r e f e r e n c e s o f i t s c i t i z e n s .  of a sys-  T h i s means t h a t  t h e r e 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 t h e d e c i s i o n makers should s e e . E f f i c i e n c y means t h a t t h e p r o c e s s s h o u l d be simple and n o t l i m i t e d t o a s e l e c t group w i t h t h e most time, money, and e x p e r t i s e t o p a r t i c i p a t e . Having  e s t a b l i s h e d these c r i t e r i a ,  the next s t e p was t o i s o l a t e  the l o c a t i o n i n the h e a r i n g s system where one might expect evidence o f openness and e f f i c i e n c y .  To do t h i s , , a t h e o r e t i c a l  paradigm o f a communication system was c o n s t r u c t e d from communications t h e o r y . of  political  T h i s paradigm c o n t a i n e d t h e b a s i c components  a simple communication system.  munication  to f i n d  Thus, i t was found  t h a t any com-  system w i l l have messages ( i n p u t ) , sources f o r those mes-  sages ( i n p u t s o u r c e s ) , and r e c e p t o r s f o r p e r c e i v i n g those messages ( i n t a k e elements).  In r a t i o n a l systems t h e r e w i l l a l s o be a memory  p r o c e s s which s e l e c t s r e l e v a n t i n p u t from among the mass o f i n t a k e ( s c r e e n i n g element). a s s e s s the h e a r i n g s  These elements were a n a l y z e d i n o r d e r t o investigated.  To assemble the d a t a n e c e s s a r y approach wai used.  f o r assessment, a multi-method  Over f o u r 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 o f t h e h e a r i n g s and r e -  s u l t i n g r e p o r t s were c l o s e l y a n a l y z e d .  F i n a l l y , selected  pants who- had key r o l e s i n the h e a r i n g s were i n t e r v i e w e d .  particiThe  iii  information from these sources was used i n tandem to examine p a r t i 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 i n the hearings studied f a c i l 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 fied because the issue was c r u c i a l to their i n t e r e s t s .  justi-  However, the  weaknesses that did exist i n openness and e f f i c i e n c y 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 r i v e r s .  DEDICATION  In Memoriam  T h i s work i s d e d i c a t e d  to C a r o l —  a g i r l who d i e d o f S i c k l e C e l l Anemia at  twenty-five  years  because h e r d i s e a s e  o f age was  an i r r e l e v a n t t o p i c o f i n q u i r y . These l a b o u r s if  they  a r e not wasted  contribute  to Brotherhood and Peace on the e a r t h she has l e f t . A little  l o v e too l a t e  is a painful  tragedy,  but r e g r e t s should not end our s e a r c h  f o r r e l e v a n t answers.  V  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  The debts I owe t o the many persons who made t h i s p o s s i b l e a r e hard t o put i n t o words.  thesis  I am d e e p l y i n d e b t e d t o  a d v i s o r s , f r i e n d s , s o u r c e s , and o t h e r s without whose k i n d n e s s t h i s t h e s i s would not have been w r i t t e n . debted  I am p a r t i c u l a r l y i n -  t o my a d v i s o r s , P r o f e s s o r Gordon Stead o f t h e School o f  Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , and P r o f e s s o r I r v i n g K. Fox, D i r e c t o r o f the Westwater Research Centre. and  Their, s e n s i t i v e  c r i t i c a l a d v i c e and support i n t h e p l a n n i n g and p r e p a r a t i o n  of t h i s t h e s i s i s immensely a p p r e c i a t e d .  I am a l s o i n d e b t e d t o  f r i e n d s who p r o v i d e d s h e l t e r , c r i t i c i s m , s u p p o r t , and l o v e a t the r i g h t time and i n . t h e r i g h t measure. to the v e r y busy people who consented  F i n a l l y , I am i n d e b t e d  t o s i t w i t h me t o c a n d i d l y  share t h e i r v e r y p e r s o n a l knowledge, f e e l i n g s , and f e a r s d e s p i t e t h e i r o f t e n 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 . these people  To a l l o f  I owe a debt o f l o v e and I pray t h a t t h i s work meets  with their respect.  May 1974  vi  TABLE OF CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  i  DEDICATION  iv  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  v  CHAPTER I .  1  DEFINITION OF THE' PROBLEM  THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERNATIONAL RIVERS  2  INTERNATIONAL LAW  4  SOME FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN DESIGNING INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR INTERNATIONAL WATER RESOURCES' PLANNING  7  The R o l e of t h e I n s t i t u t i o n s  8  Water as a Resource  9  Characteristics  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 R o l e o f Communication  16  Communication  i n Games . . . . . . . . .  i n Decision-making  18  NORMATIVE ORIENTATION .  19  The Democratic System  20  Communication,  Democracy, and  International  Rivers THE CASE UNDER INVESTIGATION The Focus of t h i s Study  23 . . . . . .  24 25  vii  CHAPTER I I . A HISTORY OF THE SKAGIT RIVER  31  HISTORY  32  Water Power  • •  35  The Gorge P l a n t  36  The D i a b l o  37  Dam  The Ruby Dam  37  P u b l i c Power  38  Growth  "  39  The Second Stage of Ross Dam  40  The T h i r d  41  Stage of Ross- Dam  The F o u r t h Stage of Ross Dam  42  Permission' t o F l o o d  42  The Compensation Agreement  42  THE HIGH ROSS DAM CONTROVERSY  -. . .  43  Launching t h e F i g h t  43  S e a t t l e Digs I n  46  Searching f o r A l t e r n a t i v e s  48  The Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Commission The I n t e r n a t i o n a l The R e s u l t s  . . . . .  J o i n t Commission  50 52  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 F e d e r a l  Power Commission  . . . .  . . . . . . . .  58  viii  CHAPTER I I I .  SURVEY-OF RELEVANT INSTITUTIONS .  68  THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT" COMMISSION  70  Authority  70  A p p l i c a t i o n s and R e f e r e n c e s  72  Applications  73  References  73  Meetings  • •  74  •  74  Appeals Organization  75  Hearings  76  T e c h n i c a l Boards  ~  76  THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY  78  Authority  78  Organization  80  P u b l i c Involvement  82  P u b l i c Hearings  82  THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE  .  Authority  84 • •  84  Organization  85  Hearings  85  . .  THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL  86  Authority  86  P u b l i c Involvement  88  CHAPTER IV.  THE RESEARCH DESIGN  A PARADIGM COMMUNICATION  94  MODEL  The Paradigm Communication  Model  . . . . . .  96 98  ix  THE  FOCUS OF THIS STUDY: The  THE  INTAKE POINT  100  Input Source  101  The Intake Element  103  The  104  S c r e e n i n g Element The Geographic  Scope  105  The J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Scope  . . . . .  105  The D e c i s i o n a l Scope  105  ASSESSMENT CRITERIA  106  E f f i c i e n c y of O p e r a t i o n  108  Openness of O p e r a t i o n  110  TARGET DATA Input  114  Sources  . . .  •  114  Intake Elements  116  S c r e e n i n g Elements  118  METHODOLOGY  119  The Methods-Used  CHAPTER V.  RESULTS AND  •  ANALYSIS  120  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 i n t a k e elements ( p u b l i c h e a r i n g s ) under study  130  (2) An examination of the p h y s i c a l a r r a n g e ments, r e c o r d i n g , and announcement of the h e a r i n g s  131  The P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Committee H e a r i n g s .  .  132  The Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Commission-'Hearings  133  The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Hearings  134  The  Commission  S e a t t l e C i t y C o u n c i l Hearing  134  X  (3) An  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the o p e r a t i n g  and  procedures' o f the h e a r i n g s  The  Public U t i l i t i e s  The Washington S t a t e mission Hearings The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Hearings The  rules 135  Committee H e a r i n g s .  .  137  E c o l o g i c a l Com137  J o i n t ' Commission 138  S e a t t l e C i t y C o u n c i l Hearing  138  (4) An a n a l y s i s o f the volume o f t e s t i m o n y r e c e i v e d a t the v a r i o u s hearings'  138  (5) An a n a l y s i s o f the shares of time used a t h e a r i n g s 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 w i t n e s s e s  138  A.  B.  The t o t a l number of w i t n e s s e s appearing" at each h e a r i n g and the p o s i t i o n they r e p r e s e n t e d T o t a l volume of testimony d e l i v e r e d i n favour o f and  C.  139  against  the dam  . . .  140  The t o t a l amount of' testimony d e l i v e r e d by s e l e c t e d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of p u b l i c w i t n e s s e s . . . . . .  142  (6) A d e s c r i p t i o n of the e x p e r t i s e a v a i l a b l e on h e a r i n g boards f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g and perception" of testimony "received  145  The  Public U t i l i t i e s  Committee  145  The  Washington S t a t e  E c o l o g i c a l Commission  145  The  International  The  Seattle City Council  J o i n t Commission . . . .  146 146  (7) An examination of the t e c h n i c a l and r e s e a r c h support a v a i l a b l e to the i n t a k e h e a r i n g s boards"  147  -  The  Public Utilities-Committee  147  The  Washington"State E c o l o g i c a l Commission  147  The  International  148  The  Seattle C i t y Council  J o i n t Commission  . . . .  148  xi  The S c r e e n i n g Element  149  (1) An i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e a u t h o r i t i e s s e t t i n g the terms of r e f e r e n c e (scope of a l l o w e d i n t a k e ) f o r t h e h e a r i n g s . . . . The P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s  . .  149  The Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Commission.  150  The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission Hearings'  150  The S e a t t l e C i t y C o u n c i l  150  (2) A l i s t i n g of r e l e v a n t mining t h i s scope  Committee H e a r i n g s  149  rules f o r deter150  (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 a c c e p t a b l e f o r i n t a k e . . . .  150  (4) A - d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the scope of coverage these r u l e s permit  151  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  Hearings  . .  151  Geographic Scope  151  Jurisdictional  151  Scope  D e c i s i o n a l Scope  152  The Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Commission Hearings. •  152  Geographic Scope  152  Jurisdictional  153  Scope  D e c i s i o n a l Scope The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Hearings  153 Commission  .  154  Geographic Scope  154  Jurisdictional  155  Scope  D e c i s i o n a l Scope The S e a t t l e C i t y C o u n c i l H e a r i n g  155 155  Geographic Scope  155  Jurisdictional  155  Scope  D e c i s i o n a l Scope  156  xii  (5) An assessment' of the o r g a n i z a t i o n of i n t a k e n e c e s s i t a t e d by t h i s scope  156  The P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Committee H e a r i n g s . .  157  The Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Commission Hearings  157  The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission H t n Hearings The  S e a t t l e C i t y C o u n c i l Hearings  u  v  157  . . . .  158  The Input Source  158  (1) The i d e n t i t y i n broad terms of the i n p u t sources and t h e i r v i s i b l e o r g a n i z a t i o n s and l e a d i n g spokesmen A.  159  Those F a v o u r i n g the Dam 1. The C i t y of S e a t t l e and S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t . „. 2. Commercial and organizations  B.  f  159 .. . ......  159  industrial 160  3. C e r t a i n p r i v a t e c i t i z e n s  160  Those Opposing  160  the Dam  1. L a r g e ad hoc c o a l i t i o n s 2. E n v i r o n m e n t a l and s p o r t i n g groups  161 .  162  3. Other c i t i z e n s and groups  163  (2) An examination of t h e s t r a t e g i e s open t o i n p u t sources i n the h e a r i n g s and which were used  163  (3) An examination of the c o s t t o c i t i z e n s i n making t e s t i m o n y a t h e a r i n g s i n terms of e x p e r t i s e , 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 i n p u t groups' i n u s i n g t h e s e h e a r i n g s .  167  DISCUSSION The Hearings  169 Process  169  xiii  Definition  of A f f e c t e d I n t e r e s t s  170  Representativeness  171  O r a l Testimony  171  Organized  172  Testimony  Sworn Testimony  172  SUMMARY  172  The P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Committee Hearings  . . . .  173  Openness  173  Efficiency  173  The Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Commission Hearings  174  Openness  174  Efficiency  174  The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission H e a r i n g s . Openness  .  Efficiency  CHAPTER V I .  . •  175  . . . . .  175 175  CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS  CONCLUSIONS  183 184  Conclusions Respecting  Openness  184  Conclusion I  184  Conclusion  II  185  Conclusion  III  185  C o n c l u s i o n IV  186  Conclusion V . . .  186  Conclusion VI  187  Conclusion V I I  187  Conclusion VIII  188  xiv  C o n c l u s i o n IX  188  Conclusion X  189  Conclusions Respecting E f f i c i e n c y  190  Conclusion XI Conclusion XII  190 .  190  Conclusion XIII C o n c l u s i o n XIV  191 .  191  C o n c l u s i o n XV  192  C o n c l u s i o n XVI  193  C o n c l u s i o n XVII  193  Conclusion XVIII  .  C o n c l u s i o n XIX  IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL RIVERS MANAGEMENT.  BIBLIOGRAPHY  194 195  . . .  195  201  GENERAL  202  THE SKAGIT RIVER  208  APPENDICES  213  XV  LIST OF FIGURES  FIGURE 2.1  SKAGIT RIVER MAP  FIGURE 3.1  ORGANIZATIONAL CHART FOR JOINT COMMISSION  FIGURE 3.2  FIGURE 3.3  FIGURE 4.1  FIGURE 5.1  33 INTERNATIONAL 71  ORGANIZATIONAL CHART FOR STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY  81  ORGANIZATIONAL CHART FOR THE CITY OF SEATTLE  86  A PARADIGM MODEL OF "COMMUNICATION IN A DECISION SYSTEM"  99  CITIZEN COMMUNICATION MAP OF HIGH ROSS DAM DECISION SYSTEM  128  xvi  LIST OF TABLES  TABLE 5.1  TABLE 5.2  TABLE 5.3  CLASSIFICATION OF WITNESSES BY HEARING AND POSITION  140  LINES OF TESTIMONY AT HEARINGS, BY POSITION ON DAM  141  LINES OF CITY LIGHT TESTIMONY IN COMPARISON 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  xvii  APPENDICES  APPENDIX A.  A SURVEY OF THE CONTENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE HEARINGS, SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL, MARCH 20, 1970 TO MAY 25, 1970  214  H e a r i n g s w i t h M i n i m a l High Ross Testimony. . . . 214 H e a r i n g s w i t h E x t e n s i v e 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  APPENDIX D.  APPENDIX E .  219  LINES OF TESTIMONY BY POSITION AND NATIONALITY . 220 L i n e s of Testimony by P o s i t i o n  220  L i n e s of Canadian Testimony by P o s i t i o n  220  L i n e s o f American Testimony by P o s i t i o n  221  Discussion  221  THE SEATTLE CITY LIGHT HEARINGS ORGANIZATION' .  222  C i t y L i g h t Testimony APPENDIX F.  APPENDIX H. APPENDIX I .  . . . . . .  223  BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS  APPENDIX G.  .  IN FAVOUR OF THE DAM  224  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 LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SPORTING GROUPS OPPOSED TO THE DAM BIOGRAPHICAL LISTING OF INTERVIEWEES  229 230 231  CHAPTER I  DEFINITION OF.THE.PROBLEM  i  2  The  s u b j e c t of t h i s study  i s the development of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  arrangements f o r 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 l o o k . a t p a r t of the system of communication o p e r a t i n g w i t h i n a decision-making  process  responsible for.a particular international  r i v e r , the S k a g i t R i v e r i n Canada and i s - t o assess  I t i s hoped t h a t i n t h i s way of how  we  The  purpose  to c e r t a i n norma-  may  to s t r u c t u r e decision-making  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  gain a clearer arrangements r e -  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 w o r l d . i s a c o m p e l l i n g this  States.  t h i s communication p r o c e s s . a c c o r d i n g  tive criteria. understanding  the U n i t e d  source  of r e l e v a n c e  for  study.  THE The  IMPORTANCE OF  INTERNATIONAL RIVERS  importance of water i n our l i f e has been r e c o g n i z e d  thousands of y e a r s . The up on the shores Indus, and  a n c i e n t c i v i l i z a t i o n s of the world  of g r e a t r i v e r s — t h e N i l e , T i g r i s ,  Huang-ho.  for  grew  Euphrates,  S u r e l y c o n f l i c t s over water r i g h t s ensued  from the f a c t t h a t water was  s c a r c e and  p e o p l e were more abundant.  These c o n f l i c t s must have l e d to some a d m i n i s t r a t i v e arrangements o f - a . p r i m i t i v e s o r t t o : a l l e v i a t e - c o n f l i c t s and b e t t e r use of t h i s s c a r c e r e s o u r c e . .  to.provide f o r  F. J . Berber, an a u t h o r i t y  on i n t e r n a t i o n a l water.law, goes f u r t h e r , c l a i m i n g t h a t water have been the reason  f o r 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 s u b j e c t of s t a t e concern ever s i n c e the e a r l i e s t appearance of any form of s t a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n . In l i g h t of the most r e c e n t  may  3  r e s e a r c h i t may not even.be going t o o - f a r to say t h a t t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e s t a t e as. known t o us over t h e l a s t s i x thousand y e a r s had i t s . o r i g i n s i n water r i g h t s . 1 T h i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h e o r y emphasizes, t h e f a c t t h a t water r i g h t s have an even more fundamental The importance emphasized  s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t h e modern w o r l d .  o f managing . i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s i s immediately  by t h e r o l e of w a t e r . i n t h e c u r r e n t quest  by the g r e a t e r p a r t of t h e w o r l d \ s . i n h a b i t a n t s .  f o r development  T h i s quest f o r  development may be t h r e a t e n e d by t h e p o t e n t i a l l a c k o f water. is-critical  Water  f o r .development programs.. Water i s .used f o r h y d r o e l e c t r i c  power, i r r i g a t i o n , water s u p p l y , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , and c e r t a i n i n d u s t r i a l concerns.  The demand, f o r ..water... w i l l i n c r e a s e w i t h development  as new uses p l a c e demands, o n . e x i s t i n g , s u p p l i e s . a l o n e causes . i n c r e a s i n g demands on water.  P o p u l a t i o n growth  I f t h e demand f o r water  f o r these purposes exceeds_supply, then water shortages may b o t t l e n e c k s and d e l a y s i n the implementation of p l a n s . cases t h i s may cause severe setbacks to.development a time when setback can mean d i s a s t e r .  cause  In some  .programmes a t  Developing c o u n t r i e s are  a l r e a d y l a g g i n g f u r t h e r and f u r t h e r behind developed c o u n t r i e s i n economic growth.  P o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e s a r e n e a r l y keeping pace  with, economic growth, thus s l o w i n g p e r - c a p i t a r i s e s i n Gross N a t i o n a l Products.  I t i s easy t o see t h a t w i t h . d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s a l r e a d y  s t r a i n e d by p o p u l a t i o n , and economic growth p r e s s u r e s , water shortages may become c r u c i a l f a c t o r s i n h i b i t i n g - d e v e l o p m e n t .  I t i s evident  t h a t a t some p o i n t t h e t r e n d s become r e g r e s s i v e and t h e quest f o r development i s l o s t . The worldwide  shortage of f r 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 . i n t e r n a t i o n a l .streams.  These streams w i l l be taxed  h e a v i l y 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 s h a r e , o r b e t t e r , of i n t e r n a t i o n a l waters.  .Given t h e p r e s e n t d e c e n t r a l i z e d  w o r l d p o l i t i c a l system, i t c o u l d be h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h i s would l e a d t o m i s e r y and s l a u g h t e r unless.some.form o f . e f f e c t i v e peacef u l s e t t l e m e n t i s found.: Many i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s a r e a l r e a d y l o c a t e d i n war t o r n a r e a s , such as -the Indus, J o r d a n , .Ganges, Mekong, and .Rio d e . l a P l a t a r i v e r s .  I n South America,  l a P l a t a system has seen h o r r i f y i n g  the R i o de  conflict.  C u r r e n t l y these same rivers-themselves", and o t h e r  international  r i v e r s , a r e becoming t h e v e r y 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-  l a t e d by the r i s i n g demands f o r water o f d e v e l o p i n g r i p a r i a n s . Formerly  The  demands f o r . w a t e r . a r e now changing  i n .character.  the main  use o f r i v e r s was f o r n a v i g a t i o n .  N a t i o n s a r e now d e v e l o p i n g mas-  s i v e i r r i g a t i o n , , f l o o d c o n t r o l , h y d r o e l e c t r i c , and water supply p r o grammes which change the . r i v e r s ' h a b i t s or.consume some.of t h e water. ^Meanwhile, .the d e t e r i o r a t i o n of t h e e n v i r o n m e n t , ' a c c e l e r a t e d  by i n -  d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n and u r b a n i z a t i o n , i s p l a c i n g a l i m i t on t h e amount of water t h a t may.be used without.harmful.feedbacks ment.  Researchers  from t h e e n v i r o n -  are. now t u r n i n g . t o . t h e problem o f t h e management  of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s t o seek .some-solution t o . t h e budding these events have  dilemmas  caused.  INTERNATIONAL  LAW  I n t e r n a t i o n a l law.on, i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s i s a r a t h e r new  concept.  5  Most o f t h e law now a p p l i c a b l e comes.from t r e a t y o b l i g a t i o n s of c o r i p a r i a n n a t i o n s . . T r e a t i e s have become.the u s u a l method of d i v i d i n g the-waters.  T h i s f a c t . d e r i v e s from t h e n a t u r e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l law.  With no u n i v e r s a l c o u r t and w i t h . t h e n a t i o n s  jealous.of.territorial  s o v e r e i g n t y , t h e . o n l y law i s t h a t which n a t i o n s v o l u n t a r i l y  accept.  Thus, I n t e r n a t i o n a l law .governs r e l a t i o n s - b e t w e e n independent states. The r u l e s o f law. b i n d i n g upon s t a t e s . t h e r e f o r e emanate from .their.own f r e e . w i l l , as expressed i n conventions o r usages g e n e r a l l y - a c c e p t e d as e x p r e s s i n g p r i n c i p l e s o f law a n d . e s t a b l i s h e d i n order t o . r e g u l a t e the r e l a t i o n s - b e t w e e n these c o e x i s t i n g independent communities or w i t h a. view t o the. achievement of common aims. Restrictdionsyuponhfehe• independence o f s t a t e s cannot t h e r e f o r e be presumed.2 T h i s s i t u a t i o n l e a d s u s . t o . t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t law o n - i n t e r national rivers is perhaps irrelevant.. -  truth.  But t h i s i s f a r from t h e  The c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n . i s perhaps more' f l e x i b l e and thus  may h e l p i n t h e s o l u t i o n o f . c o n f l i c t s .  P a r t i e s t o a t r e a t y may  d e s i g n 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 i o n a l problems... A c c o r d i n g ..to. Anthony. S c o t t , i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s and  former Canadian member of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t  expert  Commission,  ...the d e a r t h of .general law on border streams i s not a d i s a d v a n t a g e . Rather i t g i v e s an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r many k i n d s - o f arrangements t o be t r i e d and negot i a t e d f r e e from t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s . o f e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e s Perhaps.the b i g g e s t e f f e c t  of i n t e r n a t i o n a l , law i s t o . p r o v i d e  normative g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e p a r t i e s t o use i n . d e c i d i n g ' w h a t i s the b e s t and most f a i r arrangement.  Thus,  the d i s c o v e r y , of n e i g h b o u r l y c o n s i d e r a t i o n as a g e n e r a l - p r i n c i p l e of water law based on neighbours h i p and water r i g h t s i n .the m u n i c i p a l . l a w of c i v i l i z e d n a t i o n s has a d i r e c t and n o t 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  N a t i o n s a r e r e p u d i a t i n g t h e Harmon D o c t r i n e p r e - t r e a t y days between the U n i t e d D o c t r i n e , enunciated 1895,  by U n i t e d  developed i n t h e e a r l y  S t a t e s and Mexico.  States Attorney  s a i d t h a t the upper . r i p a r i a n , t h e U n i t e d  o b l i g a t i o n s t o t h e lower r i p a r i a n , Mexico.  The Harmon  G e n e r a l Harmon i n S t a t e s , had no  Now modern d i s p u t a n t s  have sought t o base t h e i r arguments.on . d i f f e r e n t p r i n c i p l e s . cording  t o the I n t e r n a t i o n a l  Ac-  Law-Association,  the Harmon D o c t r i n e has. never:had a wide f o l l o w i n g among S t a t e s and has been r e j e c t e d , by v i r t u a l l y a l l S t a t e s which have had o c c a s i o n t o speak on t h i s p o i n t . ^ The  ILA s t a t e d as .an "agreed p r i n c i p l e . o f . i n t e r n a t i o n a l law" t h a t : Except as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d by t r e a t y or o t h e r i n s t r u m e n t s or customs b i n d i n g upon.the p a r t i e s , each c o - r i p a r i a n S t a t e i s e n t i t l e d t o a r e a s o n a b l e and e q u i t a b l e share i n t h e b e n e f i c i a l uses o f t h e waters of t h e d r a i n a g e . b a s i n . What amounts t o a r e a s o n a b l e and e q u i t a b l e share i s a q u e s t i o n t o be determined i n l i g h t of a l l t h e r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s i n each p a r t i c u l a r case.  The  dominant " r u l e , " perhaps more normative than b i n d i n g , i s t h a t  n a t i o n s should The  share.  r o l e o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law i n , t h e case we a r e c o n s i d e r i n g  i n t h i s study i s centered.on .the . i n t e r n a t i o n a l . l a w r e l a t i n g t o treaties.  A t r e a t y has e x i s t e d since.1909 between the two c o -  r i p a r i a n s , the U n i t e d  S t a t e s and Canada. ..This agreement  the a u t h o r i t y f o r managing, the. i n t e r n a t i o n a l . w a t e r s two  nations  are c o - r i p a r i a n .  provided  t o which the  T h i s type of agreement.has t h e  b l e s s i n g o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l law e x p e r t s 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 b e s t arrangement.^  s u i t e d t o a. n o n - j u d i c i a l  T h i s opens a new type o f s i t u a t i o n .  The problem  now.becomes t h a t of f i n d i n g the b e s t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e arrangement  7  to  accomplish.the  aims o f . t h e r e s p e c t i v e . c o - r i p a r i a n s . .  Whatever  they d e c i d e -becomes t h e i r i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. U n d e r . i n t e r n a t i o n a l law States.may e n t e r i n t o agreements w i t h r e s p e c t t o a n y matter u n l e s s i n c o n f l i c t w i t h basic..standards of i n t e r n a t i o n a l conduct accepted by the world community. Of c o u r s e , t h i s , l i m i t a t i o n would, equally, a p p l y to the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a . b i n d i n g custom among States. Thus, S t a t e s may a l t e r among themselves by agreement-or b i n d i n g 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 l o n g as t h e r e i s no c o n f l i c t w i t h . t h e s e b a s i c standards.8 -  These b a s i c standards would .include t h e ..principles o f s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n of  n a t i o n s , non-aggression,  nations.  and. r e s p e c t f o r the i n t e g r i t y of other  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 , g i v e n the t r e a t y , i s t h a t S t a t e S t a t e s u a r e under primary' o b l i g a t i o n t o r e s o r t to means of p r e v e n t i o n and s e t t l e m e n t o f d i s putes s t i p u l a t e d i n t h e . a p p l i c a b l e t r e a t i e s b i n d i n g .upon them....9 The q u e s t i o n now becomes one of i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements f o r management of i n t e r n a t i o n a l . r i v e r s .  SOME FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN..DESIGNING. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR INTERNATIONAL WATER RESOURCES PLANNING The l a c k of a g e n e r a l l y a p p l i c a b l e a n d . e n f o r c e a b l e  code of  i n t e r n a t i o n a l law r e s p e c t i n g i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s p r o v i d e s f o r the s e t t l e m e n t of boundary c o n f l i c t s by means of n e g o t i a t i o n 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 .  i t a l s o i n v o l v e s some;very.complex..and-difficult  However,  q u e s t i o n s of  i n s t i t u t i o n a l d e s i g n f o r managing .common r e s o u r c e s .  These ques-  t i o n s .draw on t h e e x p e r t i s e .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 s c i e n c e ,  8  economics, geography, e n g i n e e r i n g and-so on.  These d i s c i p l i n e s  each attempt t o c o n t r i b u t e - t o v t h e . a n s w e r of the most question:  "How  critical  s h o u l d - i n t e r n a t i o n a l . . r i v e r s be managed?"  To  get a p e r s p e c t i v e on:the p r o b l e m , - l e t -us b e g i n by l o o k i n g at the r o l e of i n s t i t u t i o n s .  The R o l e .of.;.the . . I n s t i t u t i o n s The Water, management: a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n .promises to p l a y 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 . t h i s .there.is-common agreement among:students  of t h e s e r i v e r s .  On Ac-  c o r d i n g t o . F . A. B u t r i c o , C. J . - T o u h i l l , and I . L. Whitman of the Great Lakes .study,,...Resource..Management.in..the..Great Lakes B a s i n , It. h a s - r e c e n t l y been, r e c o g n i z e d t h a t ..policy and . i n s t i t u t i o n a l - q u e s t i o n s o f t e n determine the c o u r s e and e v e n t u a l outcome_of -many, water-rrelated endeavors.10 H. P. M i c h a e l s t a t e d a t a 1963  i n t e r n a t i o n a l . c o n f e r e n c e on .water de-  velopment . i n l e s s developed c o u n t r i e s  that  I n s t i t u t i o n a l shortcomings-were .found.to..be the major handicap t o promotion, s u c c e s s f u l . p l a n n i n g and e f f i c i e n t o p e r a t i o n , of a l l water development p r o j e c t s ; i n most c a s e s . f a i l u r e i s due t o the n o n - e x i s t e n c e of proper water development a u t h o r i t i e s , t o c o n f l i c t s between m u l t i p l e agencies, having d i v i d e d a u t h o r i t y 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 d a t e water l e g i s l a t i o n . i l Jerome W. M i l l i m a n , an economist, c o n c l u d e s t h a t ...there a r e s i g n s t h a t t h e need for.more e f f e c t i v e . . management of water r e s o u r c e s i s r a p i d l y a p p r o a c h i n g a " c r i s i s " stage.12 In t h e 1962  Seminar on.the Development.and  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the  9  I n t e r n a t i o n a l R i v e r B a s i n , t h e c o n c l u s i o n was  reached t h a t  . . . i t was the l a c k o f . p e r s o n n e l w i t h i m a g i n a t i o n and d e t e r m i n a t i o n , and. t h e s u i t a b l e . a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n s to c a r r y the schemes forward t h a t were the r e a l i n h i b i t o r s . . . £ t o . 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 d e s i g n 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. get  To  an i d e a * o f what should be the b a s i s of such arrangements, we  must look,.at what they, a r e supposed to:manage.  . Water as a.-Resource Above a l l , water i s a f l u i d  substance which moves w i t h  little  r e g a r d t o 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 r i v e r . m a y c r o s s a b o r d e r , form a b o r d e r , or s t a y w i t h i n a j u r i s d i c t i o n .  When a  r i v e r crosses' or forms a - b o r d e r . i t becomes a n . i n t e r n a t i o n a l The f a c t t h a t water i s f l u i d water management. its  Since a r i v e r  upper r e a c h e s may  river.  l e a d s t o . c e r t a i n problems i n flows,.-the uses o f . t h e r i v e r i n  a f f e c t . t h e uses i n the lower r e a c h e s .  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 u s e s , or r e l a t e d  land  management, p r a c t i c e s may  a l l have an e f f e c t on the downstream u s e s .  Where a r i v e r c r o s s e s a . p o l i t i c a l boundary, t h i s may mean t h a t t h e 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 . these e f f e c t s are h a r m f u l , i t i s l i k e l y t h a t the downstream w i l l protest. f l i c t may  If riparian  .Since t h i s p r o t e s t then a f f e c t s upstream u s e s , . a con-  develop.- I n t e r n a t i o n a l . r i v e r s :then, because they a r e  10  f l u i d , may be sources of f r i c t i o n . The f a c t o r of f l u i d i t y . a l s o : presents a .problem of property rights.  Where a substance i s not f i x e d 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 r i g h t s 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" j u s t l i k e " w i l d l i f e , . f i s h l i f e , o i l , groundwater, l a k e s , streams, and the atmosphere..."  These authors describe some of the prob-  lems associated w i t h common.pool resources: ..  P a r 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 f o l l o w i n g .conditions :are.present: (1) ownership of the resource.is held, i n common; (2) a large number of users .have independent r i g h t s 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 a c t i o n : i n v o l v i n g a community Of users; and (4) t o t a l . u s e or demand upon the resource .exceeds supply.15  When these conditions p e r t a i n , . a . s i t u a t i o n 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 n o . o v e r a l l p u b l i c a u t h o r i t y e x i s t s t o . c o n t r o l overuse.  In the end, everyone s u f f e r s 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 r e l a t e d systems which.greatly a f f e c t the nature of the water system.  For example, i t i s c l e a r  that surface water.and.ground water.-systems:are.intimately r e l a t e d ,  11  and  t o ' a f f e c t one  i s to.affect  the o t h e r .  can a f f e c t the r u n - o f f p a t t e r n s of a r i v e r . can a f f e c t then be  the water q u a l i t y .  Likewise  F o r e s t management p r a c t i c e s Agricultural practices  industry.  The  r i v e r must  looked a t .as p a r t of a l a r g e r system.. The most commonly  proposed boundary to t h i s s y s t e m ; i s - t h a t of .the r i v e r b a s i n . r i v e r b a s i n , i t i s argued, should be c o n s i d e r e d T h i s u n i t ; however may  The  a hydrologic unit.  i n c l u d e s a r i v e r b a s i n , but, i n . a d d i t i o n , i t  a l s o i n c l u d e elements . o u t s i d e .the-basin which a f f e c t ithe b a s i n —  such a s . h y d r o e l e c t r i c demands from a c i t y not i n the b a s i n . demand c o u l d have a g r e a t . e f f e c t .on .the r e s o u r c e . i s t h a t water must be.viewed i n a.complex w a y — i t and v u l n e r a b l e r e s o u r c e .  The p o i n t here i s an  I t i s . f o u n d : everywhere and  damaged b y . s e e m i n g l y . u n r e l a t e d  This  uniquitous  i t can  be  activity.  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .of. User ..Behaviour The n a t u r e  of the water r e s o u r c e causes c e r t a i n types of  haviour  to be observed  haviour  i s . a n a t u r a l outcome o f . t h e c o m p e t i t i o n ' f o r the use  the r e s o u r c e .  among.those whovuse.the r e s o u r c e .  be-  This  be-  of  As M i l l i m a n . p u t s i t ,  u n d e r l y i n g a l l water p r o b l e m s : i s . t h e simple f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s c o m p e t i t i o n f o r . the use of water r e s o u r c e s ; t h i s c o m p e t i t i o n w i l l i n c r e a s e and become more i n t e n s e i n the .future.16 The water r e s o u r c e has a r e few  the c a p a c i t y .to.become s c a r c e and y e t  e f f e c t i v e ways of managing:it.  to become .chaotic.  S. E. G o l d s t o n , M.  Thus u s e r behaviour H. K a r r , V i n c e n t  Ostrom of t h e . I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y Department of P o l i t i c a l  and  there tends Elinor  Science  12  have o f f e r e d some p r o p o s i t i o n s which they f e e l e x p l a i n t h i s  behaviour.  A few o f these a r e g i v e n below as .examples o f . u s e r ' b e h a v i o u r . . P r o p o s i t i o n 1. ... i n d i v i d u a l s " u t i l i z i n g a s c a r c e common p o o l r e s o u r c e w i t h o u t p u b l i c - i n t e r v e n t i o n w i l l be l e d t o make d e c i s i o n s which ..produce s o c i a l costs f o r others. They w i l l . t e n d . t o o v e r i n v e s t i n f a c i l i t i e s concerned w i t h t h e i r own p r i v a t e use and underinvest i n p r o j e c t s . t o produce.joint.benefits f o r a community of u s e r s . P r o p o s i t i o n '2. Intense c o m p e t i t i o n .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. t h e f o l l o w i n g ..patterns of .conduct: (a) c o n c e a l i n g i n f o r m a t i o n about r e s o u r c e u t i l i z a t i o n and t h e . p o t e n t i a l s o c i a l c o s t s f o r o t h e r s ; (b) i g n o r i n g the adverse e f f e c t s .on t h e use o f - t h e r e s o u r c e ; and f o l l o w i n g .a.hold-out .strategy when p r o j e c t s . o f j o i n t b e n e f i t a r e proposed. ...... P r o p o s i t i o n 3. Without, c o l l e c t i v e a c t i o n , t h e p r e dominant outcome, of. c o m p e t i t i v e use o f a s c a r c e common p o o l r e s o u r c e . w i l l b e . e v e n t u a l domination by one use.or u s e r . . . The dominant-use.or. s e t of uses w i l l tend t o be.one t h a t produces t h e l a r g e s t accrued s o c i a l cost' t o the t o t a l community o f p r i o r and p o t e n t i a l u s e r s : . . . ^ T h e s e . c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . o f . u s e r behaviour  show how c o m p e t i t i o n i n  the development of * t h i s r e s o u r c e o p e r a t e s . a heavy.concern.for suffers.  I t tends t o i n v o l v e  p r i v a t e s u r v i v a l to the p o i n t where s o c i e t y  While i n some ways.this: may.be good s i n c e a.monopoly •I Q  of t h e resource.may have.some.benefits, whole i t i s . d e t r i m e n t a l .  f o r t h e s o c i e t y as a  .The s o c i a l . c o s t s o f u s e r  behaviour  a r e n o t borne by t h e u s e r s . Underlying  the  rapacious:nature.of.unregulated.user-behaviour  i s t h e problem of u n c e r t a i n t y .  I f users:knew t h e y were d e s t r o y i n g  the r e s o u r c e and t h e y . c o u l d f i n d , a way of .cooperating w i t h each o t h e r , i t i s c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t a t . l e a s t some-of the u s e r s . c o u l d see  13  the g r e a t e r b e n e f i t , o f j o i n t , c o o p e r a t i o n .  .-In a . n a t i o n a l  context  t h i s cooperation.might  be gained.by government . a c t i o n .  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 p p l i c a b l e t o  everyone.  I n an i n t e r -  But c o o p e r a t i o n . i s p o s s i b l e , . a s d e m o n s t r a t e d . i n t h e case  of whales found . i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l .oceans... Whales- a r e . 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 e a r l y " e x t i n c t by a.world of  n a t i o n s which saw no .reason.to .cease h u n t i n g did.  until.everyone  else  E v e n t u a l l y t h e whale p o p u l a t i o n s - d e c l i n e d and. t h i s d e c l i n e  was d u l y n o t i c e d .  E f f o r t s were, then.made t o gain, i n t e r n a t i o n a l  c o o p e r a t i o n .from a l l . w h a l e hunting, n a t i o n s , (users) t o . l i m i t or p r o h i b i t k i l l i n g , o f whales.  While .this e f f o r t  s u c c e s s f u l and perhaps t o o . l a t e , f o r . t h e . whales,  is.not.entirely it-demonstrates  how u s e r s may.be brought t o ,see..the. b e n e f i t s o f j o i n t The  efforts.  problem o f u n c e r t a i n t y - i n common-pool x e s o u r e e s i i s  brought about because u s e r s do "not make ..information on t h e i r use readily available.  There i s t h e danger, i n a c o m p e t i t i v e  i n l e t t i n g your.adversary you  a r e doing.  or t h e . r e f e r e e  system  (government) know what  I f you do, then these.actors.may know what you  a r e d o i n g and, i f they do n o t approve,.they may o b s t r u c t your b e h a v i o u r — t h u s bringing.you  a. s m a l l e r r e t u r n . . Hence, . i t  should  not be assumed t h a t . u s e r s w i l l make i n f o r m a t i o n . - r e a d i l y . a v a i l a b l e .  The. Nature o f ..Conflicts The  r e s o l u t i o n of conf l i c . t s i s .a. f u n d a m e n t a l - r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  f a c i n g 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  isa  14  response t o c o n f l i c t s i n s o c i e t y which r e q u i r e a u t h o r i t a t i v e d e c i s i o n . In  o r d e r to d e c i d e how c o n f l i c t s . i n water r e s o u r c e a l l o c a t i o n  could  be r e s o l v e d , p e r h a p s . i t would be w i s e t o look, at t h e n a t u r e of conflicts. In  h i s book The A n a l y s i s o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s , K a r l 19  Deutsch d i s c u s s e d - t h e problem .of ''.how c o n f l i c t s a r i s e among, s t a t e s . " Deutsch uses t h e terms-of Anatol.Rapoport.,..a.mathematician.-and  game  t h e o r i s t , , t o - l a b e l t h e t h r e e types of . . c o n f l i c t -which. he f e e l s a r e i m p o r t a n t : f i g h t s , . games., and d e b a t e s . . In t h e f o l l o w i n g  paragraphs  we w i l l e x p l o r e t h e s e b r i e f l y . Fights.  F i g h t s .are c o n f l i c t s . . c h a r a c t e r i z e d - by m i n d l e s s 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 e s c a l a t e s of ten. t o mutual s e l f - d e s t r u c t i o n w i t h no thought of t h e consequences of t h e q u a r r e l .  Here. the. analogy of a.dog f i g h t i s  g i v e n , where: a dog meeting a n o t h e r . d o g . i n t h e s t r e e t may growl at him; a second dog..growls back... The f i r s t dog growls louder,.and. t h e second s t i l l , more.so. The f i r s t dog s n a r l s , and so does-the.second. In t h e c l a s s i c sequence o f . e s c a l a t i o n t h e r e f o l l o w bared t e e t h , snaps, and a d o g f i g h t . 2 0 T h i s type o f c o n f l i c t is d i f f i c u l t the  i s irrational.and. accelerates quickly.  to control.  C o n t r o l , may. come.through.reasoning  It with  c o n t e s t a n t s or.from f a t i g u e or f r o m . d e s t r u c t i o n o f a t l e a s t  one of the c o n t e s t a n t s . Debates.  A debate, as d e f i n e d , here,, i s . a c o n t e s t o f i d e a s  "where a d v e r s a r i e s a r e changing each o t h e r ' s m o t i v e s , - v a l u e s , or c o g n i t i v e images o f r e a l i t y . . . "  21  T h i s d i f f e r s , from t h e concept  15  of a h i g h s c h o o l debate where the o b j e c t i s t o . r e p r e s e n t any. p o i n t of view e f f e c t i v e l y .  The o b j e c t i n c o n f l i c t debates i s t o o b t a i n  some u n d e r s t a n d i n g from your opponent. t h i s type o f c o n f l i c t  .Since your opponent i n  i s undoubtedly t r y i n g .to-gain.some  under-  s t a n d i n g from you, t h e r e s u l t . m i g h t . b e some mutual u n d e r s t a n d i n g . There a r e t h e o r i e s o f d e b a t i n g .which are-based.on.experience and r e s e a r c h which promise t o y i e l d international relations.  some i n f o r m a t i v e i n s i g h t s  One such t h e o r y , in. t h e f i e l d  l o g y , may have some, a p p l i c a t i o n .  George.Bach,.a  into  o f psycho-  prominent  psycho-  22 l o g i s t and author, of—The. I n t i m a t e Enemy,..  has advocated. a form of  c o n s t r u c t i v e f i g h t i n g i n marriage counseling.which i s d i r e c t e d a t t h e " c o n t e s t a n t s " a r r i v i n g . a t . g r e a t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f and s e n s i t i v i t y t o each o t h e r .  The r u l e s a r e s t r i c t  i n o r d e r t o a v o i d e s c a l a t i o n into.what.was  i n such  fighting  earlier called a "fight."  C e r t a i n l y , t h e i d e a w i l l be g e t t i n g g r e a t e r r e s e a r c h  attention,  but a t t h i s time t h e o r y i s weak. Games.  Games a r e a form of c o n f l i c t .where each p l a y e r m a i n t a i n s  some c o n t r o l over h i s a c t i o n s  ( i . e . , games a r e n o t " f i g h t s " ) ^ ,  though he may have no say.over t h e f i n a l , outcome.  even  Games have t h e  o b j e c t i v e of w i n n i n g , or a t l e a s t , not losing., some c o n t e s t . ( i . e . , games a r e n o t d e b a t e s ) .  Games r e q u i r e s t r a t e g y because t h e con-  t e s t a n t s a r e f a c e d w i t h a l e v e l of u n c e r t a i n t y .  They may know  what they want, what they can do, what, they cannot do, what they know, and what they do not know. what t h e i r opponent  By d e f i n i t i o n , they do n o t know  can o r w i l l . d o .  Hence, t h e c o n t e s t a n t s w i l l  16  make a s e t of moves o r t a c t i c s which are. guided by some ..over-all game p l a n , or s t r a t e g y .  T h i s . strategy., i s based .on..perceptions of  t h e i r a l t e r n a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s and o f . t h e c a p a b i l i t i e s of t h e i r ponents. . The b e s t . s t r a t e g i e s - a r e .ones.which,secure  op-  the o b j e c t i v e s  of the c o n t e s t a n t — e i t h e r to win o r . t o avoid, l o s s .  C o n f l i e t s .and-Water  Resources  Given.the n a t u r e of w a t e r . r e s o u r c e s , . we have found are i n e v i t a b l e . .  In some c a s e s . t h e s e conf.1 let's- may  such a case the element of i r r a t i o n a l i t y i s h i g h .  that.conflicts  become f i g h t s . One would  expect  t h a t i n such a c a s e , 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. some cases c o n f l i c t s over water, r e s o u r c e s may may  become.debates.  In This  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., g i v e n the  n a t u r e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s , . t h i s . .form..of, conf l i c t to occur i n s p e c i a l .cases, o n l y . t a n t s w i l l be determined to win. something  i s apt  Rather.,-it i s l i k e l y t h a t  contes-  to. seek .their s e l f - i n t e r e s t . a n d thus t r y  from t h e i r c o n f l i c t . .  T h i s 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 r e s o u r c e s w i l l o f t e n be c h a r a c t e r i z e d game type b e h a v i o u r .  I t should.be  by  remembered, that, games, i n t h i s  c o n t e x t , would i n c l u d e d i p l o m a t i c , , economic .and. p o l i t i c a l  activity,  and, u l t i m a t e l y , w a r f a r e .  The R o l e of Communication i n Games Communication i n games i s a.complex p r o c e s s . contestants-may  I t was  said  that  know what they want, what they can do, what they  In  17  cannot do,, what they know, and what they do-not know. not know w h a t . t h e i r opponent.can.or w i l l do.  They do  Immediately i t  becomes e v i d e n t - t h a t t o p l a y t h e game, c o n t e s t a n t s need  certain  types of.knowledge.  This r e -  ;  They have, t o know what they want.  q u i r e s some i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e i r v a l u e s and c e r t a i n tion.  The i n f o r m a t i o n comes-from.communication.  informa-  A l s o , they  should, know what they can do. . T h i s - i n v o l v e s i n f o r m a t i o n about s t r a t e g i e s a v a i l a b l e . t o them. -This.means communication r e g a r d i n g the r u l e s . do. of  The same a p p l i e s to ..information on. what.. they cannot  The contestants.must t h e i r knowledge.  a l s o , know-what.they,know--the e x t e n t  I n each .case .some communication . i s  necessary.  No poker p l a y e r , would b e t on a hand. i ^ a g i g a m e i i i n v w . h i i c h ^ h e l L d l d a c n o t know t h e r u l e s , t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e game, what h i s c a r d s a r e , or what h i s opponent c o u l d do. - N e i t h e r should, we expect, c o n t e s t a n t s i n water r e s o u r c e s c o n f l i c t s .to..enter, a .water c o n f l i c t without The  similar information. q u e s t i o n now becomes., "who. should-be allowed, t o e n t e r  water r e s o u r c e s , conf l i c t s . o n . - i n t e r n a t i o n a l ..rivers?" . N a t i o n a l governments w i l l d e f i n i t e l y b e . i n v o l v e d . . -Regional.governments w i l l be i n v o l v e d , . a l t h o u g h perhaps i n . a n . i n d i r e c t manner.  They  may., f o r example, r e p r e s e n t t h e i r p o s i t i o n , t o t h e n a t i o n a l government, a s k i n g t h a t t h e national..government government i n the i n t e r n a t i o n a l forum. In a democratic  r e p r e s e n t .the r e g i o n a l What about the c i t i z e n ?  system, i t i s perhaps.an element of d e f i n i t i o n  t h a t t h e c i t i z e n ' s wishes a r e c a r r i e d out.through .elected r e p r e -  18  sentatives.  But how  do.the.elected representatives.determine  what i s the p o s i t i o n of. the . c i t i z e n ?  Somehow,, the  citizen  must communicate h i s . p o s i t i o n ..to. h i s . e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . Thus, communication w i l l be a p a r t of a d e m o c r a t i c . i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s management arrangement... .Let us look, c l o s e r , at. communicat i o n i n p o l i t i c a l , t h e o r y f o r deeper, p e r s p e c t i v e .  . Communication..in...DecisionT:making . Communication i s a n , e s s e n t i a l ..component i n . any making system.  decision-  A c c o r d i n g t o Robert. C.-North,  A s s o c i a t i o n s , organizations.,. s o c i e t i e s , and the n a t i o n - s t a t e i t s e l f a r e b u i l t upon. and.held t o . gether by communications-—by.perceptions, by d e c i s i o n s , b y . e x p e c t a t i o n s which p e o p l e m a i n t a i n of each o t h e r , by t r a n s a c t i o n s b y ..their, w i l l i n g n e s s to v a l i d a t e a . c o n s i d e r a b l e p o r t i o n of the e x p e c t a t i o n s by a p p r o p r i a t e r e c i p r o c a l b e h a v i o u r s . Polit i c s c o u l d not e x i s t - W i t h o u t communications... In these terms a modern n a t i o n 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 i t s . - f o r e i g n , r e l a t i o n s . 23 D i s c o v e r y of the c r u c i a l r o l e of .communication has  s t i m u l a t e d the  development of. some v e r y u s e f u l t h e o r y based, on.analyses m u n i c a t i o n 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 . s t u d i e s have l e d . s o m e i n c l u d i n g . K a r l Deutsch,  c a s e , t h a t communication..studies  These  to see communi-  24 c a t i o n . a s a key f o c u s to the study of p o l i t i c s . . . . i n any  of com-  It i s clear,  have a. s t r o n g r o l e i n  25 political of how  studies.  T h i s r o l e w i l l i n c r e a s e our  demands upon. decision-making...pr.ocesses  understanding  of .these systems  19  are  communicated and received. In h i s book P o l i t i c s , and Communication,  26 . Richard Fagen  describes three main directions, i n 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 t o . c o n t r i bute to any study of a democratic-institutional arrangement, including one dealing .with, i n t e r n a t i o n a l 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.... F i n a l l y , this study w i l l analyze the.communication.system i n .the case under consideration by.applying.a.model.based .on.the.study of the mechanics 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. t h i s ..study..is. communication.... In t h i s study, however, there i s a value, perspective, which w i l l be made exp l i c i t i n the following paragraphs.. This is.the.normative conclusion that the p r e f e r e n t i a l system of decisionmaking i s a democratic system.  20  The Democratic  System  L e a v i n g t h e q u e s t i o n of - communication l e t us l o o k . a t t h e concept of-democracy. expect a.democracy t o have?  .aside.for.the.moment,  What a t t r i b u t e s  do we  The.primary . a t t r i b u t e - i s t h e p r i n -  c i p l e t h a t t h e 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- t h a t t h e r e p r e -  s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e 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 l o n g as they c o n t i n u e t o enjoy the support o f . t h e i r next e l e c t i o n  constituency.  I f they do n o t , then a t t h e  they should b e . s u b j e c t to.replacement.  A second p r i n c i p l e , of .a-democratic system, i s t h a t t h e c i t i z e n s 28 should, be. a b l e t o i n f l u e n c e the d e c i s i o n s .of t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s . T h i s i s another way .of. saying, that.-the p r e f e r e n c e s o f the c i t i z e n s 29 should count. sed  T h u s . p r e f e r e n c e s s h o u l d .not n e c e s s a r i l y . b e e x p r e s -  o n l y a t 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 t h a t a l l . c i t i z e n s should  be p o l i t i c a l l y e q u a l .  T h i s would, c e r t a i n l y , mean t h a t .every a d u l t  c i t i z e n s h o u l d have, a v o t e i n e l e c t i o n s . w h e r e . r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a r e chosen.  I t would a l s o .mean that...each .person.had  o n l y one v o t e and 30  t h a t t h i s v o t e should-be counted e q u a l l y . w i t h . a l l o t h e r v o t e s . The p r i n c i p l e o f p o l i t i c a l e q u a l i t y , w i l l be a major concern of t h i s study.  A difficult  q u e s t i o n . o f democratic t h e o r y i s t h a t  of d e c i d i n g how.to weigh t h e i n f l u e n c e which i s . brought t o bear upon t h e p o l i t i c a l d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s .  I t i s a.fact that  are not. e q u a l i n p o l i t i c a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s .  citizens  Not every c i t i z e n i s  21  able t o communicate h i s preferences  to the decision-makers.  o f . t h i s c a n be 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 personal  Some  competence;  s o m e 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 true that economic.and 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 effectiveness..-. The modern  democratic  s y s t e m .puts 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 to reach a consensus.  I n many c a s e s  t h i s . c a n mean t h a t t h o s e  with  superior education, have more.knowledge-and.expertise f o r promoting their preferences.  A l s o , persons  d i s c r e t i o n a r y time can.apply  w i t h greater, wealth,  income, or  these resources.to promoting  a decision.  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 , then i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e .influence of t h e more  able.should  not be excessive. A f o u r t h p r i n c i p l e of democracy i s that every c i t i z e n be f r e e t o express 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 means t h a t  voters should not be i n t i m i d a t e d o r coerced i n v o i c i n g preferences.where, of other c i t i z e n s .  should  i n their.voting or  these.are.done respecting-the  This should.mean..institutional  m i n o r i t i e s from, a b u s e b y t h e m a j o r i t y . .  freedom  safeguards.protecting  T h i s s h o u l d a l s o mean f r e e d o m  of c i t i z e n s t o r u n f o r o f f i c e unmolested.  I t should i n c l u d e freedoms  31 of speech,  assembly, and organization...  I n t h i s way t h e c i t i z e n  may g a i n a d e q u a t e i n f o r m a t i o n . upon..which t o b a s e h i s p r e f e r e n c e s . I t means t h a t he s h o u l d b e a b l e t o . a t t e m p t 32 adopt h i s preferences. to communicate.  toft/persuade, o t h e r s t o  These freedoms a l l add up t o . a freedom  22  A f i f t h p r i n c i p l e of democracy is.that the representatives should serve with the consent of the majority of the c i t i z e n s and a majority vote of the representatives should be required for decisions.  A democracy should be premised on the p r i n c i p l e  that i t i s the t o t a l c i t i z e n r y 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..  First, 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. e x p l i c i t consent for every vote i n a legislature.  The.system would quickly f a i l , to act on  anything.  Rather,.representatives, should attempt to gain an impression of t h e i r constituents preferences. A second constraint .is .on. the c i t i z e n .  It. would..be un-  reasonable for. every c i t i z e n to be c a l l e d upon, to.assimilate the increasingly.complex, voluminous., and...technical information neces33 sary for. developing, an educated preference..  A democracy i n  these conditions would expect the.elected representatives to study current problems and interpret t h e i r constituents' preferences i n 34 terms of t h e i r special knowledge and .competence. mean that individuals, may spokesperson who  Also, i t should  be able, to designate a knowledgeable  may. speak f o r their, preferences on issues of  concern to them. These broad p r i n c i p l e s w i l l be drawn upon i n the assessment  23  of communication i n t h i s study. Communication,., Democracy,.. and International. Rivers .  In t h i s  study, we are concerned with the assessment.of. communication which i s 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. t h i s study is. whether, these components of. t h i s communication.process management of t h i s particular, r i v e r .  facilitate  effective  While this study does not  seek to answer these questions" f u l l y , i t i s important to shed some l i g h t on.the role.of communication .in .that management activity.  I t w i l l be an assumption of..this.study t h a t . i f 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 c i t i z e n s w i l l inevitably overlook.sources of discontent and c o n f l i c t .  When the l e v e l of alienation  from  the system exceeds the l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n with the system and no procedure exists f o r resolution w i l l reject that system.  of.these .feelings, the c i t i z e n s  Rejection may. take the form of apathy or  36 aggression. This inquiry into the role of communication, i n international r i v e r s management should-not be considered.definitive  i n regard  to principles, of.management. . There are many, factors  involved  in these arrangements.  A University  of B r i t i s h 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 , d i r e c t e d by P r o f e s s o r I r v i n g K. Fox, i s i n v e s t i g a t i n g a wide range of " f a c t o r s suspected  of i n f l u e n c i n g the n a t u r e of the agreement  37 reached  or/'responsible f o r . f a i l u r e . "  At p r e s e n t i t i s p l a i n  t h a t we do not know a l l of the f a c t o r s .which.. do i n f l u e n c e the success of these arrangements.  T h i s 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 t h e s i s we w i l l be l o o k i n g a t . a s p e c i f i c  case.  T h i s case i s the H i g h Ross^Damrr-rSkagit .River -Controversy.  The  S k a g i t R i v e r i s . an i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r f l o w i n g from.Canada  into  the U n i t e d S t a t e s .  The Ross Dam  i s a p r o j e c t . o n the S k a g i t  R i v e r i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s which p r o v i d e s h y d r o e l e c t r i c power, f l o o d c o n t r o l and.some r e c r e a t i o n . b e n e f i t s to the. S t a t e of Washington.  The Ross Dam  i s designed  s o . t h a t i t can be b u i l t  to a h i g h e r l e v e l and.thus be c a p a b l e of p r o d u c i n g f i t s i n h y d r o e l e c t r i c power and f l o o d c o n t r o l . Ross Dam  was  g r e a t e r bene-  The r a i s i n g of  approved i n 1942 by .the i n s t i t u t i o n a l  arrangement  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r water management.of . j o i n t waters in.Canada and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s - — t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l . J o i n t Commission. agreement  The  seemed secure, u n t i l 1969 when.a movement began which  opposed t h e agreement.  S i n c e t h e dam had. not. a c t u a l l y been  r a i s e d and since.new q u e s t i o n s concerning., recreational...and env i r o n m e n t a l 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 c o u l d a l l o w the dam t o 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 c o u l d sup-  p o r t t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l - r e c r e a t i o n i s t p o s i t i o n and oppose t h e dam.  S i n c e the d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s '  c o l l e c t i v e mind had n o t been  d e c i d e d i r r e v o c a b l y ( a t l e a s t a c c o r d i n g t o the p e r c e p t i o n s o f the anti-dam c o n t e s t a n t s ) , t h e r e was a c o n f l i c t . The Focus o f t h i s Study. munication  T h i s study w i l l l o o k a t t h e com-  a s p e c t o f t h e H i g h Ross Dam C o n t r o v e r s y .  f i c a l l y , t h i s study w i l l  More s p e c i -  l o o k a t t h a t p a r t o f the communication  p r o c e s s where messages a r e a c c e p t e d by t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  pro-  cess.  actual-  The p o i n t o f concern here then i s where the p r o c e s s  l y r e c e i v e s the message t h a t t h e c i t i z e n d e c i d e s t o d e l i v e r . p o i n t w i l l be c a l l e d the " i n t a k e " p o i n t . point i s a p u b l i c hearing.  An example o f an i n t a k e  A p u b l i c h e a r i n g presumably  messages t h a t a r e d e l i v e r e d by the p u b l i c . w i t h c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f t h i s exchange.  This  accepts  We a r e concerned  here  We want t o e v a l u a t e (1)  whether t h i s exchange i s c a p a b l e o f p e r m i t t i n g r e l i a b l e  communi-  c a t i o n o f p r e f e r e n c e s o f t h e c i t i z e n s i n t o the system o f d e c i s i o n making  (openness).  We want t o know (2) i f t h i s i n t a k e p o i n t i n -  h i b i t s o r f a c i l i t a t e s t h e acceptance making system  (efficiency).  I t should be apparent have been i g n o r e d . "worthiness"  o f messages t o t h e d e c i s i o n -  t h a t i n t h i s study c e r t a i n  I n t h i s case we a r e n o t concerned  matters with the  o f the message s i n c e presumably o n l y the c i t i z e n can  determine how v a l i d h i s p r e f e r e n c e s a r e — t h e y  are s u b j e c t i v e value  0  26  judgments.  N e i t h e r a r e we  decision-makers.  concerned  Decision-makers  about the c r e d e n t i a l s o f the  a r e extremely important  variables  d e s e r v i n g l e n g t h y study, but are o u t s i d e the scope o f t h i s We  study.  are not concerned w i t h the v a l i d i t y o f the u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n  which i s a l s o a matter o f judgment f o r the d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s t h e i r constituents to decide. t i v a t i o n s o f the c i t i z e n s who  We  are not concerned w i t h the  p r e s e n t t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s . We  not concerned w i t h the d e t a i l s o f how the message from the h e a r i n g s . t i v i t i e s o f decision-makers  We  moare  the d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s r e c e i v e d  are not concerned w i t h the ac-  except i n r e l a t i o n t o how  i n v o l v e d i n the i n t a k e p r o c e s s .  and  they were  Rather, we want t o know i f the  c i t i z e n had a r e a s o n a b l e channel o f communication t o the d e c i s i o n process. There  i s a f u r t h e r l i m i t a t i o n on the scope o f t h i s r e s e a r c h .  There are a myriad o f ways i n which a c i t i z e n may f e r e n c e s known.  He may  make h i s p r e -  write l e t t e r s to h i s elected representa-  t i v e , t o h i s newspaper, or t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t r i b u n a l s w i t h some a u t h o r i t y t o make d e c i s i o n s . court. his we  He c o u l d perhaps  bring action i n  He c o u l d c o n t r i b u t e money t o a p o l i t i c a l campaign f o r  preferences.  He c o u l d even run f o r an e l e c t e d o f f i c e .  What  are concerned w i t h here, however, i s a s p e c i f i c type o f i n -  take p o i n t .  We  are concerned w i t h what has become perhaps  the  most p o p u l a r form o f p u b l i c i n t a k e p r o c e s s — t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g . A l t h o u g h a l l forms o f i n t a k e a r e i n f l u e n t i a l , the f o c u s here i s made i n l i g h t o f r e s e a r c h c o n s t r a i n t s .  27  A f u r t h e r l i m i t a t i o n w i l l be imposed.  Beyond a simple  c r i p t i v e mapping e x e r c i s e , t h i s study w i l l be l i m i t e d t o a s p e c i f i c public hearings.  few  The p u b l i c h e a r i n g s t h a t w i l l be o f  concern here are p r i m a r i l y the h e a r i n g s o f the  International  J o i n t Commission, the Washington S t a t e E c o l o g y Commission, the S e a t t l e C i t y C o u n c i l .  des-  and  The h e a r i n g s o f the F e d e r a l Power Com-  m i s s i o n w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t . T h i s study w i l l now Dam  p r o c e e d t o Chapter  C o n t r o v e r s y w i l l be d e s c r i b e d .  b r i e f l y d e s c r i b e , i n Chapter  I I where the High Ross  A f t e r t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n we  will  I I , the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g u n i t s i n v o l v e d  i n the c o n t r o v e r s y and t h e i r c o n t e x t . " In Chapter IV we w i l l  es-  t a b l i s h the r e s e a r c h d e s i g n t h a t w i l l be implemented t o g a t h e r d a t a f o r Chapter V.  Chapter VI w i l l be an e x p l o r a t i o n o f the  p l i c a t i o n s o f t h i s r e s e a r c h f o r management o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l  im-  rivers.  28  FOOTNOTES  "''Berber, F. J . , Rivers i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Stevens and Sons, L t d . , 1959), p. 1. ;  (London:  2 I n t e r n a t i o n a l Court of Permanent J u s 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 I n t e r n a t i o n a l Rivers Basin (Vancouver, B.C.: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia P u b l i c a tions Centre, 1963), p. x. ^Berber, op. c i t . , p. 262. 5 I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law A s s o c i a t i o n , P r i n c i p l e s of Law Governing the Uses of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Rivers (Resolution adopted by the A s s o c i a t i o n at i t s Conference held i n Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia, August, 1956), pp. 9-10. I b i d . , p. 3. ^ I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law A s s o c i a t i o n , H e l s i n k i Rules on the Uses of the.Waters of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Rivers (Resolution adopted by i t s 52nd Conference held i n H e l s i n k i , F i n l a n d , August  20, 1966), p. 4.  ^ I b i d . , p. 7. 9 I b i d . , p. 41. ^R. F. B u t r i c o , 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 I n t e r n a t i o n a l 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), p. 19.  29  12Jerome W. M i l l i m a n , "Economic C o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r the D e s i g n of Water I n s t i t u t i o n s , " P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , XXV,  December  1965,  P:> 284.  13 Chapman, op. c i t . , p.  4.  14 Berber, op. c i t . , p.  5.  " ^ V i n c e n t 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. B u t r i c o and o t h e r s ( e d s . ) , op. c i t . , p. 173.  16 M i l l i m a n , op. c i t . , p.  285.  17 S. E . G o l d s t o n , M. H. -Karr, V i n c e n t 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. B u t r i c o and o t h e r s ( e d s . ) , op. c i t . , p. 173.  18 V i n c e n t and E l i n o r Ostrom, op. c i t . , p .  173.  19 K a r l W. Deutsch, The A n a l y s i s o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s (Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e H a l l , I n c . , 1968),  pp. 112-132. 20 2 1  I b i d . , p.  113.  I b i d . , p.  130.  22 George Bach, The I n t i m a t e Enemy (New York: Avon Books,  1968).  23 Robert C. N o r t h , "The A n a l y t i c a l P r o s p e c t s o f Communication Theory," i n James G. C h a r l e s w o r t h ( e d . ) , Contemporary P o l i t i c a l A n a l y s i s (New York: The F r e e P r e s s , 1967), p. 301.  24 K a r l W. Deutsch, N a t i o n a l i s m and S o c i a l Communication (Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. P r e s s , 1953.) G a b r i e l A. Almond and G. Bingham P o w e l l , 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 R i c h a r d R. Fagan, P o l i t i c s and Communication L i t t l e , Brown and Company, 1966), p. 8.  ^ ^ I b i d . , esp. pp. 1-33, 88-106.  (Boston:  30  27  H. B. Mayo, An Introduction to Democratic Theory York: Oxford University Press, 1960), p. 60.  (New  "^Ibid., p. 62. 29 Kenneth Peterson and Irving K. Fox, "A Normative Structure for Evaluating Water Quality Management I n s t i t u t i o n s , " Westwater Research Centre, University of B r i t i s h 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 Behaviour," i n 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 B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.  CHAPTER I I  A HISTORY OF THE SKAGIT RIVER  32  The River.  s u b j e c t o f t h i s chapter  i s the Ross Dam on the S k a g i t  The S k a g i t R i v e r 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 S t a t e i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s .  I t empties i n t o Puget Sound, an i n l e t o f  the P a c i f i c Ocean.  The S k a g i t i s the l a r g e s t r i v e r f l o w i n g  into  Puget Sound and the second l a r g e s t i n the s t a t e o f Washington. The  S k a g i t R i v e r i s 24 m i l e s l o n g i n Canada and d r a i n s 330  square m i l e s o f f o r e s t and park l a n d . mountainous.  The Canadian b a s i n i s  I n the U n i t e d S t a t e s the S k a g i t i s 125 m i l e s  l o n g and d r a i n s 2,700 square m i l e s o f f o r e s t and farm land."*" In t h e U n i t e d and  S t a t e s the S k a g i t flows through an upper v a l l e y  then, on the lower r e a c h e s ,  v a l l e y i n the U n i t e d  across  the f l a t s .  The upper  S t a t e s i s c u r r e n t l y t h e c e n t r e o f power  development, l o g g i n g , and r e c r e a t i o n .  The S k a g i t F l a t s a r e  r i c h a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d s w i t h growing i n d u s t r i a l  investment.  HISTORY The  S k a g i t R i v e r was p r o b a b l y  I t i s known t h a t Spanish  d i s c o v e r e d ' i n t h e l a t e 1700's.  and E n g l i s h e x p l o r e r s were i n the a r e a  around t h a t time, b u t no one knows who a c t u a l l y d i s c o v e r e d the river. Settlement  f i r s t began on t h e S k a g i t F l a t s .  Though t h i s  a r e a was f r e q u e n t l y s u b j e c t t o f l o o d i n g , a p i o n e e r named Samuel Calhoun s e t t l e d on these  f l a t s i n 1863.  He began a f o r e r u n n e r  33  FIGURE 2.1  SKAGIT RIVER, MAP  34  of  a dyking and  farming development on what became r e c o g n i z e d  2 as some of the r i c h e s t farmland The  a r e a grew r a p i d l y .  In 1879,  a g i l l net i n t o the S k a g i t and the a r e a .  anywhere. James H. Moores dropped  i n i t i a t e d a fishing industry i n  T h i s h e l p e d s t i m u l a t e i n d u s t r y and  settlement.  A  3 food p r o c e s s i n g i n d u s t r y grew up. f u r t h e r s p u r r e d by developments i n the upper U.S. i  Growth was valley. its  The  timber  l o g g i n g 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  and began modest o p e r a t i o n s i n the v a l l e y i n the  late  4 1800's.  T h i s of course l e d t o some support  In 1878 to  g o l d was  i n d u s t r y downstream.  d i s c o v e r e d i n the upper v a l l e y .  This l e d  a g o l d r u s h which brought s e v e r a l hundred p r o s p e c t o r s  miners to the upper v a l l e y . however, and was  c o o l i n g by l a t e 1880.  however, and operated road houses.  This i n i t i a l  r u s h was  and  short l i v e d ,  Many s t a y e d  behind,  t o l l bridges, f e r r i e s , r i v e r boats,  and  These e n t e r p r i s e s got most of the g o l d then b e i n g  mxned. In the 1890's new  mining  a c t i v i t y awakened.  c o n t i n u e d i n t o the t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y . Many of the mining and  found i n  1900.  Mining  a c t i v i t y became minimal by  6  The who  activity  companies o f t h i s r u s h were m a r g i n a l , however,  soon went bankrupt.  1913.  S i l v e r was  This  t r u e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s mining  s t a y e d and  e f f o r t l a y i n those  s e t t l e d i n the upper v a l l e y .  brought many s e t t l e r s to the v a l l e y and  The mining  they determined  had to make  35  i t t h e i r home.  Water Power The upper r i v e r f i r s t became a source of water power i n 1906 when a small water wheel and generator was mining operations.'''  set up to power  This marked the beginning of waterpower  development i n 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 c o n f l i c t inevitably developed between the residents of the upper v a l l e y and the power development concept.  The  resi-  dents slowly l o s t their claim to the v a l l e y because of the growth of importance of the power i n t e r e s t s . was put into a forest reserve.  In 1906  In 1898  the area  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 v a l l e y 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 s u f f i c i e n t length of time p r i o r to 1906  and that t h e i r claim was  agricultural.  and power industries would have superior claims. this l e g i s l a t i o n was  Forest  The object of  conservation and the Forest Service was 9 against settlement i n 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 e l e c t r i c power  interests i n the state became interested i n the r i v e r . Competition for the r i v e r v a l l e y became intense i n 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.  First,  s i t e s had to be located and arranged into a development scheme for the whole r i v e r .  The r i v e r was  explored and surveyed.  Questions of a d v i s a b i l i t y and f e a s i b i l i t y were tackled i n Seattle and the' valley.'''"''  I t was  would include a dam Gorge Dam.  decided that any scheme for development  at Gorge Creek near the s i t e of the present  The two main additional s i t e s explored were at  Diablo Canyon and Ruby Creek.  Eventually the Superintendant  of C i t y Light, Mr. J . D. Ross, recommended a three step plan including a l l three damsites which would be scheduled velopment as needed.  In May  of 1918  f o r de-  the Seattle City Council  authorized City Light to proceed with the Gorge Plant, the f i r s t +u s e r i e s..1 2 of* the  The Forest Service, desiring rapid development of the v a l l e y , 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 i n 1919. had to be b u i l t .  The s i t e was barely accessible and a r a i l r o a d Delays arose and estimates of costs rose.  The  37  dam  was  1924.  c o m p l e t e d and power became a v a i l a b l e i n September o f  1 4  The  Gorge P l a n t e s t a b l i s h e d the S k a g i t ' s p o t e n t i a l as  c r e d i b l e power r e s o u r c e . development f o r power.  The  r i v e r now  C i t y L i g h t now  was  a  opened to f u r t h e r  boasted  that  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 of achievement a g a i n s t h a r a s s i n g odds 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 and s e l f i s h i n t e r e s t s , w i t h an a d d i t i o n a l 205,000 h o r s e p o w e r y e t t o come'.-'-'-'  The D i a b l o The  Dam  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  further refinement  of plans.  which included plans  I n 1925  S e a t t l e l a i d out  T h e D i a b l o Dam  i n 1927 was  v e l o p m e n t — t h e Ruby  The The  City Light  The  b e g u n i n 1927  and  c o m p l e t e d i n 1936.  FPC Dam.  The  l e f t one m a j o r s t e p t o t h e S k a g i t  de-  Dam.  Dam i d e a o f c o n s t r u c t i n g a dam  i d e a was  a t R u b y C r e e k was  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  not  of the  States Forest Service f o r S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t to develop I n 1920  sought  for C i t y Light to construct Diablo  c o n s t r u c t i o n o f D i a b l o Dam  Ruby  I n 1926  as  of i t s plans from the F e d e r a l Power Commission.  gave p e r m i s s i o n  The  plans  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  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-. approval  the  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 the  new.  United the  Skagit.  Gorge  38  P l a n t , e n v i s i o n e d a dam capture  a t t h i s p o i n t t o e l e v a t i o n 1600  the e n t i r e f l o w of the r i v e r . I n 1925,  which would  City Light  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."^ 1929  S e a t t l e purchased  to prepare  the Witworth  Ranch i n B r i t i s h  laid In  Columbia  f o r p o s s i b l e f l o o d i n g across the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boun-  18 dary.  I n 1930  t h e a r e a w h i c h was  f o r e s e e n as a r e s e r v o i r was  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.  govern-  19 ment.  In 1933'the'U.S. Engineer  Department sent a report 20  a proposed plan f o r Skagit development to Congress. events were u n f e t t e r e d steps toward  and  These  c o n s t r u c t i o n of the Ruby  Dam. I n 1939  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 way  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 for  the p r o j e c t to begin.  by g r a n t i n g  permission  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  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  for  em-  construction, flood  c o n t r o l , cheap h y d r o e l e c t r i c power a t s i t e , and  supplemental  21 s t o r a g e f o r t h e two d o w n s t r e a m d a m s — t h e G o r g e and D i a b l o Dams. This storage, at completion to i t s ultimate height, would include 22 the e n t i r e flow of the 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 be 23 low r e l a t i v e to b e n e f i t s . P u b l i c Power A mystique g r e a t l y overshadowed these proceedings,  This  was  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 was f o u n d e d i n 24 1902 as 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 C i t y . "  The virtues of this enterprise were proffered as i d e a l .  News-  paper readers were told that whereas a p r i v a t e l y owned u t i l i t y erecting dams or transmission l i n e s lays waste [to] i t s r i g h t 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 e f f o r t to get Seattle residents to i d e n t i f y with t h e i r great u t i l i t y .  The grounds around the dams  were well kept, featuring rock gardens, t r o p i c a l 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 t h i s great 29  enterprise, Mr. Ross, died.  ' Ruby Dam's name was changed to  "Ross Dam;" Growth . Development i n this period was l e g i t i m i z e d 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 s a l i e n t , however. issue was growth.  Growth was to be unlimited.  \  The s a l i e n t  According to  40  The New American i n Bellevue, Washington There should not, nor can there be, any jealousy or r i v a l r y by.different sections or factions when i t comes to the question of state development... any growth anywhere i n our commonwealth affects the whole state... any development should have i n view this f u l l and complete use of our r i v e r s and streams. This view of growth was fostered by the experience of rapidly r i s i n g standards of l i v i n g brought about by the growth of the l a t e nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The growth ethic received a boost from the hardships of the Great Depression of the 1930's.  F i n a l l y , i n 1939 the gathering clouds of war were  seen i n Europe and the Far East.  The special role that Seattle  had i n -this perilous s i t u a t i o n was that of a producer of war materials—particularly aircraft. It was i n this super-heated  This industry required energy. environment that Ross Dam's f i r s t  31 stage was brought to completion i n 1940. the Skagit, construction was very d i f f i c u l t .  As with a l l dams on When completed,  the f i r s t stage reached 1365 feet i n 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 i n i t s early years constituted  a very serious threat to the national s e c u r i t i e s 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.  A i r power had proven i t s  41  c r u c i a l , perhaps determinant r o l e i n the war.  As a supplier of  a i r c r a f t , 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  c i t y decided to proceed with stage three i n view of the increased demand for power.  Contracts were l e t for logging the reservoir  s i t e i n 1945 and the Silver-Skagit logging road was b u i l t from 33 the north i n 1946. i n 1947.  The second stage ,of Ross Dam was  completed  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 f o r construction of. the t h i r d stage began before completion of the' second stage.  The f i n i s h i n g work on second stage  construction was simultaneous with the foundation work f o r the 34 t h i r d stage.  Thus stages two and three proceeded without i n -  terruption from 1945 to 1949"when stage three was completed. Dam  stood at elevation 1615—540 feet high.  Ross  Plans f o r completion  of the fourth stage were postponed u n t i l more economical power 35 developments i n 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. this elevation the reservoir behind the dam would be backed Canada and permission would be needed from the Canadians.  At into  42  The Fourth Stage of Ross Permission to Flood.  Dam Raising Ross Dam  would cause flooding i n Canada. Treaty of 1909  to elevation  1725  According to the Boundary Waters  between Canada and the United States, the Inter-  national Joint Commission must approve a l l projects r a i s i n g the 36 natural l e v e l of boundary waters.  Thus to begin the fourth  stage Seattle had to go to the Commission. In 1941 A hearing was  the City of Seattle made application to the Commission. held i n Seattle on September 12, 1941.  threatening and there was no opposition to the dam.  War The  was hearing  lasted less than two hours and dealt mainly with engineering pects and economic benefits of the dam.  One  as-  Canadian t e s t i f i e d  and no n o n - o f f i c i a l c i t i z e n s from either nation t e s t i f i e d . There 37 was  no mention of recreational or environmental questions  understandable s i t u a t i o n given the reigning philosophies necessities of the In 1942  and  day.  the International Joint Commission granted an Order  of Approval giving permission to Seattle to r a i s e the dam. order was  —an  The  subject to a condition that the City of Seattle arrange  an agreement with the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia for compensation 38 for any damages caused i n the province by the flooding. The Compensation Agreement. to obtain this agreement.  The next problem for Seattle  was  The B r i t i s h Columbia L e g i s l a t i v e As-  sembly passed the Skagit Valley Lands Act of 1947 which empowered the Lieutenant-Governor i n Council to negotiate with the City i n  43  order  t o make the agreement with, the C i t y r e q u i r e d by the 1942  IJC o r d e r .  39  1  T h i s e f f e c t i v e l y meant t h a t the p r o v i n c i a l c a b i n e t  m i n i s t e r r e s p o n s i b l e c o u l d make, an agreement. Agreement had s t i l l n o t been reached when t h e r e i g n i n g Liberal-Conservative  c o a l i t i o n : i n B r i t i s h Columbia was brought  down a t the p o l l s by the S o c i a l C r e d i t P a r t y and i t s c o l o u r f u l l e a d e r , W.A.C. Bennett.  The Socreds were concerned about p o s s i b l e  p r e c e d e n t s which c o u l d be s e t f o r the Columbia R i v e r T r e a t y negot i a t i o n s and agreement on t h e S k a g i t was postponed. The  Columbia R i v e r T r e a t y 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 t o s e t t l e .  A c t i n g upon the a u t h o r i t y  vested  i n the government by t h e S k a g i t V a l l e y Lands A c t o f 1947, Resources M i n i s t e r Ray W i l l i s t o n o f the Socred government s i g n e d awaited agreement i n 1967.  The agreement was s i g n e d  a f t e r t h e A c t was passed and t w e n t y - f i v e Order.  S e a t t l e agreed t o pay  years  valley.  twenty  years  a f t e r t h e 1942 I J C  $5.50 p e r a c r e p e r y e a r f o r 99 y e a r s  i n exchange f o r r i g h t s t o f l o o d t h e v a l l e y . per y e a r .  the l o n g -  T h i s came t o  $35,566.21  S e a t t l e was a l s o l i a b l e f o r p r o v i n c i a l taxes on t h e  4  THE  HIGH ROSS DAM  CONTROVERSY  Launching the F i g h t The  controversy  over High Ross Dam began w i t h a p r o t e s t de-  v e l o p i n g i n l a t e 1969.  The p r o t e s t 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 P a r t y MLA The Vancouver  from N o r t h V a n c o u v e r - C a p i l a n o , D a v i d Brousson.  Sun, the c i t y ' s l e a d i n g newspaper, p o p u l a r i z e d the  o p p o s i t i o n to the dam w i t h ample coverage o f the i s s u e . was  The  issue  one.of e n v i r o n m e n t a l damage and l o s s o f r e c r e a t i o n a l a s s e t s  which c o u l d r e s u l t from the dam. claims.  S e a t t l e spokesmen d e n i e d t h e s e  Another i s s u e which added f u e l to the c o n f l i c t was  o f n a t i o n a l i s m — A m e r i c a n s were f l o o d i n g a Canadian v a l l e y . ments by L i b e r a l MLA Massey, Vancouver  that State-  P a t r i c k McGeer, anti-dam group l e a d e r John  Sun c o l u m n i s t A l l a n Fotheringham and o t h e r s sup-  41 port t h i s theory. F e d e r a l Canadian p o l i t i c i a n s became i n t e r e s t e d i n October of 1970.  Canadian Senator John N i c h o l wrote an a r t i c l e a p p e a r i n g i n  42 The Vancouver  Sun opposing the damming.  The new  Canadian E n v i r o n -  ment M i n i s t e r , Jack D a v i s , an M. P. from B r i t i s h Columbia, vowed to  43  do something to stop the f l o o d i n g . The L i b e r a l P a r t y i n Canada went on r e c o r d as opposing t h e damming a t a L i b e r a l P a r t y p o l i c y  44  conference i n November.  But o p t i o n s 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  indi-  45 cated t h a t the way  to s t o p the damming was  to "get r i d of B e n n e t t . "  The F e d e r a l government f e a r e d any F e d e r a l a c t i o n to stop the damming would mean d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t s to the r e p u t a t i o n o f the I n t e r 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  r o l e i n p r o t e c t i n g Canadian i n t e r e s t s elsewhere and improper would j e o p a r d i z e the I J C ' s l e g i t i m a c y .  vital  action  45  Meanwhile, c o n s e r v a t i o n groups . i n B r i t i s h Columbia ton  S t a t e c o n t i n u e d t h e i r campaigns a g a i n s t the dam.  and Washing-  In October,  1970,  2,500 persons marched to the shores of Ross Lake b e h i n d the p r e s e n t dam  and heard* speakers condemn the High Dam  r e c r e a t i o n a l reasons.  f o r environmental  They s a i d . t h e P r o v i n c e got a "raw  and  deal"  and  46 S e a t t l e would g e t power w h i l e B.C.  lost  fish.  Canadian P a r l i a m e n t a r y ' f o r c e stood' s o l i d l y b e h i n d the movement i n November o f 1970,  anti-dam  w i t h the' e n t r y o f n a t i o n a l P r o g r e s -  s i v e C o n s e r v a t i v e Leader "Robert S t a n f i e l d i n t o the f i g h t .  Stanfield  47 s a i d i t would take Canadian T h i s was  f e d e r a l a c t i o n to s t o p the f l o o d i n g .  a' r e j e c t i o n o f Prime M i n i s t e r Trudeau's  earlier  statements  t h a t s t o p p i n g the damming would r e q u i r e dumping W.A.C. Bennett Premier o f B r i t i s h The Bennett this conflict. s i g n the 1967  as  Columbia.  government d e c i d e d t o remain u n i n v o l v e d They contended  throughout  t h a t they were m o r a l l y o b l i g a t e d to  agreement because  governments as w e l l as the 1942  of agreements made by p r e v i o u s IJC Order.  They s a i d t h a t i f  S e a t t l e wanted t o drop the c o n t r a c t they would agree, but  they  48 would n o t c f o f c e c t h e C i t y to drop i t . By the end o f 1970  a "fighthhad c l e a r l y been l a u n c h e d .  package o f o p p o s i t i o n to the dam  The  i n c l u d e d important Canadian  t i c i a n s : f e d e r a l a n d . p r o v i n c i a l ; L i b e r a l , C o n s e r v a t i v e , and Democrat. groups.  P u b l i c i t y came from The Vancouver Sun and  A march had been o r g a n i z e d .  f l i c t were the l o n g l i s t  poliNew  environmental  In the f o r e f r o n t o f the con-  o f c o n s e r v a t i o n and s p o r t s c l u b s  who  46  wanted the v a l l e y saved.  The  S k a g i t f l o o d i n g had become the top  p r i o r i t y i s s u e o f the environmental groups i n B r i t i s h The i s s u e now  had  " o c c u p i e d c e n t r e stage among B. C.  Columbia. conserva-  49 t i o n i s t s f o r more than a y e a r . "  S e a t t l e Digs In The C i t y o f S e a t t l e s e t the stage f o r the c o n t r o v e r s y by wanting  the High Ross Dam.  They had prepared f o r t h i s dam  many y e a r s without" major o p p o s i t i o n . c i d e d to r a i s e the dam,  Now,  when they f i n a l l y  o p p o s i t i o n developed.  de-  The C i t y had known  f o r some time t h a t some of the p o l i c i e s o f i t s agent, 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 . ^  for  Seattle  In e a r l y 1970  the  P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Committee of the S e a t t l e C i t y C o u n c i l d e c i d e d to h o l d a s e r i e s o f n i n e h e a r i n g s to e x p l o r e p u b l i c concern w i t h City u t i l i t i e s policies.  There were s e v e r a l p o l i c i e s o f  concern  i n c l u d i n g p l a n s f o r a n u c l e a r r e a c t o r on K i k e t I s l a n d on the mouth of the S k a g i t , the p o l i c i e s c o n c e r n i n g underground w i r i n g i n the C i t y , the r o l e o f C i t y government i n managing C i t y L i g h t , the H i g h Ross Dam. i n Appendix A.  D e s c r i p t i o n s of s p e c i f i c h e a r i n g s a r e g i v e n  The h e a r i n g s heard C i t y L i g h t w i t n e s s e s  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 cies.  Citizens f e l t  i t was  time f o r wide r a n g i n g r e f o r m .  the S e a t t l e c i t i z e n s p r o t e s t i n g was was  and  a prominent  of p o l i Among  spokesman o f what  l a t e r t o become a l a r g e ' S e a t t l e - b a s e d c o a l i t i o n opposing  the  47  High Ross.  The l e a d e r  o f the N o r t h Cascades C o n s e r v a t i o n  Council  (NCCC), Dr. P a t r i c k Goldsworthy, was to become a key o r g a n i z e r o f the S e a t t l e c o a l i t i o n .  Spokesmen f o r what was l a t e r t o become a  l a r g e Canadian c o a l i t i o n , t h e ROSS Committee, were a l s o p r e s e n t . The  four-member P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Committee was supplemented by  the presence o f two h i r e d . c o n s u l t a n t s ,  Professors  Douglass C.  N o r t h and Yoram B a r z e l of t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Washington.  They  wrote a r e p o r t based on t h e h e a r i n g s o f t h e C o m m i t t e e T h e r e p o r t was n o t e n t i r e l y f a v o u r a b l e was  to t h e dam, b u t t h e C i t y - C o u n c i l  n o t d i s c o u r a g e d i n i t s p l a n s to' b u i l d t h e dam.  ,  Meanwhile, i n l a t e 1970 C i t y L i g h t launched a s t r o n g campaign to support i t s dam.  counter-  I t hired a public relations firm i n 52  Vancouver, T o r r e s a n and A s s o c i a t e s ,  to support i t s p l a n .  Slaney and Company,, S e a t t l e ' s Vancouver-based r e s o u r c e consultant,  released  an e n v i r o n m e n t a l / r e c r e a t i o n a l  F. F.  planning  assessment o f  the damming p l a n on September 23, 1970 which t u r n e d o u t t o be 53 favourable.  I t c l a i m e d t h a t t h e r e s e r v o i r would enhance r e c r e -  a t i o n a l p o t e n t i a l o f t h e v a l l e y w i t h minimal e n v i r o n m e n t a l impacts. The  r e p o r t was s t r o n g l y condemned by e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s  In a d d i t i o n , C i t y L i g h t newspapers.  and o t h e r s .  c o n t i n u e d p u b l i c i t y campaigns i n S e a t t l e  I t was obvious t h a t C i t y L i g h t had no i n t e n t i o n o f  r e v e r s i n g i t s p o l i c y c o n c e r n i n g t h e dam. Some weakening i n C i t y L i g h t ' s p o s i t i o n was evidenced by t h e d e c i s i o n o f Mayor Wes Uhlman t o review t h e d e c i s i o n t o f l o o d t h e valley.  The d e c i s i o n o f whether t o commit t h e C i t y , however, was  48  a l e g i s l a t i v e option resting'with the C i t y Council.  The campaign  i n 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.  busloads of Canadians were allowed to speak. plause were not allowed.  Pew of the two Placards and ap-  The Canadian p o s i t i o n was represented  by S i e r r a Club president Ken Farquharson who spoke of the strength of Canadian opposition. damming.  There yas one speaker i n favour of the  The Committee voted three to one to recommend an o r d i -  nance to the City Council requiring Seattle City Light to proceed with i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to the Federal Power Commission for permission to b u i l d the dam."'"' The recommendation went to the City Council which approved i t after a t h i r t y minute debate.  The only  reference  to the concern of Canadians was by Councilwoman Lamphere who said 56 "the i n t e r n a t i o n a l p o l i t i c a l question disturbs me mightily." There were no apparent Canadian' conservationists i n the audience. The vote was 6 to 2 i n favour of the ordinance. Application to r a i s e 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 b e i n g . ^ The C i t y would proceed under the assumption .that i t did have v a l i d rights to the v a l l e y and would be allowed to r a i s e the dam. Searching  for Alternatives  The opponents of the dam thus faced strong resistance from  49  the C i t y of Seattle.  The problem for the opponents became one of  finding the means for challenging" the dam.  While having many  p o l i t i c i a n s on t h e i r side, they-did not have an arena to bring t h e i r c o n f l i c t to.  The period following Seattle's answer was  period of searching.  a  Various spokesmen for the movement suggested  ways which might lead to prevention of the damming. One proposal was  to create an i n t e r n a t i o n a l part i n the area.  Parks were needed i n the B.C.-Washington region and this part would be a valuable addition to the parks now This, i t was  along the border.  hoped, would o f f e r a "sop or sweetener" to Seattle  58 residents.  Another suggestion.was to delay the dam  until  delays and consequent expenses added.up to rule out the dam. position was  suggested by L i b e r a l MLA  David Brousson who  "whatever happens i t w i l l be fought every'step  of the  Seattle would not be able to t i e up i t s c a p i t a l on a  This  said 59  way." questionable  project indefinitely. A v a r i a t i o n of t h i s theme was  introduced i n January of  by a c a l l by Ken Farquharson for shared benefits. to make the High Ross Dam the costs.  The idea  1971 was  l e s s a t t r a c t i v e to Seattle by*raising  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 i n dumpihggthe project.  Ray W i l l i s t o n ,  a Socred cabinet minister, indicated that i t would take $8 m i l l i o n to compensate Seattle for i t s investment i n preparation for r a i s i n g  50  the dam.  B r i t i s h Columbia would become l i a b l e f o r this sum i f the 61  Province stopped the project. Another a l t e r n a t i v e t r i e d was to get the Canadian federal government to intervene. impotence.  But the government continued to plead  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 i n 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 d i s p o s i t i o n of the dam. The Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission Searching f o r alternative ways of stopping the damming was interrupted by a l i v e option f o r protest created by the Washington 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 r a i s e Ross Dam pending hearings by the Department's advisory e c o l o g i c a l commission.  The Department had authority to issue or deny state ;:  permits f o r appropriation of water and creation or' r e s e r v o i r s . 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 f o r 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  be open t o t h e p u b l i c and w o u l d a c c e p t t e s t i m o n y from anyone w i t h a d i r e c t i n t e r e s t i n the i s s u e , i n c l u d i n g Canadian opponents  to  66 t h e dam.  Mr. B i g g s was  i t s e x i s t e n c e encouraged  aware of the Canadian  o p p o s i t i o n and 67  the h o l d i n g of hearings.  Biggs  had  asked the Commission t o " t e s t a l l l e v e l s of p u b l i c o p i n i o n on p r o j e c t and then to convey  £the^j f i n d i n g s t o J o h n B i g g s . . . "  Commission's powers were t o " a d v i s e and c o u n s e l " and had powers of a c t i o n  the The  "no  whatsoever.  P u b l i c h e a r i n g s were h e l d M a r c h 16, 1971 i n S e a t t l e and 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 . Many i s s u e s were r a i s e d . b u i l d i n g t h e dam opinion.  Environmentalists were present.  S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t argued i t s case f o r  and 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  Several business a s s o c i a t i o n s sent representatives i n  support of the  dam.  A c o a l i t i o n of' t w e l v e W a s h i n g t o n  groups i n o p p o s i t i o n to  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 their behalf.  on  This testimony represented the p o s i t i o n of s i x t e e n  environmental groups. (NDP)  the  MLAs D a v i d B r o u s s o n  from B r i t i s h Columbia  of a l a r g e Canadian  ( L i b ) and W i l l i a m H a r t l e y  a l s o spoke i n o p p o s i t i o n . ^ Members  c o a l i t i o n , the Ross Committee, presented  testimony. The r e s u l t s o f t h e s e h e a r i n g s was  a delay.  The  testimony  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 on r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s and 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 1971. Chairman  Commission  Arpad Masley s a i d t h a t i f the Commissionidid approve  the  52  dam, i t might  c o n s i d e r " r i d e r s " such as a - s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f maximum  drawdown r ange.  The d e c i s i o n was t a b l e d .  The h e a r i n g s were a t t a c k e d by John N e l s o n , S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of C i t y L i g h t , who s a i d they had " z e r o s i g n i f i c a n c e  legally,"  and were " j u s t a soap box on which people s t o o d t o make speeches." 72 The F e d e r a l Power Commission would have t h e f i n a l s a y . The E c o l o g i c a l Commission h e a r i n g s seemed t o be a s m a l l v i c t o r y f o r the opponents t o the dam.  They seemed to have made a  s t r o n g case a t a sympathetic forum, b u t t h e Commission had n o t g i v e n i t s ' answer and t h e Department o f E c o l o g y perhaps e n f o r c e a c t i o n s t o s t o p . t h e dam anyway. to be c a r r i e d to the next The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t  could not  The c o n f l i c t would have  arena.  Commission  The S k a g i t o p p o s i t i o n s o c r e d another v i c t o r y w i t h t h e announcement o f p u b l i c h e a r i n g s to be h e l d on t h e i s s u e by the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission.  Canadian F e d e r a l c a b i n e t m i n i s t e r Jack D a v i s  had been p r e s s i n g t h e American  government about r e o p e n i n g h e a r i n g s  73 on t h e dam. -  The governments of- Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s  j o i n t l y r e f e r r e d the i s s u e t o t h e I J C on A p r i l 7, 1971.  Hearings  would be h e l d June 6 i n B e l l i n g h a m , Washington, and on June 7 i n Vancouver,  B.C.  The p r i c e p a i d by Canada f o r these h e a r i n g s was  t o reopen another i s s u e o f concern t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s — t h e 74 i s s u e o f the American r e s i d e n t s i n P t . R o b e r t s , Washington. The i s s u e o f the v a l i d i t y o f the 1967 compensation agreement  53  under the 1909 issue.  MLA  Boundary Waters T r e a t y was  D a v i d Brousson  a prominent  opened the a t t a c k .  He  pre-hearings  c i t e d parts of  the T r e a t y which s t a t e d t h a t "the IJC must approve compensation agreements such as the 1967  agreement.  Brousson  s a i d t h a t ac-  c o r d i n g to the T r e a t y the Commission " s h a l l r e q u i r e t h a t the i n j u r e d p a r t y . . . get p r o p e r i n d e m n i t y . . . . T h i s i s mandatory. 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  c o n t e n t i o n was  There  Brousson's  backed by l e a d i n g Canadian i n t e r n a t i o n a l law  ex-  76 p e r t , C h a r l e s Bourne. argue the case was  P r a c t i c a l l y , however, the o n l y way  to appeal to the IJC which a l o n e had  to  the power  to r u l e on the i s s u e o f whether the IJC c o u l d d e l e g a t e i t s power to approve the agreement. I t became c l e a r e r i n the months p r e c e d i n g the IJC h e a r i n g s t h a t the terms of r e f e r e n c e of the Commission's might be r e s t r i c t i v e . on the environment. came out, i t was  I t was  investigation  known that the hearings'would  But, when the announcement i n the  c l e a r t h a t the Commission  focus  papers  was.  to i n v e s t i g a t e e n v i r o n m e n t a l consequences i n Canada... and, t o make such recommendations, not i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the Commission's Order o f A p p r o v a l dated January 27, 1942 and the r e l a t e d Agreement dated January 10, 1967...77 The tions.  opponents o f the dam  immediately  The p r i n c i p a l o b j e c t i o n s were t h a t the h e a r i n g s were not  a l l o w e d to c o n s i d e r whether the dam how  a t t a c k e d these" r e s t r i c -  s h o u l d be' p e r m i t t e d but o n l y  i t s n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s might be m i t i g a t e d .  were l i m i t e d to c o n s i d e r a t i o n of e n v i r o n m e n t a l  A l s o , the h e a r i n g s i s s u e s n o r t h o f the  54  border i n Canada.  The opponents to the dam also wanted the Com-  mission to consider the l e g a l i t y of the 1967 agreement between B r i t i s h Columbia and Seattle. These issues were answered during the hearings, however, when the Commission reached "cooly" to suggestions i t declare the 1967  agreement i l l e g a l .  78  ' 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.  F i n a l l y , the issue concerning whether  the Commission should consider environmental  effects on both sides  of the border at"the hearings was s e t t l e d when the Chairman of the Canadian Section of the IJC, Louis Robichaud, doused the debate by i n d i c a t i n g that the terms of reference were clear and that he 80 would not comment further.  I t 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 i n Vancouver to hear testimony, and the IJC r e t i r e d to consider the matter.  The pro-dam and anti-dam p a r t i e s thus  awaited  the reports of the International Joint Commission as well as the Washington State E c o l o g i c a l 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 p o s i t i o n paper strongly condemning the.damming. vised.  The plan would have to b e . r e -  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 environment 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 p o s i t i o n 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 p l a n .  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. l y by the Commission'.  But the.report was approved'unanimous-  It said that the damming would mean a one  m i l l i o n d o l l a r loss through the loss of other uses' of the v a l l e y . -  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 Seattle.^ The damming opponents.were j u b i l a n t . far or further than t h e i r terms of  The IJC had gone as  reference had allowed them  i n 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 c i t y 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 p a r t i c i p a t e .  The Council's reconsideration was  important because of the opposition of the IJC, the State of Washington, and the Canadian government, but also because an e l e c t i o n had replaced two of the o r i g i n a l 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 A p r i l 10th the Council voted 6 to 2 to continue with the plan.  The newly elected councilmen were the lone d i s -  senters.  Even the long term opponents of the dam on the Council 88 voted to support the plan. They decided to wait f o r the Federal 89 Power Commission hearings' to' consider a f i n a l decision. It now seemed that the r e a l showdown .would be i n the Federal Power Commission hearings.  The opposition was o p t i m i s t i c about  the h e a r i n g s . ^ The B r i t i s h 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.  P a r t y was b a d l y b e a t e n .  The S o c i a l  The former o f f i c i a l o p p o s i t i o n , the New  D e m o c r a t i c P a r t y , now formed the ..new government. Leader Dave B a r r e t t became the new P r e m i e r .  Opposition  The NDP. was i n t e n t  on a-programme of' massive r e f o r m and r e v e r s a l o f S o c i a l policies. the  Credit  The S k a g i t was one such p o l i c y .  Credit  The NDP was a g a i n s t  damming. The NDP immediately announced  government o p p o s i t i o n to t h e  f l o o d i n g , s a y i n g t h a t t h e f l o o d i n g p l a n was " t o t a l l y u n a c c e p t a b l e  91 to  the p r o v i n c e o f B.C."  The f e d e r a l government i n Ottawa r e s -  ponded q u i c k l y by s a y i n g t h e y would do e v e r y t h i n g p o s s i b l e to' support £the P r o v i n c e ] .... The people o f B r i t i s h Columbia own t h a t v a l l e y and i f t h e p e o p l e of.B.C., through t h e i r government, say i t i s n ' t g o i n g t o be f l o o d e d tlitheh i i t s msh' g u g o i n g s t b a b e l f 0>6oded. ^2 S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t ' responded by s a y i n g t h a t "without b e i n g informed o f t h i s matter o f f i c i a l l y , s t i l l have a v a l i d agreement  a l l we can s a y i s t h a t we  w i t h B r i t i s h Columbia."  Seattle  93 i n d i c a t e d a w i l l i n g n e s s t o pursue the matter t o c o u r t  perhaps  94 to  get compensation f o r l o s s o f i t s i n v e s t m e n t .  a m a j o r i t y o f the S e a t t l e C i t y Councilmen  Meanwhile,  ( f i v e ) i n d i c a t e d op-  p o s i t i o n t o the dam, b u t the c o u n c i l appeared'ready t o drop t h e  95 dam o n l y i f the P r o v i n c e made a move t o k i l l was c l e a r l y now one o f who was t o k i l l for  compensation.  it.  The i s s u e  the dam and become l i a b l e  58  The Compensation Debate The p e r i o d which followed'became one o f a sometimes s i l e n t , sometimes n o i s y c o n f l i c t between the Canadian government and the B r i t i s h . C o l u m b i a government.  N e i t h e r government wanted t o  become l i a b l e f o r compensation, payments to S e a t t l e . would make t h e move t o k i l l  the dam.  blame f o r i n a c t i o n t o the o t h e r .  Neither  Each t r i e d t o s h i f t the  The two governments t r i e d t o  96 frame a j o i n t p l a n i n a meeting'on December 8, 1972.  But a f t e r  the meeting t h e two governments went back t o . t h e i r . m a n e u v e r i n g f o r position..  The L i b e r a l MLAs, p a r t y . a l l i e s .of the f e d e r a l  L i b e r a l government, c o n t i n u e d t o a t t a c k t h e NDP i n the B.C. Legislature.  Opposition p a r t i e s , e s p e c i a l l y the Conservatives,  c o n t i n u e d t o h a r a s s t h e L i b e r a l government in'Ottawa. F i n a l l y , i n e a r l y June o f 1973 t h e l o n g .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 s e c r e t .  The s t r a t e g y would be r e v e a l e d  " s t e p by s t e p " as i t was put i n t o e f f e c t .  The two governments  97 were sure t h a t the s t r a t e g y 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 c o n t i n u e d to c h a l l e n g e t h e NDP govern-  98 ment t o take a c t i o n .  T h i s c r i t i c i s m s u b s i d e d , however,  after  A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l A l e x MacDonald o f t h e NDP government vowed t o  99 resign  i f the v a l l e y were  flooded.  The F e d e r a l Power Commission The whole issue.now.awaited.the d e l a y e d Federal.Power Com-  59  mission hearings.  With t h e s e h e a r i n g s would  come a  decision—a  d e c i s i o n e i t h e r ending the f i g h t w i t h an FPC d e c i s i o n t o p r o h i b i t the damming or d e c i s i o n by one of t h e two Canadian governments b r e a c h t h e agreements f o r s t o p p i n g the dam.  and incur, l i a b i l i t y  to  f o r damages compensation  The h e a r i n g s would hear ...testimony .from an  a l r e a d y d e f e a t e d S e a t t l e , c i t y . government,. the Washington. S t a t e Department  of E c o l o g y , the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t . Commission,  the  Canadian F e d e r a l P a r l i a m e n t , and i n d i r e c t l y from the P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia,.  I t would hear... from . e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s . and o t h e r  c i t i z e n s w i s h i n g to. make appearance, a t -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 o p p o s i t i o n t o the damming . on November 2, 19.73. T h i s added tremendous dam.  .  weight on the s i d e of the opponents  The Canadian L i b e r a l - g o v e r n m e n t , however,. was  J i *  to d e l i v e r the message.  still  to the reluctant  101  As of t h i s w r i t i n g , . p u b l i c . h e a r i n g s .have been.scheduled by the. F e d e r a l Power Commission.in Bellingham,.Washington, f o r A p r i l 23, 1974.  P u b l i c h e a r i n g s a r e 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 h o l d e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g s i n Washington, D.C.  Dam  opponents a r e p l a n n i n g t o make a l a r g e  appearance.  Canadian, opponents, have r e c e i v e d some f i n a n c i a l support ..in t h e i r e f f o r t from t h e Canadian F e d e r a l government. Power Commission  102  The  Federal  has h i r e d e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s from t h e ranks of 103  the S e a t t l e opponents now  to t h e dam.  Canadian opponents a r e  a p p r e h e n s i v e , however, about the h e a r i n g s w i t h no c l e a r  idea  60  how t o proceed i f t h e FPC approves the dam.  They see no a l t e r -  104 n a t i v e s a v a i l a b l e f o r b l o c k i n g t h e dam. S p e c u l a t i o n about t h e f u t u r e a t t h i s p o i n t i s q u i t e h a z a r dous.  I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the FPC w i l l  approve t h e dam.  likely  t h a t i n t h i s case t h e o p p o s i t i o n w i l l  form.  There seems t o be no c l e a r way t o b r i n g about an a g r e e -  continue  Itis  i n some  ment between a S e a t t l e C i t y C o u n c i l which seems w i l l i n g , t o negot i a t e and t h e Canadian governments.  The t r a g i c s c e n a r i o . o f the  f u t u r e s t i l l may i n c l u d e the r a i s i n g of t h e dam and an.unprecedented i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n c i d e n t whether or n o t e n v i r o n m e n t a l and r e c r e a t i o n a l damage r e s u l t s . Chapter I I reviewed.the h i s t o r y o f S k a g i t R i v e r and  t h e High Ross Dam controversy..  development  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 h o l d i n g h e a r i n g s which w i l l become t h e s u b j e c t of t h i s study. and  These a r e t h e h e a r i n g s  of the S e a t t l e C i t y C o u n c i l  i t s P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s . C o m m i t t e e , t h e Washington S t a t e  g i c a l Commission, and t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l . J o i n t .Commission.  EcoloIn  Chapter. I l l we w i l l d e s c r i b e 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, S k a g i t V a l l e y and Ross Lake R e s e r v o i r i n Canada (Vancouver: 1970), p. 1. 2 "Man and the R i v e r , " 1967, pp. 5-7. 3  Ibid.  4  Ibid.  S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t News, November  P a u l C u r t i s P i t z e r , "A H i s t o r y . o f . the Upper. Skagit. V a l l e y 1880-1924" (unpublished M a s t e r ' s t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Washingt o n , 1966), pp. 14-15. 5  6  I b i d . , pp. 16-18.  ^ I b i d . , p. 20. 8  I b i d . , pp. 24, 27-28.  9 I b i d . , Chapter I I . """^Ibid. , pp. 62-63. " W h a t ' s the Hurry? May 11, 1918, p. 4. 11  (Skagit R i v e r  P r o j e c t ) , " Town.Crier,  12 P i t z e r , op. c i t . , pp. 92-93. 1 3  I b i d . , p. 100.  "*" "Seattle C e l e b r a t e s Completion of. S k a g i t S e a t t l e D a l l y Times, September 28, 1924. 4  Power  Project,"  Advertisement, S e a t t l e .Times, September 26, 1924. 16 C. F. Uhden, " 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 development," E n g i n e e r i n g 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 c o n t a i n i n g a g e n e r a l p l a n f o r t h e Improvement o f . S k a g i t R i v e r , Washington), 73rd Cong r e s s , 2nd S e s s i o n , House Document No. 187. 21 E. F. Banker, "The S k a g i t River,."-The New American, October 1935, pp. 23-24. " R a i s i n g Ross Dam to.475 f t h e i g h t , " E n g i n e e r i n g News, September 20, 1945, pp. 378-81. 22 " S k a g i t R i v e r Development f o r S e a t t l e .System," Power, June 16, 1925, p. 970. 23  E n g i n e e r i n g News, .September 20,.1945,.loc. c i t .  24 " F i f t h h i g h e s t i n the w o r l d — R o s s Dam," S e a t t l e I n t e l l i g e n c e r , February 2, 1959, p. 25.  Post-  25 19,  M. Coleman, "America's B e s t - L i g h t e d C i t y , " N a t i o n , August 1939, pp. 193-95. 2 6  I b i d . , p. 194.  27 Slaney,  op. c i t . , p. 19.  28 April  June Burn, " S k a g i t , R i v e r of Puget Sound,"...Puget .Sounder, 1930, pp. 1 f f . 29  Coleman, op. c i t . , p. 193.  30 Banker, op. c i t . , pp. 23-24. 31  E n g i n e e r i n g News, September 20, 1945, l o c . c i t .  32 "Ross Dam t h i r d step n e a r s . c o m p l e t i o n , " Record, A p r i l 1, 1948, pp. 487-89.  33  Slaney, op. c i t . , p.- 4.  E n g i n e e r i n g News  63  34  E n g i n e e r i n g News-Record,  35 ^ "Ross Dam ^Record, A p r i l  1,  third  April  1, 1948, l o c . c i t .  „ ' s t e p nears c o m p l e t i o n , --'4Eng-ln^r£jN'ews-- y  1948.  36 " A r t i c l e IV" of the Boundary Waters T r e a t y of 1909, as.found i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, .Rules- and.Procedure and. Text of T r e a t y (Ottawa, Canada-Washington, D.C.,.1965). 37 I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, H e a r i n g s ( T r a n s c r i p t of h e a r i n g s on the " A p p l i c a t i o n o f . t h e . C i t y of S e a t t l e f o r . A p p r o v a l of P r o p o s a l to R a i s e the Water L e v e l of t h e S k a g i t R i v e r , S t a t e of Washington, a t and above t h e . I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary"), S e a t t l e , Washington, September 12, 1941. 38  Slaney, op. c i t . , pp.  22-23.  39 An A c t to a u t h o r i z e t h e - f l o o d i n g . o f . c e r t a i n Lands, i n t h e S k a g i t R i v e r V a l l e y (The S k a g i t V a l l e y Lands A c t ) , , Chapter 81, B r i t i s h Columbia S t a t u t e s (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 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  The Vancouver Sun, October 7,  1970.  The Vancouver Sun, October 10, 1970, p. 1. The Vancouver Sun, November.11, 1970, p. 14. The Vancouver Sun, November 25, 1970, p. 37. The Vancouver Sun, October 26, 1970, p. 35. The.Vancouver Sun, November 26, 1970. The P r o v i n c e , September 30,  1970.  The Vancouver Sun, December 18,  1970.  '64  "^George C o o l e y , 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 H e a r i n g s , S e a t t l e , 1970. ''"'"George Cooley, i n t e r v i e w , S e a t t l e , Washington, 3:00 A p r i l 1, 1974. 52  " A l l a n Fotheringham," The Vancouver Sun, September  p. 19.  53,  The Vancouver Sun, September  25, 1970, p. 25.  54,,, Slaney, op. c i t . 55  5 6  The Vancouver Sun, December 10, 1970.  T h e Vancouver Sun, December 15, 1970, pp. 1, 2. The P r o v i n c e , December 15, 1970, pp. 1, 34. S e a t t l e P o s t - I n t e l l i g e n c e r , December 11, 1970. S e a t t l e P o s t - I n t e l l i g e n c e r , December 15, 1970.  ^Ihe  Vancouver Sun, December 18, 1970.  58 The P r o v i n c e , November 5, 1970. 59  The P r o v i n c e , December 21, 1970.  60'The Vancouver Sun 61"The Vancouver Sun 62"The Vancouver Sun The P r o v i n c e , December 19, 1970.  63 The P r o v i n c e , December 22, 1970. 64  6 5  The Vancouver Sun, January 12, 1971.  T h e P r o v i n c e , December 22, 1970.  66  The Vancouver Sun, January 31, 1971. 67  The P r o v i n c e , January 13, 1971, p. 17.  P.M.,  26, 1970,  65  68  The Vancouver Sun, January 14,  1971.  69 Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Commission, S t a t e o f Washington E c o l o g i c a l Commission Hearing Regarding P r o p o s a l to R a i s e Ross Dam, S e a t t l e , March 16, and Mount Vernon, March 17, 1971, Volumes I and II. The Vancouver Sun, March 16, 1971. S e a t t l e Times, March 15, 1971. S e a t t l e 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 P r o v i n c e , March 19, 1971.  73 The Vancouver Sun, J a n u a r y 15, 1971. 74  7  The Vancouver Sun, F e b r u a r y 10,  ^ T h e Vancouver Sun, January 28,  1971. 1971.  76 The Vancouver Sun, January 30, 1971. I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, " N o t i c e o f P u b l i c The P r o v i n c e , A p r i l 30, 1971. 7 7  78  The Vancouver Sun, June 5,  1971.  The Vancouver Sun, June 4,  1971.  Hearing,"  79  Ibid. 81 82  The Vancouver Sun, November 17,  1971.  John A. B i g g s , " P o s i t i o n Statement on H i g h Ross Dam,; F.P.C. p r o j e c t no. 553" ' (Olympia: Washington S t a t e Department o f E c o l o g y , 1971). S e a t t l e P o s t - I n t e l l i g e n c e r , December 8, 1971. S e a t t l e Times, December 8, 1971.  66  83 , m  The Vancouver Sun, December 17, 1971. The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, E n v i r o n m e n t a l and E c o l o g i c a l Consequences i n Canada o f R a i s i n g Ross Lake i n the S k a g i t V a l l e y to E l e v a t i o n 1725 (Ottawa, Canada and Washington,  D.C., 1971). 84 The Vancouver Sun, December 17, 1971.  85 The Vancouver Sun, February 3,  1972.  86 S e a t t l e Times, February 8, 1972. The Vancouver Sun, February 15, 1972.  87 The P r o v i n c e , March 3,  1972.  88 S e a t t l e 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 P r o v i n c e , June 1,  1972.  91 The P r o v i n c e , November 18, 1972. The Vancouver Sun, November 18, 1972. S e a t t l e Times, November 18, 1972.  92 The Vancouver Sun, November 18, 1972. S e a t t l e P o s t - I n t e l l i g e n c e r , November 19, 1972.  93 Ibid.  94 The P r o v i n c e , November 18,  1972.  95 The Vancouver Sun, June 12,  1972.  96 The Vancouver Sun, December 7,  1972.  97 The P r o v i n c e , June 9,  1973.  98 The Vancouver Sun, September 19, 1973. The P r o v i n c e , September 19, 1973.  99  The P r o v i n c e , September  22, 1973.  67  10  ° T h e 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., A p r i l 2, 1974. 104 Ken Farquharson, interview, Vancouver, B.C., 8:00 A.M., A p r i l 19, 1974.  CHAPTER I I I  SURVEY OF RELEVANT INSTITUTIONS  69  In t h i s c h a p t e r , we want t o l o o k a t some o f the  institutional  arrangements which have been i n v o l v e d i n the H i g h Ross Dam versy.  Contro-  The d e s c r i p t i o n o f the c o n t r o v e r s y , found i n Chapter I I ,  g i v e s us an i n d i c a t i o n o f which o f these i n s t i t u t i o n s have had e f f e c t on the f i n a l outcome o f the c o n t r o v e r s y . i n the p u b l i c h e a r i n g s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h these  We  an  are i n t e r e s t e d  institutions.  The d e s c r i p t i o n o f the c o n t r o v e r s y i n d i c a t e s f i v e s e t s o f p u b l i c h e a r i n g s which have so f a r sought on the c o n t r o v e r s y . (1)  the 1970  through May  to sound p u b l i c  T h i s study l o o k s a t f o u r o f these h e a r i n g s :  P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Committee h e a r i n g s (March  25, 1970), (2)  Commission h e a r i n g s  feeling  (March  the 1971 Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l 16-17, 1971), (3)  J o i n t Commission h e a r i n g s (June 4-6, C i t y C o u n c i l h e a r i n g (March  20  the I n t e r n a t i o n a l  1971), and  31, 1972).  (4) the  Seattle  The h e a r i n g s o f the Fe-  d e r a l Power Commission a r e not c o n s i d e r e d i n t h i s  study.  These h e a r i n g s 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 t h a t they a l l accepted p u b l i c i n p u t w i t h r e g a r d to the same i s s u e — t h e High Ross Dam  Controversy.  This i s  an important p o i n t as i t means t h a t these h e a r i n g s were a l l d i r e c ted a t an i s s u e i n v o l v i n g an i n t e r n a t i o n a l The d i f f e r e n c e s are more o b v i o u s .  river.  The h e a r i n g s are h e l d under  l o c a l , r e g i o n a l 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  F e d e r a l Power Commission h e a r i n g s b r i n g t h i s to the n a t i o n a l  level  as w e l l .  differ  The r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f the r e s p e c t i v e a u t h o r i t i e s  70  w i t h i n t e r e s t v a r y i n g from i n t e r n a t i o n a l water use d i s p u t e s t o e c o l o g i c a l p r o t e c t i o n t o m u n i c i p a l power p r o d u c t i o n to g e n e r a l m u n i c i p a l government.  The r e l a t i o n s h i p s to the decision-makers  a l s o v a r y from having merely a d v i s o r y powers t o power t o k i l l the dam.  I n the r e s t o f t h i s chapter  the agencies  i n question  will  be looked a t i n terms o f what a u t h o r i t y they had i n the d i s p u t e and  i n examination  THE  The  o f t h e i r s t a n d i n g r u l e s on p u b l i c h e a r i n g s .  INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION  I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission was e s t a b l i s h e d by the  Boundary Waters T r e a t y o f 1909 between Canada and the U n i t e d I t was charged w i t h t h e r o l e o f s e t t l i n g  a l l disputes  States.  regarding  " r i g h t s , o b l i g a t i o n s , o r i n t e r e s t s " o f e i t h e r .nation or i t s i n h a b i t a n t s "along t h e i r common frontier.""'"  The T r e a t y s e t up the Com-  m i s s i o n as a permanent arrangement w i t h a u t h o r i t y t o make b i n d i n g agreements between the two n a t i o n s .  Authority The  IJC has a u t h o r i t y d e r i v e d d i r e c t l y from the n a t i o n a l govern-  ments o f the r e s p e c t i v e n a t i o n s .  One o f the p r i n c i p a l purposes o f  the agreement was t o e s t a b l i s h a permanent i n s t i t u t i o n . . . f r e e o f l o c a l o r s e c t i o n a l p r e j u d i c e . . . a b l e t o a c t more e x p e d i t i o u s l y on matt e r s a r i s i n g along the boundary than w a s — o r i s — p o s s i b l e through u s u a l procedures.2 Thus t h e IJC was meant as an i n s t i t u t i o n i n t e n d e d ment o f the n a t i o n a l governments.  as an i n s t r u -  I t was meant as an " a l t e r n a t i v e  71  3 to r e s o r t to the d i p l o m a t i c  channel on a case-by-case b a s i s . . . "  I t was meant as a go-between between the n a t i o n a l governments for settlement  of common d i s p u t e s which had become too numerous  f o r normal d i p l o m a t i c c h a n n e l s . committee w i t h d e l e g a t e d two  I t was a s t a n d i n g  negotiating  powers o f s e a l i n g d e c i s i o n s between the  nations.  FIGURE  3.1  cQqgan-izatiional Chart ' f o r I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission  Canadian Public  American Public Canadian Government  United States Government  Canadian Department o f External A f f a i r s  United States Department of State  Reference  International Joint Commission  Ad hoc Technical Board  Public Hearings  PUBLIC  72  The IJC was also intended  to deal with controversial issues  i n a prompt and equitable manner.  Boundary waters disputes, as we  have seen, have a highly v o l a t i l e content and must be quickly defused.  The Commission, i t was hoped, would be capable of rapid  decision.  I t should be stated that the Commission has been quite 4  successful i n this context, standing.  the High Ross Dam Controversy notwith-  Certainly a p o l i c y of negotiating agreements and even  treaties through diplomatic channels on a case-by-case basis would not be e f f i c i e n t , prompt, or equitable.  What was needed was a  prestigious vehicle for l e g i t i m i z i n g agreements.  The IJC would be  an i n s t i t u t i o n with the authority to seal bargains. The above comments would imply a l i m i t a t i o n on the Commission's autonomy.  The Commission has not been described as an independent  l e g i s l a t u r e with wide powers but rather as an instrument of the national governments.  C l e a r l y the Commission i s not an autonomous  body with no accountability to i t s respective countries. mission i s a creature of the two governments. are expected to represent  The Com-  The Commissioners  the i n t e r e s t s of their respective nations.  Hence, they w i l l often receive instructions from t h e i r respective governments.  Indeed, the High Ross Dam hearings of 1971, as i n  most issues, were occasioned  by the j o i n t reference of the issue to  the Commission by the two governments.  Applications and References The International Joint Commission acts i n two types of circum-  73  stances:  (1) when applications are made f o r decisions within the  Commission's j u r i s d i c t i o n , by private or governmental e n t i t i e s , with regard to boundary waters, or (2) when the Commission i s granted j u r i s d i c t i o n i n issues s p e c i f i c a l l y referred to i t by the respective national governments.  Provision has also been made to  use the Commission as an a r b i t r a t i o n t r i b u n a l , but this provision has r a r e l y been used."* Applications.  To make a p p l i c a t i o n , a national government sub-  mits an application complete with as much information as necessary and with s t i p u l a t i o n s specifying exactly what i s requested.  A  private person must have h i s government transmit h i s application. This was the procedure followed i n obtaining the 1942 Order of Approval f o r r a i s i n g Ross Dam.  The applicant i s required to " f u r -  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 i n (1971) were i n support of t h i s type of d e l i b e r a t i o n .  A reference to the Commission i s 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 r e f e r ence w i l l be well received by the respective governments. The Commission i n these cases i s authorized:  74  to examine and report upon the facts and circumstances of the p a r t i c u l a r questions and matters referred, together with such conclusions and recommendations as may be appropriate, subject, however, to any r e s t r i c t i o n s 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 d i s p o s i t i o n of the issue, but rather recommendations f o r action by the governments.  The normal procedure i s 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 considerationof issues, discussion has been described as "open, frank, and s p i r i t e d as well as deliberate... by a permanent body interested i n p r i n c i p l e s rather than short-term expediency.""'"'"'  We would expect, then, a clear  bargaining process where the long term national interests of the part i e s are considered and, by a process of bargaining, an agreement i s reached by compromise and debate based on fact and circumstance. Common ground i s b u i l t for consensual agreement and  fifty-fifty  s p l i t s along national l i n e s are avoided.  Appeals Once the Commission has approved an application, i t may  not  change i t s mind i n the face of new evidence i n contradiction to i t s  75  decision.  The  Commission a c t s upon an a p p l i c a t i o n or a  Once an Order o f A p p r o v a l i s i s s u e d Commission i s r e s t r i c t e d a g a i n s t I t may  ments.  f o r reconsideration  T h i s was  tion.  The  to p r o t e c t  However,  must come from the n a t i o n a l  the  govern-  decisions  was  a d v i c e to governments once the  matter  In summary, then, the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission i n  issues  referred.  C o n t r o v e r s y has  authority  make recommendations o n l y when the matter has  i t by it  change or r e v e r s a l of i t s decision."*"  Commission's r o l e i n r e v i e w i n g i t s own  such as the High Ross Dam and  the  the investment of those making a p p l i c a -  l i m i t e d to i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and was  for a certain application,  have l i m i t e d powers to amend i t s d e c i s i o n .  authority  reference.  the governments.  i n the  I t may  terms of i t s r e f e r e n c e .  mended s o l u t i o n upon which the Commissioners w i l l be i n t e r e s t s and tling  consider  negotiate  the d i s p u t e  nations.  able  to  investigate  been r e f e r r e d  only what i s r e f e r r e d  to  I t i s expected to develop a recom-  governments can  act.  Presumably  to r e p r e s e n t t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e  nation's  that  the Commissioners w i l l  respective  seek a d v i c e from  their respective  governments where the  importance.  IJC i s thus a permanent v e h i c l e f o r d i p l o m a t i c  contact  on  The  certain  the  a recommendation w i t h an i n t e r e s t i n s e t -  to the maximum common i n t e r e s t s of the  It is likely  to  i s s u e i s of g r e a t  national >  issues.  Organization The  Commission c o n s i s t s of s i x commissioners-^-three a p p o i n t e d  76  by the U n i t e d S t a t e s and t h r e e by Canada.  There a r e two " s e c t i o n s , "  i n o t h e r words, each r e p r e s e n t i n g a n a t i o n .  Each s e c t i o n has a  chairman who i s the p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r f o r meetings o f the Commiss i o n when i t meets i n h i s c o u n t r y .  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 r e s e a r c h f o r them. o r g a n i z a t i o n o f the Commission i t s e l f " i s q u i t e s i m p l e . and  i n e x e c u t i v e s e s s i o n s i t may operate  The  I t i s small  i n f o r m a l l y to f a c i l i t a t e  12  f r e e exchange o f i d e a s and f e e l i n g s .  Hearings Since the subject o f t h i s t h e s i s i s p u b l i c hearings, i n c l u d i n g c e r t a i n hearings  o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, a d i s c u s s i o n  o f the s t a n d i n g r u l e s which a p p l y t o h e a r i n g s be  o f t h e Commission would  appropriate. B e f o r e a f i n a l p u b l i c h e a r i n g i s scheduled,  are f o l l o w e d .  certain  procedures  F i r s t , as i n the High Ross Dam case, t h e governments  make a j o i n t request  f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f an i s s u e .  In t h i s  case  the terms o f t h e r e f e r e n c e a r e c l o s e l y s p e c i f i e d as t o what i s t o be.considered. T e c h n i c a l Boards When the Commission r e c e i v e s t h e r e f e r e n c e , i t then 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 p a n e l o f experts  appoints  from both  13 n a t i o n s — t o make a p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n . necessary  T h i s procedure i s  i n cases i n v o l v i n g complex and t e c h n i c a l i s s u e s which  77  may r e q u i r e time t o i n v e s t i g a t e and a n a l y z e .  These boards may be 14  a p p o i n t e d by the Commission o r by the governments  themselves. 15  The boards a r e under t h e c l o s e s u p e r v i s i o n o f t h e 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 n o r m a l l y r e q u i r e d to  f i l e a w r i t t e n r e p o r t on i t s f i n d i n g s w i t h the Commission which  16 the Commission then p u b l i s h e s . The Commission then proceeds t o s c h e d u l e f u l l d r e s s p u b l i c h e a r i n g s , n o r m a l l y one i n each c o u n t r y i n t h e areas a f f e c t e d , a t which any p e r s o n , even the humblest, i s g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o com=; ment on the board's f i n d i n g and recommendations. We can g e t an i d e a o f what i s meant by " f u l l d r e s s p u b l i c h e a r i n g s " from the "Rules o f P r o c e d u r e " o f the Commission.  The time o f t h e  h e a r i n g s a r e s e t by the Chairmen o f the Commission.  A majority of 18  the Commissioners  i s r e q u i r e d t o be p r e s e n t a t t h e h e a r i n g s .  The Commission may r e q u i r e f u r t h e r evidence t o be g i v e n e i t h e r v i v a voce o r by d i s p o s i t i o n taken b e f o r e an examiner.  Subpoenas may  be i s s u e d o r o b t a i n e d by t h e Commission to compel attendance o f w i t 19 nesses o r p r o d u c t i o n o f documents. The Commission may a u t h o r i z e persons t o take d i s p o s i t i o n s from w i t n e s s e s f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the r e c o r d . . The l e n g t h o f time (space) a l l o t t e d t o t h i s testimony i s determined by the Commission through i t s s e c r e t a r y . B r i e f s , factums, p l e a d i n g s , and documents may be submitted and the procedures f o r s u b m i t t i n g these m a t e r i a l s a r e s p e c i f i e d and s i m p l e .  78  The Commission may decide how many persons are to be heard. It may also decide "what interests may be united f o r purposes of the hearing." hearings.  The Commission may determine the duration of the  The hearing i s to commence "from day to day" as f a r as 22  i t "may be p r a c t i c a b l e " i n "the judgment of the Commission." Since both nations are equally represented and the Commission a t 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 ness.  their useful-  In p r a c t i c e , time l i m i t s have been set on witnesses and  the majority of witnesses wishing to present testimony have had a.chance.  In i n d i v i d u a l cases such procedures may vary, of course,  since rules are at the d i s c r e t i o n of the Commission. A report of the findings of the Commission i s then made available 23 to the two governments. Should no consensus be reached by the Commission, the separate sections may make separate reports to t h e i r 24 respective governments.  This l a t t e r 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 f o r t h coming from the respective national governments.  The issue i s 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.  I t was established i n 1970 "to  protect the r i g h t of people to l i v e i n a h e a l t h f u l and pleasant environment and to promote the wisest use of the natural ces..."  resour-  This duty includes statutory r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r "water  resource management, water p o l l u t i o n control a c t i v i t i e s , a i r 25 quality control, and s o l i d waste management."  These functions  were established a c t i v i t i e s transferred to the new Department. A new duty also given to the Department was "a l e g i s l a t i v e mandate to be the 'watchdogs' over the environmental resources of the - istate. 1  2  6  New r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 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 P o l i c y Act," was f o r the Department to be a "vehicle f o r public scrutiny of major projects to insure that 27 environmental concerns are taken into consideration."  Effec-  t i v e l y , t h i s meant a requirement f o r Departmental approval f o r any major project which p o t e n t i a l l y could have an e f f e c t on the state's environment. The new Department received some challenges ment as i t sought to define i t s role and powers.  i n i t s developThese  challenges  have been met. The p o s i t i o n of the Department was firmly established as the primary state agency with the t o t a l environmental programs and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . In this statutory delegation of authority, Department personnel have served as a r b i t r a t o r , administrator, consultant and enforcer.28  80  Clearly the Department had authority to rule with the support of the l e g i s l a t u r e and executive i n Washington State. The authority of the Department, however, i s subject to some l i m i t a t i o n v i s - a - v i s the U.S.  Federal government.  decision i n the case of Pelton Dam  A Supreme Court  i n the state of Oregon indicated  that an applicant did not need to secure a water r i g h t under state law as a condition precedent to receiving a l i c e n c e from the Federal Power Commission.  This e f f e c t i v e l y means that the Federal law  precedence i n water rights issues.  takes  The Federal Power Commission 29  could over-rule the State of Washington by court action.  The  power of the Department could be l i m i t e d , therefore, i f i t were to challenge the authority of the Federal government. It should be said that the Department's r o l e i s not exclus i v e l y environmental.  The State of Washington has  severe economic hardships i n recent years.  experienced  Action brought against  some i n d u s t r i a l concerns for environmental reasons were c i t e d as prime reasons.for the closure of industry and increased unemploya ment.  On the other hand, r e a l abuses of the environment have led  to c r i t i c i s m of lax enforcement of environmental laws'. These diverse viewpoints re-emphasized the Department's p o s i t i o n 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 arb i t r a t o r i n the t r a d i t i o n a l question between environment versus economics. ^ 3  Organization The Department's organization was  the result of a s p e c i a l  81  i n - d e p t h management s t u d y .  The model o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e s i g n was  posed by the S t a n f o r d Research  Institute.  The Department i s headed by a D i r e c t o r who s t a t e Governor.  Under the D i r e c t o r are the two  the P u b l i c S e r v i c e s branch and  i s appointed operating  i s concerned w i t h  by  and  s u p p o r t i v e s e r v i c e s and  the  branches—  the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e and P l a n n i n g  P u b l i c S e r v i c e s manages the day-to-day o p e r a t i o n s and P l a n n i n g  pro-  branch.  Administration in-depth  plan-  n i n g and programme d e v e l o p m e n t . ^  FIGURE  3.2  O^rganiza.ti  of E c o l o g y  ( L e g i s l a t i v e Branch) PUBLIC —  State Legislature  ( E x e c u t i v e Branch) . Legislation — I  I Washington State Ecological Commission Public . earings PUBLIC  -  Governor' s Office  ' . PUBLIC  1  '  Director, Department of Ecology I  I  Public Services  1  Administration and P l a n n i n g  82  Public  Involvement  The  Department o f E c o l o g y has been designed f o r p u b l i c  cipation since i t s inception.  parti-  The Department i s moving toward  d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n t o put i t s o f f i c e s c l o s e r t o the p o p u l a t i o n i n the v a r i o u s  regions of the s t a t e .  Another d e s i g n f e a t u r e  aimed a t c l o s e r l i a i s o n w i t h t h e p u b l i c  i s the Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Commission. a seven-member a d v i s o r y various  The Commission i s  body which h o l d s p e r i o d i c meetings i n  l o c a t i o n s throughout the s t a t e " i n o r d e r t o g e t the g r e a t e s t  32 p a r t i c i p a t i o n on e n v i r o n m e n t a l m a t t e r s from the p u b l i c . " Commission a l s o h o l d s ad hoc p u b l i c h e a r i n g s on i s s u e s  The  such as t h e  High Ross Dam c a s e . The  Commission members a r e a p p o i n t e d by the governor and drawn  a c c o r d i n g to a s p e c i f i c s e t o f c r i t e r i a e s t a b l i s h e d by s t a t u t e . Commission must have one member r e p r e s e n t i n g member r e p r e s e n t i n g  The  o r g a n i z e d l a b o u r , one  the b u s i n e s s community, one member  representing  33 a g r i c u l t u r e , and f o u r members r e p r e s e n t i n g  the p u b l i c a t l a r g e .  Commissioners a r e a l s o chosen w i t h an o b j e c t i v e  of balancing  sentation  This  from d i f f e r e n t r e g i o n s o f the s t a t e .  intended to stimulate  d i a l o g u e between v a r i o u s  repre-  arrangement was  groups o f the s o c i e t y .  P u b l i c Hearings The  Washington S t a t e  E c o l o g i c a l Commission may h o l d  on any matter which the Commission b e l i e v e s which f a l l s under the s t a t u t o r y  authority  hearings  i s s i g n i f i c a n t and  o f t h e Department o f  83  Ecology.  The Department i s required by statute to r e f e r any new 35  p o l i c y proposals to the Commission f o r 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 p o s i t i o n the Department should adopt with reference to the dam.  The Depart-  ment's authority i n 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 p o s i t i o n i n the Federal Power  Com-  36 mission Hearings.  Ecological Commission hearings can r e s u l t  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 Department of Ecology. Hearings of the Ecological Commission may be of two types. One type might be called a "meeting," since i t i s more informal.  The  Ecological Commission meets p e r i o d i c a l l y throughout the year i n various locations around the state.  A l l of i t s meetings are r e -  quired by statute to be open.to the public.  The members discuss 37  issues among themselves i n an informal and candid manner.  They  may hear witnesses from the audience who make statements and occas i o n a l l y question members of the Department of Ecology s t a f f .  Wit-  nesses may be supported by the Commission which may ask the Department s t a f f for additional information or research.  These meetings  are well attended by s t a f f from the Department, including i t s 38 Director, John Biggs. A second type of hearing held on occasion by the Commission i s  84  a f u l l public hearing.  These h e a r i n g s would be h e l d when an i s s u e  has c r e a t e d wide p u b l i c concern.  The s u b j e c t o f these  hearings  would be c l o s e l y defined and witnesses l i m i t e d t o statements.  Only  members 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 question witnesses.  Rules required t o maintain order are estab-  l i s h e d by the Commission.  The Commission hears any w i t n e s s e s de-  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 meets and d i s c u s s e s t h e i s s u e and t h e hearings i n an open 39 meeting.  Votes on 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 The P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s  COMMITTEE  4 0  Committee i s a standing committee under  the a u t h o r i t y of the S e a t t l e C i t y C o u n c i l .  I t i s charged  with  the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f reviewing a l l l e g i s l a t i o n concerning u t i l i t i e s p o l i c y proposed mendations .  This would  t o t h e C i t y C o u n c i l and making recom-  i n v o l v e researching issues and h o l d i n g p u b l i c  hearings where a p p r o p r i a t e . councilmen  City  and e x - o f f i c i o  The Committee i s composed o f C i t y  staff.  Authority The  authority of the Public Utilities  Committee i n c l u d e s  authority to review a l l l e g i s l a t i o n concerning the City policies.  utilities  This i n c l u d e s any matters concerning t h e City-owned  utility, Seattle City Light.  While City Light i s operated  semi-  85  autonomously, i t must o b t a i n a p p r o v a l o f t h e C i t y C o u n c i l major p o l i c y changes.  f o r any  The Mayor o f S e a t t l e a l s o has c e r t a i n powers  over C i t y L i g h t , b u t h i s a u t h o r i t y may be s u b j e c t  to Council  review.  In any case where C i t y C o u n c i l d e c i s i o n may be contemplated, t h e Public U t i l i t i e s tion.  Committee may be c a l l e d upon t o make an i n v e s t i g a -  I n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e Committee may r e q u e s t  from C i t y L i g h t which the company i s o b l i g e d  to report.  be noted t h a t i n a l l cases the P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s from and i s s u b j e c t  to Council  information I t should  Committee  derives  authority.  Organization The P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s  Committee i s composed o f f o u r o f the n i n e  councilmen o f the S e a t t l e C i t y C o u n c i l . man who p r e s i d e s  The Committee has a C h a i r -  a t meetings and h e a r i n g s o f t h e Committee.  During  the h e a r i n g s i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y , the Committee u t i l i z e d the s e r v i c e s o f two h i r e d c o n s u l t a n t s  who s a t e x - o f f i c i o on the Committee  to ask q u e s t i o n s and to make a r e p o r t  at the conclusion  o f the  hearings.  Hearings The h e a r i n g s i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h i s study were h e l d t o make a general  review o f the p o l i c i e s o f S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t .  were g e n e r a l officers.  The h e a r i n g s  i n n a t u r e and r u l e s were determined by t h e h e a r i n g s '  86  THE  SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL  Authority The  Seattle City Council i s the l e g i s l a t i v e authority  City of Seattle.  The  City Council has  of  the  the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to con-  sider and make decisions on a l l matters which come under the authority  of the C i t y .  The  authority  to administrate the p o l i c i e s  of the Council i s given to the Mayor of the City, who  i s the  chief executive.  controversy,  With reference to the High Ross Dam  City's  the City. Council operates as owner, of City. Light with authority  to  pass l e g i s l a t i o n determining the general directions of company policy..  This l e g i s l a t i o n i s implemented by the City Mayor through  the City Lighting Department.  FIGURE  3.3  Organizational Chart for the City of  (Executive Branch)  (Legislative Branch) PUBLIC  'City — Council  Public Utilities Committee  I  Seattle  • Legislation  Mayor's Office  I  Lighting Department  Hearings  Hearings  PUBLIC  PUBLIC  Seattle City Light and Power Authority (City Light)  87  There have been q u e s t i o n s  r a i s e d as to the c o o p e r a t i o n  of  City Light with this authority.  I t has been s a i d t h a t C i t y  L i g h t has  stubbornly  had  a mind of i t s own,  which i t wanted, w i t h l i t t l e  o r no  pursuing  policies  s u p e r v i s i o n from the C i t y .  has been s a i d t h a t the company's o f f i c e r s come m o s t l y from company h a v i n g worked t h e i r way b r e e d i n g has  up  through the r a n k s .  It  the  This i n -  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 w i t h  41 little  s p i r i t o f innovation.  T h i s has  l e d to c o n s i d e r a b l e  cri-  t i c i s m , e s p e c i a l l y i n terms o f the company's l a c k o f a v i a b l e v i r o n m e n t a l programme.  en-  Recent changes i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n have  come about, i n c l u d i n g the s e l e c t i o n of a S u p e r i n t e n d e n t from o u t s i d e the company.  Gordon V l c k e r y ,  the new  S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , was  merly the head o f the S e a t t l e F i r e Department.  The  company  for-  has  begun to develop a s m a l l embryo o f an environmental programme. ^ 4  The of  independence o f C i t y L i g h t i s perhaps p a r t l y the  a C i t y C o u n c i l and Mayor which have not  to the f u l l .  exercised  However, i t i s a l s o the l e g a c y  between the Mayor, the C o u n c i l , and the p o p u l a r and  C i t y government.  The  authority  struggles  In the days of  i n f l u e n t i a l S u p e r i n t e n d e n t James D.  t i c a l i n f l u e n c e o f the company may  their  of e a r l i e r  City Light.  legacy  Ross, the  poli-  w e l l have exceeded t h a t o f  i l l u s t r i o u s Ross c o u l d a p p e a l to the  the  elec-  43 t o r a t e and  b r i n g down e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s  at the p o l l s .  The  tide  may.be t u r n i n g , however, as the C i t y C o u n c i l t r i e s to r e a s s e r t its  primordial rights o f authority.  But  the s t r u g g l e 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 f r u s t r a t e City p o l i c y by  45 s t r i k e s against C i t y appointed  Superintendents.  I t has been said that one of the blocks to settlement of the current controvery has been the stubborn r e f u s a l 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 t h e i r l e g a l standing and their p o s i t i o n 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 l e g a l 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 l i k e l y that the Council would assert i t s authority and demand that City Light hold i t s plans i n abeyance pending negot i a t i o n s with the Canadians.  Of course, should i t choose not to  negotiate, i t could b u i l d the dam.  This does, not seem l i k e l y .  Public Involvement The Seattle City Council i s the l e g i s l a t i v e arm of the City of Seattle.  As such i t represents the c i t i z e n s of the C i t y of Seattle.  It i s not responsible to persons outside the C i t y , even though some of i t s decisions may a f f e c t c i t i z e n s elsewhere.  But, i n the case  of the High Ross Dam, the Council had the authority to hear testimony  89  from anyone.  But i n h e a r i n g t h i s testimony,  bound to a c t upon what i t heard,  and  the C o u n c i l was  not  c o u l d 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 Hearings who  procedure  Seattle.  i s s e t by the C o u n c i l , which has a P r e s i d e n t  i s the p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r o f the S e a t t l e C i t y C o u n c i l .  Procedures  v a r y somewhat between h e a r i n g s .  T h i s chapter has  surveyed  some of the a u t h o r i t i e s which have  been i n v o l v e d i n the High Ross Dam a u t h o r i t i e s have h e l d h e a r i n g s .  controversy.  Each of  The h e a r i n g s of these  w i l l be examined i n the r e s t o f t h i s study.  Chapter  these  authorities  IV w i l l  out the approach t h a t w i l l be f o l l o w e d i n r e s e a r c h i n g t h e s e Chapter V w i l l p r e s e n t the r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y .  set hearings.  Chapter VI  p r e s e n t the c o n c l u s i o n s which have come from t h i s work.  will  90  FOOTNOTES  ^International  Joint Commission, 1965, op. c i t .  2 Matthew E. Welsh, "The Work of the International Joint Commission," Department of State B u l l e t i n , 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 G r i f f e n , op. c i t . , p. 57. 4 Welsh, op. c i t . ^F. M. •Bloomfield and Gerald F. F i t z g e r a l d , Boundary Waters Problems of Canada and the United States (Toronto: The Carswell Company, L t d . , 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 " A r t i c l e IX" of Treaty i n International 1965, op. c i t .  Joint Commission,  "^Welsh, op. c i t . ^ B l o o m f i e l d and F i t z g e r a l d , op. c i t . , p. 27. 12 Welsh, op. c i t . Ibxd. 14 Bloomfield and F i t z g e r a l d , op. c i t . , pp. 50-51. 1  5  T k ' , l  Ibxd. "^Welsh, op. c i t .  91  Ibid. 18 International 1 9  Joint Commission, 1965, op. c i t .  Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.  22 Z Z  Ibid.  23 Welsh, op. c i t . 24 " A r t i c l e IX" of the Treaty i n International Joint Commission, 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  Ibid.  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 Ibid. 33 Washington, The, Department of Ecology, R.C.W. 43.21 A.170. J  34 Arpad'iMasley, M.D., interview, Bremerton, Washington, 1:30 P.M., A p r i l 5, 1974. Dr. Mosley i s Chairman of the Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission.  92  "^"Masley, interview. 36 John Biggs i n h i s introduction to the March 16, 1971 hearing i n Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission, Hearings (Olympia, 1971). Mr. Biggs i s 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 i s a member of the Commission. 38 Observations, Meeting of the Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission, Longview, Washington, A p r i l 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., A p r i l 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 2,  Richard J . Brooks, interview, Seattle, 3:00 1974. George Cooley, interview. Patrick Goldsworthy, interview.  P.M.,  April  42 Patrick Goldsworthy, interview. 43 Superintendent J. D. Ross was dismissed from h i s p o s i t i o n by the Mayor of Seattle i n 1931. After a r e c a l l e l e c t i o n defeated the Mayor, Ross was reinstated as Superintendent. See "Campaign L i t e r a t u r e 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.,A p r i l 5, 1974. 45 Nine hundred City Light employees went on s t r i k e i n A p r i l of 1974 while the author was i n Seattle conducting interviews. Strikers were protesting the suspension of two l i n e foremen for alleged v i o l a t i o n s of company p o l i c y with regard to rest breaks. Strikers demanded resignation of Superintendent Gordon Vickery, and, s i g n i f i c a n t l y , 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 A p r i l 17, 1974.  P.M.,  47 Councilman Timothy H i l l ,  interview.  o  CHAPTER IV  THE RESEARCH DESIGN  95  In Chapter I the r o l e of communication i n game type c o n f l i c t s was discussed.  Communication was found to be an e s s e n t i a l pre-  r e q u i s i t e for p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a game.(see pp. 16-18). The r o l e of communication i n decision-making systems was also discussed. This r o l e was determined to be essential (see pp. 18-19).  The  concept of democracy was then analyzed, and some basic attributes specified.  The r o l e of communication was indicated to be e s s e n t i a l  for this form of decision-making system (see pp. 20-24). the  Finally,  objectives of this study were defined to include a goal of as^  sessing the role and adequacy of communication from the public i n 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 decisionmakers 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 i n 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 t h i s , this  chapter w i l l proceed according to the following steps: (1) a paradigm communication model w i l l be stated i n 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 i n assessing the specificcommunication under investigation w i l l be specified i n operational terms, and (4) the methodology for gathering data f o r assessment of the performance of the communication system w i l l be described.  A PARADIGM COMMUNICATION MODEL 2 The model used i n this study i s a paradigm model.  A paradigm  model as defined here i s a t h e o r e t i c a l construction which contains the elements found i n any simple communication system.  I t does not  s p e c i f i c a l l y describe the situations existing i n the r e a l world. Rather, i n order to make sense of this r e a l world, the paradigm model sets a pattern which may be used as a functional overlay on the r e a l world pattern. be mapped.  In this way the communication system may  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 i n i t s simplest form.  To  c l a r i f y what i s meant by a paradigm model one can consider language paradigms.  A paradigm example i s used i n demonstrating how to  conjugate verbs and decline nouns i n language t r a i n i n g .  Anyone  who has taken a second language w i l l recognize this f a m i l i a r form (in this case i n Spanish): tengo. I have tienes you have tiene he, set, i t has  tenemos teneis tienen  we have yyou CjCpl) )Lhave they have  In this case the Spanish verb t e n e r — t o have—was conjugated.  97  Using this paradigm as an example, a large number of verbs can be conjugated using the same pattern. paradigm model of communication.  The same i s true of the  I t represents a pattern which,  by supplying the s p e c i f i c s , can organize the r e a l world communication system conceptually. complex systems.  I t can be used for looking at more  I t provides the basic rules for mapping out  the pattern found i n the r e a l 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  i n s t i t u t i o n s which have some authority to make decisions which would help determine the f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n of the plan to r a i s e 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 f u n c t i o n a l l y have some power  to make decisions with regard to the High Ross Dam  Controversy.  The same can be said f o r other i n s t i t u t i o n s such as the U.S. Congress, the Canadian Parliament,  the Federal Power Commission, the B r i t i s h  Columbia L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and others.  C o l l e c t i v e l y they are the decision-makers i n  the system of decision-making which determines the fate of the  98  Ross Dam.  T h i s i s t r u e even though they a r e n o t o t h e r w i s e a l l  directly related organizationally or functionally. p a r t i c u l a r d e c i s i o n case, they form a u n i t — a  The Paradigm Communication  But i n t h i s  system.  Model  The paradigm model h e r e i s s i m p l e .  I t i s based on communi-  3 c a t i o n t h e o r y , e s p e c i a l l y on the works o f K a r l Deutsch ^arid D a v i d  4 Easton.  T h i s model w i l l borrow g e n e r o u s l y from each.  A communication ponents .  system i n i t s s i m p l e s t form has s e v e r a l com-  I n a s e l f - s t e e r i n g system  (which s h o u l d i n c l u d e  decision  systems), a system w i l l "have r e c e p t o r s and e f f e c t o r s , and some feedback channels to connect them.""'  Thus we a r e d e s c r i b i n g a  c y b e r n e t i c p r o c e s s where t h e r e i s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the environment i n o r d e r t o determine what course t o p u r s u e . ceptors ment.  The system has r e -  ( i n t a k e elements) which " l i s t e n t o " o r " s e e " the e n v i r o n A w a l k i n g man i s such a m a c h i n e — u s i n g h i s e a r s f o r b a l a n c e  and eyes f o r d i r e c t i o n .  T h i s man a l s o 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 l e g s .  The feedback channels a r e the  eyes and e a r s a g a i n , which t e l l him i f h i s w a l k i n g i s a c c o m p l i s h i n g h i s o b j e c t i v e s by s t e e r i n g him i n the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n .  I f n o t , the  feedback i s then i n t e g r a t e d i n t o h i s d e c i s i o n i n f o r m a t i o n and used to correct h i s course. tem.  The same i s t r u e o f any s e l f - s t e e r i n g  sys-  I t must r e l y on i n p u t t o see where t o go and i n p u t t o keep  i t on c o u r s e . directions.  I t must have e f f e c t o r s which move i t i n the d e s i r e d  99  In complex systems a new element i s required. sort of memory.  This i s some  The memory i s the screening element.  I t i s the  use of the information present i n the system including operating instructions which permit i t to evaluate new information.  The  new information arid the memory interact to produce a new i n t e r p r e 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 p o s i t i o n i n 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 f o r action.?  FIGURE 4 . 1 A Paradigm Model of Communication i n a Decision System  (Input Element)  New Input  (Intake Element)  (Screening Element)  (Output Element)  —-rf Receptors:——:—:—-Memory>r*——]Decis'ion^ss—""» Effectors -—-New Makers Situation  """""""""""••*• Feedback *^«»  <it  Message Flow — — ' :  ^.-t-"^*' ' -1-  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 i n the High Ross Dam decision-making system.  E f f o r t 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 i n s t i t u t i o n s with the capacity to  make f i n a l or instrumental decisions having an influence on the f i n a 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 c i t i z e n — t h e intake point.  The s p e c i f i c intake point of  concern here i s that of certain public hearings, to be s p e c i f i e d later.  The mapping of the system w i l l put these hearings into per-  spective with the o v e r a l l 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 c i t i z e n s 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 concerned with either communication or decision-making beyond the  101  intake point.  Thus, communication between d i f f e r e n t a c t o r s o f  the decision-making and  system, o r between c o l l e c t o r s o f i n f o r m a t i o n  decision-makers i s not a c e n t r a l concern o f t h i s study.  then a r e t h e p o i n t s o f i n t e r e s t i n the d e c i s i o n - s y s t e m elements a r e i n t e r e s t a r e :  map?  (1) t h e c i t i z e n o r i n p u t s o u r c e ,  What The (2)  the r e c e p t o r o r i n t a k e element, and (3) the a u t h o r i t y o r s c r e e n i n g element.  The  These w i l l be d e f i n e d below.  Input Source The  i n p u t source  the source  i s e s s e n t i a l t o t h i s a n a l y s i s because i t i s  o f communication r e g a r d i n g p r e f e r e n c e s  i n t a k e elements.  r e c e i v e d by t h e  The making i n p u t i s d e f i n e d h e r e as t h e a c t i v i t y  of i n t e r e s t e d c i t i z e n s i n making t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s  known t o t h e  g decision-makers. decision-system,  The i n p u t source  i s not s t r i c t l y part o f the  but r a t h e r a f o r c e which approaches the system  9 from t h e o u t s i d e . In t h i s d e f i n i t i o n we a r e aware o f two c a t e g o r i e s o f c i t i z e n : those w h o u a c t u a l l y made i n p u t and those who d i d n o t . d i d attempt t o communicate t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s system."''  0  a r e "known" t o the  Those who d i d n o t attempt t o communicate  are "unknown" to the system. spoken f o r .  preferences  T h i s l a t t e r group cannot be e a s i l y  That they d i d not p r e s e n t  they d i d not have " p r e f e r e n c e s . " here i s what Easton  Those who  i n p u t does n o t imply  that  But, what we a r e concerned w i t h  l a b e l s "demands" as opposed t o "wants."  De-  mands a r e wants o r p r e f e r e n c e s which have been a r t i c u l a t e d w i t h a  102  goal of gaining attention from the decision-making system-; Hence we are concerned with a certain type of preference—an culated preference.  arti-  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 f i n a l point regarding input. become p o l i t i c i z e d .  Not a l l questions need to  Preferences should be based on a r e a l i s t i c  perception of the world i n a r a t i o n a l system.  Certain facts can  be gathered with some o b j e c t i v i t y and their implications evaluated according to i n d i v i d u a l preferences.  In every major project there  are technical questions which must be resolved.  These might be  responded to by an administrative arrangement designed f o r object i v i t y and legitimacy.  Here perhaps some i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrange-  ment associated with the decision-making system can f a c i l i t a t e consideration of issues by providng r e l i a b l e information, such as i n the case of the IJC technical boards described i n Chapters I I I and V.  This arrangement should include the capacity to analyze  technical issues according to a procedure widely accepted as obj e c t i v e and thorough.  This would mean that persons who are part  of this arrangement must either be chosen to eliminate c o n f l i c t 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 nant i n the group.  or o t h e r — i s domi-  These considerations might reduce the duplication  involved i n each interest group conducting i t s own studies.  103  The Intake Element The intake element i s the r e c i p r o c a l of the input source.  The  intake element i s the mechanism or channel consisting of i n s t i t u t i o n s 12 and procedures which the process employs to accept input.  It exists  at the interface of the society of c i t i z e n s and the decision-making system.  Although t h e o r e t i c a l l y this mechanism could be  considered  quite loosely to include perceptions of "public opinion" or "public i n t e r e s t " for example, we are concerned only with a s p e c i f i c type of communication—the public hearing.  Thus we are looking at  the system "hears" the preferences of c i t i z e n s presented by  how  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 i s conditioned by several factors including the perceptiveness on the media.  of the receptors and the l i m i t a t i o n s  I f the receptors of a message are unable to ade-  quately perceive what has been communicated, the message may misinterpreted and d i s t o r t e d .  be  An example of this i s the desire  of French Canadians to have b i l i n g u a l administrators i n the federal Canadian administration.  S i g n i f i c a n t meanings are l o s t  i n t r a n s l a t i o n and many French Canadians are concerned with more precise i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of their messages.  A second example i s  the c a l l for l o c a l control i n decision-makings—a  callobasedoon  the conclusion that remote governments make decisions which do not consider l o c a l contexts.  The assumption i s that more s p e c i a l  104  perceptions of the l o c a l context are necessary  i n order to make  l o c a l decisions. A second conditioning factor on the transmission of messages i s that of the adequacy of the receptors.  No single media i s  capable of transmitting any and every message.  Concepts such as  "one picture i s worth a thousand words" or " r e l i g i o n i s an experience beyond words," point out two obvious l i m i t a t i o n s . making, the receptor of public hearings may  In decision-  not be as democratic  i n terms of sampling of a wide v a r i e t y of preferences of the s o c i ety at large as some other form of r e c e p t o r — a n opinion p o l l , a referendum, or a l e t t e r 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 element i s the a c t i v i t y of determining  decision.  The  screening  the scope of input to be  14 accepted.  Hence i t i s r e a l l y a functional part of the intake  element, though separated here for a n a l y t i c 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 i n s t i t u t i o n s and decision-makers not necessarily present at the hearings.  In  this study, as we s h a l l discuss l a t e r , the scope of allowable intake w i l l be very important  to our assessment.  105  There a r e t h r e e types o f scope we a r e concerned w i t h . are:  (1) the geographic scope,  (3) the d e c i s i o n scope.  These  (2) the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l scope, and  These w i l l be d e f i n e d below.  The G e o g r a p h i c a l Scope.  G e o g r a p h i c a l scope r e f e r s t o the  a r e a o f concern o f the h e a r i n g s .  I t r e f e r s t o the g e o g r a p h i c a l  b o u n d a r i e s over which the i n t a k e element may a c c e p t i n p u t .  This  would i n c l u d e the geographic address o f the c i t i z e n s who a r e e l i g i b l e t o t e s t i f y as w e l l as the g e o g r a p h i c a l a r e a t o 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 , o r  international. 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 t o the  range o f s u b j e c t s over which the p r o c e s s has a u t h o r i t y .  Examples  o f s u b j e c t s i n c l u d e e n v i r o n m e n t a l , l e g a l , r e s o u r c e development, eco-^nomic, s o c i a l , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , p o l i t i c a l ,  and so on.  Here we a r e  concerned w i t h the range o f s u b j e c t content a c c e p t a b l e f o r i n t a k e . The D e c i s i o n Scope.  D e c i s i o n scope r e f e r s t o t h e scope o f  a l t e r n a t i v e d e c i s i o n s upon which the h e a r i n g s a r e allowed t o a c c e p t testimony.  I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t a h e a r i n g may be designed n o t f o r  a i d i n g d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g , b u t r a t h e r as s o c i a l l y t h e r a p e u t i c a c t i v i t i e s o r mere f o r m a l i t i e s .  On the o t h e r hand, they may be seen as h a v i n g  some d i r e c t e f f e c t on a d e c i s i o n .  They may be l i m i t e d t o i n f l u e n c i n g  p o l i c y i n the way o f making minor changes to s o f t e n t h e impact o f p o l i c y on c e r t a i n groups.  On the o t h e r 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 o f d e t e r m i n i n g t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n .  In  any case, t h e type o f d e c i s i o n over which h e a r i n g s may have some i n f l u e n c e i s important.  The d e c i s i o n c o u l d be, i n the case o f t h e  106  High Ross Dam,  a d e c i s i o n to b l o c k o r to a l l o w the dam,  d e c i s i o n to m i t i g a t e environmental damages w i t h the dam for  compensation  and not a l l o w i n g the-dam.  or a l e s s e r or provide  The d e c i s i o n scope  has a g r e a t e f f e c t on the p o t e n t i a l i n f l u e n c e h e a r i n g s may  thus  have on  decision-makers.  ASSESSMENT CRITERIA T h i s study then f o c u s e s on the i n t e r f a c e between c i t i z e n s the d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s — t h e  intake point.  type o f i n t e r f a c e — t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g s . set  I t l o o k s as one  and  specific  We want t o l o o k toward  a  o f c r i t e r i a o r standards t o be used i n a s s e s s i n g t h e s e h e a r i n g s . We want t o a s s e s s a p a r t i c u l a r p r o c e s s .  standards must be s e t . nition.  To do t h i s ,  These standards w i l l be normative by  They say what the system  s h o u l d be.  communication.  t h a t these are i d e a l type c r i t e r i a and no system  perform p e r f e c t l y a c c o r d i n g to them.  T h e r e f o r e , the  must be measured i n terms o f adequate performance s t r a i n t s o p e r a t i n g on the system.  defi-  They w i l l measure the  adequacy o f the p r o c e s s to f a c i l i t a t e democratic i s obvious  certain  It  will  performance  g i v e n the  con-  A l s o , these standards a r e not  meant to be e x h a u s t i v e , but r a t h e r t o a s s e s s c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f the d e m o c r a t i c n a t u r e o f the communication system The  standards s e t here then s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d normative  and must be seen i n l i g h t  of c i r c u m s t a n c e s .  w e l l does communication support these i d e a l s ? to  t o be s t u d i e d . ideals  The q u e s t i o n i s how Evaluation according  these s t a n d a r d s , then, w i l l r e l y h e a v i l y upon d e s c r i p t i v e  and  107  analytic observations f o r assessment, rather than on q u a l i t a t i v e observations.  We w i l l begin the development of standards by reviewing  the attributes of a democracy. In Chapter I, the attributes or p r i n c i p l e s of a democratic system were l i s t e d . (1)  These were (pp. 20-23).  that decision-makers should be under the e f f e c t i v e control  of the c i t i z e n s , (2)  that c i t i z e n s should be able to influence decision-makers,  (3)  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 and have  an equal opportunity to have an influence, (4)  that every c i t i z e n should be free to express h i s 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 decision-making  system,  whether the decision-makers are under the effec-  t i v e control, i . e . , chosen by, the c i t i z e n s by means of the vote i s not a concern of this study. of democratic systems.  We are concerned with other aspects  In the conduct of a public hearing we are con-  cerned that every c i t i z e n should be able to influence public decisions, not just to " v e n t i l a t e . "  We are concerned that c i t i z e n s 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 p o s s i b l e  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 assessment.  condensed i n t o o p e r a t i o n a l c r i t e r i a  These c r i t e r i a are  (2) openness .of  (1) e f f i c i e n c y i n o p e r a t i o n ,  for  and  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 o f o p e r a t i o n  sumption t h a t a democratic system i s one tance o f u s e f u l messages.  the  accep-  Here i t i s assumed t h a t the l e a s t  from the c i t i z e n ,  make h i s p r e f e r e n c e s  that f a c i l i t a t e s  as-  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 . e f f o r t required  i s premised on the  known.  The  the more he w i l l be  inclined  c i t i z e n ' s time i s p r e c i o u s  and  to he  must budget i t . As Robert D a h l puts i t w e l l : C o n s i d e r time. Without g e t t i n g o f f to v a r y i n g p h i l o s o p h i c a l p o e t i c , or p s y c h o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s of time, l e t us accept the p a l p a b l e f a c t t h a t your own time i s l i m i t e d . There a r e , as we a l l too f r e q u e n t l y say, o n l y so many hours i n a day. And a l s o i n a y e a r . Or i n a l i f e . The mechanism o f time i s absolutely r u t h l e s s . I t i s implacably i r r e v e r s i b l e . Once gone, you cannot r e g a i n t h a t l o s t second, minute, hour, weekend, y o u t h , l i f e t i m e . In i t s i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h space, time compels e x c l u s i o n . When I- w r i t e , I cannot p l a y t e n n i s . ( I t i s a l l v e r y w e l l to l e t one's fancy l o o s e on these m a t t e r s , but the f a c t i s t h a t when I w r i t e I cannot p l a y t e n n i s . ) Thus time i n s i s t s upon s a c r i f i c e . In o r d e r to do one t h i n g a t a p a r t i c u l a r time, I am compelled to forego d o i n g other things. Time i s o f v a l u e , whether f o r work, play, rest, l e i s u r e , creation, puttering, loving, fighting...15 Thus, decision-makers s h o u l d has  a cost f o r c i t i z e n s .  notions  i n planning.  consider  t h a t 2PJj?<y&&pjt££pji f o r c i t i z e n s  T h i s i s perhaps one  D e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and  of the most  administration  neglected i n a modern,  109  complex society involves attention ticized citizenry.  to more issues and a more.poli-  Thus planning with increased emphasis on c i t i z e n 16  p a r t i c i p a t i o n has meant c i t i z e n input on more and more issues. The  danger i s that the l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n required excludes many  from p a r t i c i p a t i o n who have competing p r i o r i t i e s on t h e i r time.  The  question of p a r t i c i p a t i o n , then, f o r the c i t i z e n i s not a simple matter.  I t w i l l depend on a number of factors, according to Dahl.  Among these are how much the c i t i z e n enjoys p a r t i c i p a t i n g , how important the matters under consideration are to him, the differences among possible  outcomes without h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n , h i s a b i l i t y to  make a difference  i n the decision by p a r t i c i p a t i n g , the l i k e l i h o o d  of a decision resulting that he would not l i k e , and his s p e c i a l competence with respect to the matters to be considered."^ matters he w i l l just not be interested  i n participation.  In many Therefore,  he w i l l probably not p a r t i c i p a t e . This non-participation  may not necessarily be detrimental to  democracy, however, since as Alexis de Tocqueville said i n h i s c l a s s i c book, Democracy i n America, a democracy with low p a r t i c i p a t i o n could mean that there are no important concerns about the management 18  of society's  affairs.  Therefore, we are concerned here with how  e f f i c i e n t the system i s f o r those who are p a r t i c i p a t i n g under the assumption that the more e f f i c i e n t the communication i s presently, the more e f f i c i e n t i t would be when c a l l e d upon to "hear" more demands . Another concern with e f f i c i e n c y i s based on the concern f o r  110  p o l i t i c a l equality.  As mentioned above, different persons s e t f i  d i f f e r e n t p r i o r i t i e s on their time. be g o l f , work, theatre, school. for example, the p r i o r i t y may sense, e l i t e p a r t i c i p a t o r s .  Thus, for some, p r i o r i t i e s  may  For others, the p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s t ,  be p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  They become, i n a  Often they are the ones with the least  alternatives on their use of time and money. a r t i c u l a t e and get the most say.  They are often the most  This means that a minority often  dominates the channels of communication with the decision-makers. The irony i s that beginning with a plea for a channel for democratic input from c i t i z e n s , the means of obtaining that input could under19 mine the whole democratic nature of the system.  The communication  process, therefore, should allow p a r t i c i p a t i o n within a framework as streamlined as possible, with a minimum of time and cost obstacles to p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  This might mean, for example, a l i m i t to the number  of forums to which cases might be submitted, i f this can be done without i n h i b i t i n g responsiveness.  It can mean l o c a t i n g hearings closer  to the c i t i z e n , or at times more convenient for the c i t i z e n .  I f pro-  cedures are complex where certain forms of expertise are required, then perhaps these procedures should be s i m p l i f i e d where possible. Openness of  Operation  An important consideration i n assessing an intake point i s the determination  of how  a determination  open i t i s to c i t i z e n input.  This would include  of what types of c i t i z e n input i s excluded.  In con-  sidering openness we want to know what input would be acceptable for  Ill  intake assuming a c i t i z e n were committed to making an input at any cost i n e f f o r t  (level of e f f i c i e n c y ) .  Broadly speaking, to be demo-  c r a t i c , decision-makers should be open to input from the c i t i z e n . The c i t i z e n should not be denied h i s right to speak a r b i t r a r i l y . This means that a c i t i z e n should have a channel to the decisionmaker.  He should know the rules of p a r t i c i p a t i o n so that he knows  how to p a r t i c i p a t e .  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 p o s s i b i l i t y that the sys20 tern can respond.  . This means that communication should precede de-  c i s i o n and that policy should be open to consideration of review and possible modification at a l l times.  Beyond t h i s , openness means that  the system should be open to unrestricted, non-coercive input. I t should give rapid hearings to problems. non-coopted access to the decision-maker.  I t should allow f o r equitable, In other words, the com-  munication process should be open to input that w i l l be l i s t e n e d to. The question that should be asked, then, i s "how capable i s the process for l i s t e n i n g and responding to democratic input?" The action of l i s t e n i n g to input i s a very important element i n 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  i s the stimulus to which the decision-maker responds.  The response  112  w i l l not be forthcoming  i f the stimulus i s blocked.  Ultimately  the system i s inadequate i f i t allows unexpressed feelings to be 22 ignored.  Only by l i s t e n i n g to a great deal of relevant input  w i l l a democracy get the comprehensive information and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i t needs to function best.  Democracies are weakened to the extent  that they r e l y on poor information and ignore v a l i d input. Ultimately, 23 alienation can r e s u l t from such neglect. I f p o l i c y becomes l i k e 1  "the laws of the Medes and the Persians," where not even the king  who  has made the p o l i c y can change i t , then communication of demands i s irrelevant.  In communication theory, i t i s 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 v a l i d decision and therefore stop receiving input. But hardening must not allow decisions to be frozen i n a p o s i t i o n greatly inconsistent with the current i n t e r e s t s of c i t i z e n s 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 d i s c r e t i o n . A part of d i s c r e t i o n i s based on f e a s i b i l i t y .  The decision-making process i s constrained by cer-  t a i n factors including the a v a i l a b i l i t y of the time and money needed to l i s t e n to i t s constituents.  Hardening, as mentioned above, i s  not always a r b i t r a r y , 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 a f t e r hardening, they w i l l be obliged to hold to  113  their decision.  Otherwise, response t o i n p u t from the c i t i z e n s  c o u l d d e t e r i o r a t e i n t o a meaningless chaos o f changing d e c i s i o n s and p o l i c y .  This unstable  environment would be d i s a s t r o u s f o r  c e r t a i n l o n g range .investments which depend on s t a b l e d e c i s i o n s — such as h y d r o e l e c t r i c f a c i l i t i e s , e d u c a t i o n ,  and so f o r t h .  There a r e some f u r t h e r l i m i t a t i o n s on the f e a s i b l e openness of the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s . l i t y and p e r c e p t i v e n e s s is  Input can g r e a t l y a f f e c t  o f the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g system.  too i n t e n s e may o v e r l o a d  the s t a b i -  Input which  o r d i s a b l e the s y s t e m — a c o n d i t i o n  25 E a s t o n c a l l s "content be  stress."  An example o f t h i s i n t e n s i t y would  a v i o l e n t input into a non-violent  have no means o f p r o c e s s i n g unable t o respond.  system.  T h i s system would  the v i o l e n t i n p u t and would t h e r e f o r e be  Input can a l s o be too e x t e n s i v e  and o v e r l o a d the  26 s y s t e m — a c o n d i t i o n t h a t E a s t o n c a l l s "demand i n p u t o v e r l o a d . "  A  system which r e c e i v e s too much i n p u t on too many s u b j e c t s thus becomes disrupted. and  I t becomes spread  too t h i n and c o n c e n t r a t e s  i g n o r e s o t h e r perhaps more important i n p u t ,  too i n t e n s i v e or too e x t e n s i v e , of the d e c i s i o n process tant bearing  on some i n p u t  whether the i n p u t i s  i t can be seen t h a t the p e r c e p t i o n s  o f the n a t u r e o f the i n p u t can have an impor-  on how the p r o c e s s  r e a c t s t o the i n p u t .  demand i s much more a b l e to o b t a i n a response.  A digestible  Equally  relevant—the  d i g e s t i b i l i t y o f the i n p u t can perhaps determine whether the c o n f l i c t can be r e s o l v e d by the p r o c e s s .  I f the i n p u t i s too e x t e n s i v e  o r too  i n t e n s i v e , the communication channels beyond t h e i n t a k e p o i n t may n o t be  capable o f h a n d l i n g  l o s t i n transmission.  the messages.  Messages may be confused or  114  This myriad of messages received by some decision-makers necess i t a t e s some summarizing and organizing of messages into some coherent and d i g e s t i b l e form. the messages.  The concern here i s that the modification does not  d i s t o r t the input. by whom.  This w i l l mean inevitably some modification of  The decision-maker should see what i s demanded  On the other hand, the decision-maker should not be pre-  cluded from seeing the input because i t i s too voluminous.  Ultima-  t e l y the decision-maker can only assimilate so much information i n the time that he has available and therefore some modification and summarization i s necessary. conveyed.  But the message should be accurately  This means that the channel should present the message i n  a form readily conveying the meaning of the c i t i z e n 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 i n v e s t i g a t i o n and the objectives of the study which must determine what approaches are taken and what materials are gatherby what methods. 7 2  In the following paragraphs, then, the relevant target data items w i l l be l i s t e d .  Input Sources E a r l i e r we discussed input sources.  The assessment of public  hearings must include an appraisal of the r o l e and a c t i v i t i e s of  115  c i t i z e n s i n 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 cond i t i o n the response to some degree.  A well organized and a r t i c u l a t e  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 c i t i z e n s may be s i g n i f i c a n t 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. (1)  These things are:  the i d e n t i t y i n broad terms of the input sources and  their v i s i b l e organizations and leading spokesmen, (2)  an examination of the strategies open to input sources i n  the hearings and which they used, (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, and (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 en-  countered by c i t i z e n s and input groups i n using these hearings. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of input sources (1) w i l l indicate which c i t i z e n s and groups were included i n this study, what their p o s i t i o n was, i n reference to the r a i s i n g 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  indi-  cate how the c i t i z e n s prepared f o r 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 r e c e p t i v i t y of the intake process to this message.  116  Items (1) and (2) r e l a t e t o the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the i n p u t and  the input.  source  Items (3) and (4) d e a l w i t h the means a v a i l a b l e t o meet  the requirements o f the i n t e n d e d  plan of action.  the p a r t i c u l a r s t r a t e g y a r e examined.  First,  the c o s t s o f  As t h i s c o s t i s determined, a  d e s c r i p t i o n o f the means o f meeting these  c o s t s can be s p e c i f i e d ( 3 ) .  F i n a l l y , an examination o f the d i f f i c u l t i e s and impediments encountered by t h e i n p u t sources  i n u s i n g these s t r a t e g i e s sheds l i g h t on the ade-  quacy o f these r e s o u r c e s course, and  and s t r a t e g i e s .  t h a t the purpose o f t h i s study  e f f i c i e n c y o f the h e a r i n g s  I t should be remembered, o f  i s t o l o o k a t the openness  process.  Thus, examination o f the i n p u t  t a r g e t items i s meant as an approach t o . a s s e s s i n g t h i s p r o c e s s . not meant f o r assessment o f the i n p u t  Intake  sources.  Elements  A key f a c t o r i n a s s e s s i n g t h e communication p r o c e s s t i o n o f the i n t a k e element i t s e l f — t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g s . element can c o n d i t i o n the t r a n s m i s s i o n o f the message. b a s i c assumption o f t h i s work. b e i n g open (openness), (efficiency). forms a c c o r d i n g  (1)  i s an examinaThe i n t a k e This i s a  I t can c o n d i t i o n the message by not  o r making i t d i f f i c u l t  to present  the message  What we want t o know i s how t h e i n t a k e element t o our c r i t e r i a .  l o o k a t the f o l l o w i n g  under  It is  per-  To make t h i s assessment, we must  items:  an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the i n t a k e elements  (public hearings)  study, (2)  an e x a m i n a t i o n o f the p h y s i c a l arrangements, r e c o r d i n g , and  announcement o f the h e a r i n g s ,  117  (3)  an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the o p e r a t i n g r u l e s and procedures o f  the h e a r i n g s , (4)  an a n a l y s i s o f the volume o f testimony r e c e i v e d a t the v a r i o u s  hearings, (5)  an a n a l y s i s o f the shares o f time used a t h e a r i n g s f o r 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 o f the e x p e r t i s e a v a i l a b l e on h e a r i n g s boards  f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g and p e r c e p t i o n o f testimony r e c e i v e d , and (7)  an examination o f the t e c h n i c a l and r e s e a r c h support  to the i n t a k e h e a r i n g s  available  boards.  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the h e a r i n g s t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d which h e a r i n g s were i n c l u d e d i n t h i s s t u d y .  (1) i n d i c a t e s  This also includes r e -  f e r e n c e t o o t h e r h e a r i n g s which were p e r t i n e n t .  Examination  o f the  p h y s i c a l arrangements (2) h e l p s t o i d e n t i f y the h e a r i n g s by g i v i n g t h e i r l o c a t i o n and t i m e s .  Arrangements f o r announcement (2) i n d i c a t e s  the attempts made by h e a r i n g s o f f i c e r s t o n o t i f y a l l a f f e c t e d of hearings p o t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t  persons  to them.  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the o p e r a t i n g r u l e s o f the h e a r i n g s  (3)^ i n d i -  c a t e s the b o u n d a r i e s w i t h i n which the w i t n e s s e s must a c t i n o r d e r t o make use o f the h e a r i n g s .  These r u l e s and procedures  d i t i o n what i s accepted a t the h e a r i n g . determine delivered.  immediately  con-  Time r u l e s , f o r example^, may  the e x t e n s i v e n e s s or i n t e n s i v e n e s s o f a message o r b r i e f T h i s may encourage c o n c i s e n e s s o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , d i s c o u r a g e  thoroughness or e f f e c t i v e n e s s . A n a l y s i s o f the volume o f testimony p r e s e n t e d a t the h e a r i n g (4)  118  and how  i t was  d i s t r i b u t e d among w i t n e s s e s  (5) i n d i c a t e s the a c t u a l  a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s to the ' f l o o r ' o f the h e a r i n g . i n d i c a t e s something Examination  o f the enforcement  o f the h e a r i n g s  rules.  o f the e x p e r t i s e a v a i l a b l e on the h e a r i n g s board  and i n s u p p o r t i n g c a p a c i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the boards how  I t also  p e r c e p t i v e the h e a r i n g s board may  (6)  (7) i n d i c a t e s  be i n j u d g i n g the v e r a c i t y of  testimony.  The S c r e e n i n g Element The  s c r e e n i n g element i s concerned w i t h the scope o f allowed  intake.  C e r t a i n types o f i n p u t are c l e a r l y not p e r m i s s i b l e a t a  p u b l i c h e a r i n g on a h y d r o e l e c t r i c d a m — s u c h as a r e c i p e f o r apple pie.  On the o t h e r hand, c e r t a i n types o f i n p u t should have a  (openness)  and  (efficiency).  t h a t channel should not be u n n e c e s s a r i l y d i f f i c u l t To apply the c r i t e r i a  o f e f f i c i e n c y and openness t o  the communication p r o c e s s s t u d i e d here, we must l o o k a t the (1)  channel  following:  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 o f  reference  (scope of allowed i n t a k e ) f o r the h e a r i n g s ,  (2)  a listing  of r e l e v a n t r u l e s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h i s  scope,  (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 f o r intake, (4) mit,  a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the scope o f coverage  these r u l e s p e r -  and (5)  by t h i s  an assessment o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the i n t a k e n e c e s s i t a t e d scope.  119  The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the authorities determining the scope of coverage of the intake process (1) i s useful i n assessing the reasons for the scope of reference.  I t i d e n t i f i e s the source of the l i m i t a -  tions upon the scope. The l i s t i n g of the rules for determining the scope (2) i s necessary 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 i s the scope of coverage the rules permit  (4) which indicates how open the hearing i s and the organization of input required (5), which indicates how e f f i c i e n t the hearings are.  METHODOLOGY . This study employs a package of methodologies design, rather than a single method. approach f o r this study.  i n i t s research  This i s considered a superior  According to W. Richard Scott,  the study design s p e c i f i e s 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 d i f f e r e n t kinds of material are c a l l e d f o r , the researcher must be prepared to employ a variety of techniques i n h i s s t u d y . ^ 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 f o l l o w e d : Having become f a m i l i a r w i t h the s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses o f the d i f f e r e n t methods f o r g a t h e r i n g empir i c a l e v i d e n c e , the r e s e a r c h e r s h o u l d be ready t o s e l e c t the methods b e s t f i t t e d t o the problems he has chosen f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The techniques he s e l e c t s s h o u l d g i v e the most a c c u r a t e and p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n on the t o p i c . Ingenuity i s a c r u c i a l t r a i t a t t h i s s t a g e . He might ask, What i s i t I want t o know? What methods w i l l g i v e me the i n f o r mation I need?29 A second f a c e t o f t h i s approach i s t o employ a multi-method approach.  Rather  than employing one s i n g l e method w i d e l y , a s e t o f  approaches were used. to  These approaches were arranged  r e i n f o r c e the d a t a stemming from other approaches.  i n a pattern According to  B o l l e n s and M a r s h a l l : T y p i c a l l y a d e c i s i o n i s made t o combine s e v e r a l methods because o f the s t r e n g t h s and shortcomings can compensate f o r each o t h e r . D i v e r s i t y g i v e s h e l p f u l m u l t i p l e f i x e s on a problem. Thus, u n s t r u c tured interviews with s e l e c t e d planners i n a given c i t y can supplement q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s u l t s from a w i d e r spectrum o f planners.30 In t h i s study s e v e r a l avenues proved  fruitful:  (1) a review.of  newspapers, p e r i o d i c a l s , r e p o r t s , and books, (2) a simple a n a l y s i s o f the t r a n s c r i p t s o f testimony (3) d i r e c t e d  content  a t p e r t i n e n t h e a r i n g s , and  i n t e r v i e w s w i t h s e l e c t e d persons who had been a s s o c i a t e d  w i t h the c o n t r o v e r s y o r p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the h e a r i n g s .  The Methods Used Below i s a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f the methodologies which were used i n t h i s (1)  study.  A review  o f newspapers, p e r i o d i c a l s , r e p o r t s , and books.  In o r d e r t o understand  a h e a r i n g , o r any event  f o r t h a t matter, i t  121  i s u s e f u l to understand the context of that event.  To do t h i s 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 S e a t t l e and Vancouver, B.C. were searched.  This was supplemented by review of various p e r i o d i c a l s  i n c l u d i n g the S e a t t l e C i t y Light News and the Wild Cascades.  Certain  books were h e l p f u l , i n c l u d i n g W a t e r f i e l d ' s book The C o n t i n e n t a l Water31 boy.  Several reports were u s e f u l i n c l u d i n g those o f the various  hearings, t r i b u n a l s , and i n t e r e s t groups. (2)  A simple content a n a l y s i s of the t r a n s c r i p t s of testimony  at p e r t i n e n t hearings.  I n t h i s study, there seemed t o be a need f o r  some i n d i c a t o r of the amounts of time a l l o c a t e d to each side of the controversy.  Access to the rostrum i s a c r u c i a l i n d i c a t o r o f the  openness o f a hearing.  One way to measure access was by looking at  the r u l e s announced f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  However, the r u l e s do not  i n d i c a t e exactly how the hearing was operated. o f time a l l o c a t i o n was used.  Thus, a rough measure  This consisted simply o f counting the 32  l i n e s o f testimony appearing i n the t r a n s c r i p t s o f the hearings. The number of l i n e s a l l o c a t e d to each side and to various c l a s s i f i c a tions of witness \was= determined.  Insight gained from t h i s method  was compared w i t h evidence gathered through interviews. (3)  Interviews w i t h selected persons.  interviewed. issue.  Several people were  Each o f these was i n some way a p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h i s  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 b a l a n c e d  group o f 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 l e a d e r s on both s i d e s o f the i s s u e and on the h e a r i n g s  boards.  I t i s con-  ceded t h a t a d i f f e r e n t s e t o f answers might be o b t a i n e d rank and f i l e o r from those n o t i n v o l v e d . study must bear t h i s The  from the  The c o n c l u s i o n s of t h i s  qualification.  i n t e r v i e w s themselves v a r i e d from an i n t e r v i e w i n the lobby  o f t h e S S e a t t l e K M u M c i p a l B u i l d i n g to one i n the o f f i c e o f the Superintendent  of S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t .  Without e x c e p t i o n  were g r a c i o u s and unexpectedly c a n d i d schedules The  interviewees  i n l i g h t of t h e i r v e r y busy  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 a t the time. i n t e r v i e w s were d i r e c t e d a t g a t h e r i n g  i n f o r m a t i o n , b u t were not s t r u c t u r e d c l o s e l y .  s p e c i f i c pieces of Respondents were not  held r i g i d l y  to p l a n and f r e q u e n t l y opened new and h i g h l y p e r t i n e n t  avenues w i t h  their ideas.  The r e s u l t of t h i s s e m i - s t r u c t u r e d  was a g r e a t d e a l of v a l u a b l e i n s i g h t based on much c o l l e c t i v e The  important  I n t h i s way there, a r e  checks on the v a l i d i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n gathered  The  experience.  p o i n t t o remember i s t h a t these methods a r e i n -  tended to be used i n tandem, n o t s e p a r a t e l y .  f o r m a t i o n gathered  approach  by one source  in in-  from another.  next chapter w i l l apply  assessment o f the p u b l i c h e a r i n g s on the S k a g i t R i v e r .  t h i s approach to an a n a l y s i s and concerning  the r a i s i n g of Ross Dam  123  FOOTNOTES  "''See D a v i d Eastern, A Systems A n a l y s i s o f P o l i t i c a l (New York: John W i l e y and Sons, I n c . , 1965), p . 25 f f .  Life  2 For a t h e o r e t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n o f paradigms, see Thomas S. Kuhn, The S t r u c t u r e o f S c i e n t i f i c R e v o l u t i o n s (Chicago: The U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s , 1962).  3 K a r l W. Deutsch, The Nerves o f Government (New York: The F r e e P r e s s , 1963). , N a t i o n a l i s m and S o c i a l Communication (Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. P r e s s , 1953), esp. pp. 165-186. , The A n a l y s i s o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s ( E n g l e wood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1968), esp. pp. 74-86,  112-132. , "Communication Models and D e c i s i o n Systems," i n James G. C h a r l e s w o r t h ( e d . ) , Contemporary P o l i t i c a l A n a l y s i s (New York: The F r e e P r e s s , 1967), pp. 273-299.  4 E a s t o n , op. c i t . ^Deutsch, Deutsch,  1965, op. c i t . 1965, op. c i t . , p. 167.  E a s t o n , op. c i t . , p . 55. E a s t o n c a l l s memory " w i t h i n p u t s . " ^Deutsch, 1965, ibp. c i t . , p . 167.  8 E a s t o n , op. c i t . , pp. 26-27.  9 E a s t o n , op. c i t . , pp. 38-39. " ^ E a s t o n , 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 i n 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 E t z i o n i , P o l i t i c a l U n i f i c a t i o n (New York: Holt, Rinehard and Winston, Inc., 1965), pp. 74-77. 23 E t z i o n i , 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, " F i e l d Methods i n the Study of Organizations," i n 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 d e f i n i t i o n of a " l i n e " i s any portion of a l i n e over one-half of a l i n e on a transcript of a hearing. This i s about.ten words or s i x 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 i n connection with the r a i s i n g 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 t h i s , the pertinent elements of that system which were defined i n Chapter IV w i l l be examined more c l o s e l y .  THE DECISION SYSTEM In Chapter IV, the concept of a paradigm communication model was discussed.  I t was shown how a paradigm model i s used to f i n d  patterns i n r e a l world a c t i v i t i e s 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 i n s t i t u t i o n s which have some authority to make decisions which would help to determine the f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n of the plan to r a i s e 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.  I t would also include the United States and  Canadian federal governments and the B r i t i s h Columbia government. Figure 5.1 gives an interpretation of how these i n s t i t u t i o n s are i n t e r r e l a t e d i n the same system with respect to decision-making on the Ross Dam.  Note that each of these i n s t i t u t i o n s i s related  to the others either d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y .  A more precise des-  c r i p t i o n of the separate i n s t i t u t i o n s i s found i n Chapter I I I . This map was constructed according to the procedure outlined  FIGURE 5.1 C i t i z e n Communication Map of High Ross Dam Decision System U.S. Federal Government CITIZENS International Authority U.S. — CITIZENS  Washington State Government  HEARINGS State Executive ' (Governor)  U.S. Govt.  /  U.S. State Dept. Canadian Dept of External Affairs  Department of Ecology  State —^Legislature  CITIZENS  Washington State Ecological Commission  HEARINGS Can. CITIZENS  • Can. Govt, CITIZENS  Lighting Department  I  Seattle City Council  CITIZENS  Seattle City Government  HEARING CITIZENS *Underlined authorities are i n s t i t u t i o n s holding hearings on the issue.  HEARING  I  CITIZENS  CITIZENS  129  i n Chapter IV.  The i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p o r t i n g t h i s model i s taken  from Chapter I I I and from interviews."'" soon become c l e a r .  The h e a r i n g s o f i n t e r e s t  These w i l l be l i s t e d l a t e r .  n e c t i o n s between h e a r i n g boards  The  intercon-  ( i n t a k e elements) s h o u l d be  borne  i n mind i n s u c c e e d i n g a n a l y s e s .  THE COMMUNICATION ELEMENTS The elements of a communication  system i s o l a t e d i n ^ C h a p t e r IV  as r e l e v a n t t o t h i s i n q u i r y were the i n p u t s o u r c e , the i n t a k e e l e ment, and the s c r e e n i n g element.  F o r the sake o f c l a r i t y ,  the o r d e r  of p r e s e n t a t i o n used so f a r w i l l be a l t e r e d — t h e i n p u t element b e i n g considered l a s t .  In the f o l l o w i n g pages a summary o f the d a t a g a t h e r -  ed c o n c e r n i n g these elements w i l l be g i v e n .  The  , .'.n:aVe E l e m ^ '  THE  INTAKE ELEMENT  The intaketelementcwasudefihedrxinyGhap.teroIVtsdThe i n t a k e  ele-  ments to which t h i s study i s l i m i t e d are the p e r t i n e n t p u b l i c h e a r i n g s . The i n f o r m a t i o n important t o assessment  o f the openness and  efficiency  of the p u b l i c h e a r i n g s i s s p e c i f i e d i n the t a r g e t items l i s t e d i n Chapter IV. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)  These were:  an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the i n t a k e elements ( p u b l i c h e a r i n g s ) underdstudy, an examination o f the p h y s i c a l arrangements, r e c o r d i n g , and announcement o f the h e a r i n g s , an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the o p e r a t i n g r u l e s and p r o cedures of the h e a r i n g s , an a n a l y s i s of the volume of t e s t i m o n y r e c e i v e d aatt'thevvarioushheaf i n g s , an a n a l y s i s o f the shares o f time used a t h e a r i n g s 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) (7)  a description of the expertise available on hearings boards f o r understanding and perception of testimony perceived, and an examination of the technical research support available to the intake hearings boards.  These w i l l be considered below.  (1)  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the intake elements study.  (public hearings) under  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 i n 1970 or a f t e r . There were at least 14 hearings at which testimony on the Skagit was delivered. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  These are:  The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee, Hearing # 1, March 20, 1970. The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee, Hearing # 2, March 26, 1970. 'The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee, Hearing # 3, March 31, 1970. The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee, Hearing # 4, A p r i l 8, 1970. The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee, Hearing # 5, A p r i l 16, 1970. The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee, Hearing # 6, May 1, 1970. The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee, Hearing # 7, May 7, 1970. The Public U t i l i t i e s Committee, Hearing # 9, May 25, 1970.  1  Seattle City Council Seattle City Council Seattle City Council Seattle City Council Seattle City Council Seattle City Council Seattle City Council 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 p o l i c i e s of Seattle City Light and dealt with other issues i n addition to the High Ross Dam. Hearing # 8 did not deal with the issue at a l l . See Appendix A f o r a description of i n d i v i d u a l 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 S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Commission, S e a t t l e H e a r i n g , March 16, 1971. The Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Commission, Mt. Vernon H e a r i n g , March 17, 1971. The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, aeir±nghatt'«Hearing-J»f-une '3|7l971. The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, Vancouver, B.C. H e a r i n g , June 4 and 5, 1971. The S e a t t l e C i t y C o u n c i l H e a r i n g , S e a t t l e , March 31, 1972.  11. 12. 13. 14.  In  a d d i t i o n to these h e a r i n g s , the U.S.  F e d e r a l Power Commission  i s p l a n n i n g t o h o l d t h r e e h e a r i n g s on the High Ross Dam. h e a r i n g s have been r e p e a t e d l y postponed. 1.  These  They a r e :  The F e d e r a l Power Commission, S e a t t l e P u b l i c H e a r i n g (date undetermined) The F e d e r a l Power Commission, B e l l i n g h a m P u b l i c H e a r i n g ( A p r i l 23, 1974) The F e d e r a l Power Commission, Washington, D.C. E v i d e n t i a r y H e a r i n g (date undetermined)  2. 3.  T h i s study does not d i r e c t l y c o n s i d e r the F e d e r a l Power Commission hearings.  Mention o f them i s made t o i n c l u d e a l l known h e a r i n g s  i n 1970 or a f t e r . At  the c o n c l u s i o n o f the F.P.C. h e a r i n g s , 17 h e a r i n g s w i l l  been h e l d on the High Ross Dam,  have  assuming no o t h e r a g e n c i e s undertake  h e a r i n g s on the i s s u e .  (2)  An examination o f the p h y s i c a l arrangements, r e c o r d i n g , and announcement of the h e a r i n g s . The p h y s i c a l arrangements o f the p u b l i c h e a r i n g s u s u a l l y  the  h i r i n g of a p u b l i c a u d i t o r i u m or theatrei-or u t i l i z i n g  facilities. crowd.  involved  government  E f f o r t was made t o p r o v i d e enough room f o r the expected  H e a r i n g s were l o c a t e d 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 h e a r i n g s were h e l d a r e specified. H e a r i n g s were r e c o r d e d  i n a l l cases and a d e s c r i p t i o n o f r e -  c o r d i n g procedures i s found below. The  importance of wide n o t i f i c a t i o n was w e l l  I n t e r e s t groups saw the j o b o f g e t t i n g s u p p o r t e r s  recognized.  2  to the meeting as  3 having a c r u c i a l The  impact.  Public U t i l i t i e s  Committee H e a r i n g s .  The h e a r i n g s o f the  P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Committee were a l l h e l d i n the S e a t t l e Building.  Municipal  The h e a r i n g s were h e l d on weekday evenings o f d i f f e r e n t  weeks. Hearings were r e c o r d e d and  xeroxed.  on tape and t r a n s c r i b e d t o typed copy  They were s o l d at c o s t t o the p u b l i c .  the t r a n s c r i p t s v a r i e d , due t o poor q u a l i t y tape. quent t o o c c a s i o n a l gaps i n t e x t . in places.  I t should  The q u a l i t y o f There were f r e -  Witnesses were wrongly • i d e n t i f i e d  be s t a t e d a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t p r o d u c i n g  trans-  c r i p t s i s sometimes expensive and t a p i n g i s r e l a t i v e l y l e s s e x p e n s i v e . The  tape system used in.1970 was r e p l a c e d Written  i n 1971.''  statements were p r e s e n t e d a t s e v e r a l of t h e h e a r i n g s .  These were i n c l u d e d w i t h the t r a n s c r i p t s f o r p u b l i c r e l e a s e . represent  They  a s m a l l amount o f time i n most c a s e s , 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 . the c o s t s were v e r y  In the case o f C i t y L i g h t , f o r example,  high.  N o t i f i c a t i o n o f h e a r i n g s was p r i n c i p a l l y c a r r i e d out through a m a i l i n g l i s t which grew between h e a r i n g s .  U l t i m a t e l y , i t reached  133  over 500 names of interested persons and groups.  Some n o t i f i c a t i o n  was accomplished through c i t i z e n e f f o r t s at encouraging their peers to show concern through numbers.  7  The Washington State Ecological Commission Hearings.  The  W.S.E.C. hearings were held i n Seattle and i n Mount Vernon, Washington.  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, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The hearings were recorded by s p e c i a l reporters who transcribed testimony to typed copy which was xeroxed and made available to the public at cost.  Hearings transcripts were of high q u a l i t y .  Written statements were often included along with or i n place of o r a l testimony.  In some cases, written statements represented great g expense and e f f o r t by the witnesses. These e f f o r t s were given great 9 attention by the Commission which "read everything" presented. included "two boxes" of written statements.  This  Obviously, to p r i n t t h i s  material f o r public sale at cost would not be economic.  Written  statements were not included i n the transcript release. N o t i f i c a t i o n of the hearings was  implemented through a l e g a l l y  prescribed procedure supplemented by special attempts at getting the message spread.  These procedures include such a c t i v i t i e s as d i s -  t r i b u t i n g press releases, using selected mailing l i s t s , and making telephone contacts with the media.  In addition, newspapers i n the  United States and Canada carried s t o r i e s on the hearings.  New  pro-  cedures adopted following May of 1973 have strengthened this p o l i c y  134  of wide notification.."'"""' The International Joint Commission Hearings.  Hearings were held  i n Bellingham on Thursday, June 3, 1971, and i n Vancouver, B.C., on Friday.and Saturday, June 4 and 5, 1971. No hearings were held i n Seattle presumably because the hearings were meant to consider environmental e f f e c t s i n 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 t r a n s c r i p t s because the  volume of written statements precluded economic  reproduction.  The public was n o t i f i e d through announcements published o  Commission i n l o c a l newspapers.  by the  News a r t i c l e s gave substantial  coverage to the hearings, giving them substantial p u b l i c i t y .  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 i n 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 n o t i f i c a t i o n of the public were not ascertained.  There were news s t o r i e s covering the hearings.  135  (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. Two types of rules were evident i n the hearings: rules respec-  ting order and rules respecting the a l l o c a t i o n of time among witnesses . Rules respecting order were established to maintain an atmosphere 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 i n some hearings.  Questions could be suggested to the boards during  o r a l 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 r i g i d l y enforced and exceptions could be allowed as long as the hearings were not disrupted. Witnesses were generally allowed substantial freedom i n choosing how they wanted to make t h e i r statement.  Witnesses d e l i v e r -  ed testimony i n the form of s l i d e shows and s e l f - w r i t t e n 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 r a t i o n a l content were generally d i s A 15 couraged.  Rules respecting time allocations varied somewhat among hearings.  The necessity f o r some type of time l i m i t on speakers  136  was unquestioned. respondent  The exact r u l e s , however, are disputed.  One  indicated that l i s t e n i n g 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.  I t was h i s opinion  that open hearings are f i n e , but i f the hearings are too open the people who are most affected are driven away.  Lack of r i g i d time 16  l i m i t s 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 h i s position b r i e f l y and hand i n a longer written statement."'' Brevity 18 was considered important, but i t was f e l t that everyone should 19 7  have a f a i r and equal say. A problem,hhowever, was recognized i n granting a f a i r and equal say.  Time rules at the hearings usually granted a s p e c i a l  block of time to City Light. There were complaints of a lack of 20 time f o r r e b u t t a l . Finding some group to represent the opposite 21 side was suggested. There was some question as to who, i n f a c t , 22 represented "the party of the second part." The rebuttals thus 23 were piecemeal i n most cases,  testimony of the N.C.C.C. c o a l i t i o n  and the R.O.S.S. Committee excepted. Another problem mentioned was the problem of,hearing i n d i v i d u a l 24 witnesses at the end of the hearing.  This discouraged c i t i z e n s  who might be "scared," or might, not allow them a chance to speak. The procedures f o r r e g i s t e r i n g to speak were simple i n a l l cases, usually amounting to signing up when a r r i v i n g at the hearing. The procedure was frequently announced during the hearing.  137  The P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Committee H e a r i n g s . h e a r i n g s which d e a l t w i t h the dam.  There were e i g h t  There were s u b s t a n t i a l  P.U.C.  differences  i n the r u l e s a p p l i e d w i t h r e g a r d t o time between i n d i v i d u a l h e a r i n g s . I t s h o u l d be remembered t h a t these h e a r i n g s were o f t e n n o t d e s i g n e d t o look s p e c i f i c a l l y at the Skagit.  Other i s s u e s such as C i t y L i g h t  nancing, t h e K i k e t I s l a n d n u c l e a r p l a n t , and underground w r i t i n g c i e s were a l s o c o n s i d e r e d (see Appendix A ) .  fipoli-  The i n t e n d e d p l a n o f  time a l l o c a t i o n s which was s t a r t e d a t the b e g i n n i n g o f the h e a r i n g s was t o a l l o w b l o c k s o f time t o t h r e e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f w i t n e s s : (1) a b l o c k o f time, u s u a l l y an hour or more, was a l l o c a t e d t o C i t y Light o f f i c i a l s  t o d e s c r i b e company p o s i t i o n s and p o l i c i e s w i t h r e -  gard t o the t o p i c s e l e c t e d f o r the h e a r i n g , (2) a second b l o c k o f time was devoted  t o p u b l i c i n p u t , u s u a l l y an hour or more, and (3)  a s m a l l e r b l o c k o f time, u s u a l l y h a l f an hour, was a l l o c a t e d t o h e a r i n g s board members and s t a f f t o ask q u e s t i o n s o f any w i t n e s s e s . T h i s format was n o t c l o s e l y adhered  to.  G e n e r a l l y speaking,  w i t n e s s e s were implored t o take f i v e minutes o r l e s s t o s t a t e testimony.  Ten minutes was s e t as the upper l i m i t .  citizen their  Upper l i m i t s  were n o t s t r i c t l y e n f o r c e d . The Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Commission H e a r i n g s . of the W.S.E.C. h e a r i n g s allowed f o r two b l o c k s o f time. p e r i o d was devoted  The format The f i r s t  t o the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the case f o r the dam by  testimony from C i t y L i g h t and i t s o f f i c i a l w i t n e s s e s , f o l l o w e d by a second p e r i o d w i t h testimony from the g e n e r a l p u b l i c .  The testimony  i n the l a t t e r p e r i o d was t o be l i m i t e d t o f i v e minutes f o r groups and t h r e e minutes f o r i n d i v i d u a l s .  I n s e v e r a l cases testimony was  138  allowed to exceed the l i m i t s .  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 i n d i v i d u a l s .  Toward the end of  the hearing, witnesses were implored to avoid repeating testimony made by e a r l i e r witnesses and several witnesses did not d e l i v e r a l l of t h e i r 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 i n written statements and summarize them o r a l l y . The International Joint Commission Hearings.  A substantial  block of time was reserved at the beginning for City Light to present 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 f i v e minutes per group and three minutes per i n d i v i d u a l 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 e a r l i e r testimony. The Seattle City Council Hearing.  The exact rules for the a l -  location of time among witnesses was not ascertained.  (4) (5)  An analysis of the volume of testimony received at the various hearings. 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. The analysis of the volume of testimony heard at the hearings  and i t s d i s t r i b u t i o n among witnesses r e l i e s upon the transcripts of the hearings.  The index used for measuring this time was based on  139  the number o f l i n e s i n t h e 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.  T h i s means t h a t the S.C.C. h e a r i n g can not be gauged s i n c e t r a n s c r i p t s were u n a v a i l a b l e .  C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the P.U.C. h e a r i n g s i s  l i m i t e d m a i n l y t o P.U.C. h e a r i n g s # 5 and # 7, s i n c e these a r e the h e a r i n g s where testimony c o n c e n t r a t e d upon t h e H i g h Ross Dam. There a r e s e v e r a l v a r i a b l e s which we w i l l c o n s i d e r i n t h i s analysis. A.  These a r e : The t o t a l number of w i t n e s s e s appearing a t each h e a r i n g and  the p o s i t i o n they r e p r e s e n t e d . B.  The t o t a l volume of testimony d e l i v e r e d i n f a v o u r o f and  a g a i n s t the dam. C.  The t o t a l amount o f testimony d e l i v e r e d by s e l e c t e d  f i c a t i o n s of p u b l i c w i t n e s s e s  classi-  including:  1. C i t y L i g h t w i t n e s s e s v s . a l l o t h e r w i t n e s s e s , 2. Canadian w i t n e s s e s v s . American w i t n e s s e s , and 3. C o a l i t i o n w i t n e s s e s v s . a l l o t h e r w i t n e s s e s . The d a t a c o l l e c t e d w i l l be p r e s e n t e d below.  A.  The t o t a l number o f w i t n e s s e s a p p e a r i n g a t each h e a r i n g and the p o s i t i o n they r e p r e s e n t e d .  In a l l , w i t n e s s e s made 212 appearances a t the h e a r i n g s s t u d i e d . Some o f these w i t n e s s e s appeared  a t s e v e r a l of the hearings.  T a b l e 5.1 l i s t s t h e number o f w i t n e s s e s a t each h e a r i n g by h e a r i n g and by the p o s i t i o n they r e p r e s e n t e d .  I t s h o u l d be noted  that  many o f the w i t n e s s e s i n f a v o u r o f the dam were r e p r e s e n t i n g C i t y Light.  140  TABLE 5.1 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f Witnesses  by H e a r i n g and P o s i t i o n  Position Hearing  Pro  Con  Neutral  Unknown  Total  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  60  138  •7  7.  212  TOTAL  B.  T o t a l volume o f testimony d e l i v e r e d a g a i n s t t h e dam.  i n f a v o u r of and  In o r d e r t o measure the volume o f testimony d e l i v e r e d  a t the  h e a r i n g s , the l i n e s o f testimony a p p e a r i n g i n the t r a n s c r i p t s o f the h e a r i n g s were counted. a l i n e was counted 5.2.  Any p o r t i o n  as a l i n e .  o f a l i n e over one h a l f o f  The r e s u l t s a r e r e p o r t e d i n T a b l e  141  TABLE 5.2 L i n e s o f Testimony  a t H e a r i n g s , by P o s i t i o n on Dam  Lines Pro  Lines Con  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  8421  13,378  572  "22,371  Hearing  TOTAL  Lines Neutral  Total  I t i s c l e a r from the above t h a t w i t n e s s e s i n o p p o s i t i o n t o the dam had more time a t t h e rostrum c o l l e c t i v e l y than those i n f a v o u r . In f a i r n e s s , i t should be s a i d t h a t most w i t n e s s e s who came to t h e h e a r i n g s were heard from. end,  A l s o , the r e a d e r should note t h a t i n the  i t i s n o t how much i s s a i d , but what i s s a i d and how w e l l i t i s  s a i d , which c o u n t s .  The above f i g u r e s , however, g i v e - a n i n d i c a t o r o f  access t o the rostrum. I t should be noted, however, t h a t C i t y L i g h t w i t n e s s e s had s p e c i a l , b l o c k s o f time a v a i l a b l e normal time r u l e s .  t o them.  T h i s time was not r e g u l a t e d by the  On the o t h e r hand, the opponents were under  time  142  r u l e s which s p e c i f i e d l i m i t e d p e r i o d s from t h r e e minutes t o f i v e or t e n minutes f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n s . t h a t opponents t o the dam  Thus, w h i l e these f i g u r e s  d i d have a c c e s s , they ddri not  t h a t they had the same type o f a c c e s s .  Indeed,  indicate  indicate  i t could e a s i l y  be  p o s i t e d t h a t , i f t h e r e were no s p e c i a l time r u l e s , opponents would have g i v e n a good d e a l more t e s t i m o n y .  C.  The t o t a l amount of testimony d e l i v e r e d by s e l e c t e d f i c a t i o n s of p u b l i c witnesses.  In T a b l e 5.3 f a v o u r of the dam  classi-  the volume o f o r a l testimony g i v e n by C i t y L i g h t i n i s compared w i t h the testimony g i v e n by a l l o t h e r  witnesses. TABLE L i n e s o f C i t y L i g h t Testimony  5.3  i n Comparison w i t h Other  Testimony  City Light  Other Pro  All Pro  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  1023  258  1281  6165  3055  i814>ri  Hearing  Vancouver TOTAL  3>JK6  Total ( A l l Witnesses)  22,371  143  It i sclear that City Light  testimony was a s u b s t a n t i a l  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.  City Light  component  testimony accounted 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 testimony at the hearings. 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 Americans by  by hearing.  i s compared w i t h t h a t o f  T h i s i s done 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  nationality. T A B L E 5.4 Lines o f Testimony  Hearing  U.S. Citizens  by Nationality Canadian Citizens  Total.  P.U.C. Hearing # 5  1059  851  1910  Hearing # 7  1276  0  1276  W.S.E.C. Seattle  4522  321  4843  Mt.  Vernon  2669  1895  4564  I.J.C. Bellingham  3343  270  3613  Vancouver  353  5812  6165  TOTAL  13,222  9149  22,371  It i s clear from t h i s table that Americans hearings.  They accounted  dominated t h e  f o r about 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  the location of thehearings.  Of  144  the s i x h e a r i n g s above, f i v e were h e l d i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . one  In only  case, t h e I.J.C. h e a r i n g s h e l d i n Vancouver, Canada, d i d the  Canadians  dominate the h e a r i n g s .  f T a b l e 5.5 i n d i c a t e s t h e volume o f testimony g i v e n by the two c o a l i t i o n s a t the h e a r i n g s .  TABLE 5.>5 L i n e s o f Testimony  Hearing P.U.C. Hearings (Nos. 5 & 7)  by C o a l i t i o n s a t the Hearings  N.C.C.C. Coalition  R.O.S.S. Committee  207  516  723  3186  Both Coalitions  All Testimony  W.S.E.C. Hearings  1507  8:87  2394  9407  I.J.C.  1917  2837  4754  9778  3631  4240  78^71  22,371  Hearings  TOTAL  I t i s e v i d e n t from t h i s t a b l e t h a t the c o a l i t i o n s accounted f o r a s i z a b l e share o f the testimony a t the h e a r i n g s . m i t t e e accounted  f o r 46 p e r cent o f Canadian  testimony and 19 per  cent o f a l l testimony g i v e n a t a l l o f the h e a r i n g s . C o a l i t i o n accounted  The R.O.S.S. Com-  The N.C.C.C.  f o r 27 p e r cent o f the American testimony and 16  per cent o f a l l t e s t i m o n y .  Together  35 p e r cent o f a l l testimony.  the c o a l i t i o n s accounted f o r  C i t y L i g h t and the c o a l i t i o n s  combined  145  accounted all  f o r 59 p e r cent o f the t e s t i m o n y , l e a v i n g 41 p e r cent t o  other w i t n e s s e s .  (6)  A d e s c r i p t i o n o f the e x p e r t i s e a v a i l a b l e on h e a r i n g boards f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g and p e r c e p t i o n o f testimony r e c e i v e d . The P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s  the P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s of  elected city  Committee.  The backgrounds o f the members o f  Committee were g e n e r a l .  councilmen.  The committee was composed  Among the members, t h e r e was a drug  man (Chairman C o o l e y ) , an e x - p o l i c e o f f i c e r  (Larkin), a  sales-  housewife  25 ( W i l l i a m s ) , and two lawyers m i t t e e expressed  (T. H i l l ,  Tuai).  U Members o f the com-  some d i f f i c u l t y i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g  the f r e q u e n t l y  t e c h n i c a l and c o m p l i c a t e d i s s u e s w i t h which the committee had t o d e a l 26 i n i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the High Ross Dam. The Washington S t a t e 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 o f matters the High Ross i s s u e .  r e l e v a n t to  Commission members were appointed w i t h an ob-  j e c t i v e o f r e v i e w i n g p r o j e c t s and i s s u e s w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o the e n v i r o n ment. of  They were chosen t o g i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o d i f f e r e n t s e c t o r s  t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n w i t h s p e c i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from i n d u s t r y ,  a g r i c u l t u r e , l a b o u r and the g e n e r a l p u b l i c .  A review o f t h e back-  grounds o f t h e members g i v e s an i n d i c a t i o n o f the e x p e r t i s e o f the Commission.  Dr. Arpad Masley, the Chairman, i s a p h y s i c i a n w i t h  i n s i g h t i n t o environmental h e a l t h i s s u e s .  P r o f e s s o r Gordon O r i a n s  i s an e c o l o g i s t a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington. activist  Ann W i d d i t s c h i s an  f o r m e r l y w i t h the American C i v i l L i b e r t i e s Union and the  Washington Environmental  Council.  H a r o l d Heacock i s an employee o f  146  Douglas United Nuclear and has s p e c i a l knowledge of nuclear power issues.  John McGregor owns a large farm i n eastern Washington and  has wide experience i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l industry.  Charles Stewart  Sargent i s an expert on p o l l u t i o n control and s o l i d waste management who works for Boeing Aviation.  Sam K i n v i l l e i s a professional  labour leader with knowledge of labour issues.  While the Commission  may perhaps have had some gaps i n 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 i n l i g h t of the needs and p o l i c i e s of i t s respective nation.  Commissioners are thus  chosen with a view toward balance and technical expertise.  At least  one of the commissioners i n 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 i n t e r n a t i o n a l l e g a l questions which f r e quently arise during Commission business.  The t h i r d member w i l l be of  some other profession such as an economist i n order to add s p e c i a l expertise.  There i s also an attempt to balance the Commission by  region i s 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 " b r i e f " new councilmen who had won a recent c i v i c e l e c t i o n . This b r i e f i n g p a r t i c u l a r l y involved two new councilmen who had r e placed pro-dam incumbents.  Because of a lack of t r a n s c r i p t s , i t was  147  not a s c e r t a i n e d who s a t on the h e a r i n g s board.  S i n c e i t was a C i t y  C o u n c i l h e a r i n g , however, the c o m p o s i t i o n  of the board would be  e n t i r e l y composed o f e l e c t e d councilmen.  These councilmen were s i m i l a r  i n background t o the P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s larger  (7)  Committee which i s a p a r t o f the  council.  An examination o f the t e c h n i c a l and r e s e a r c h support a v a i l a b l e to t h e i n t a k e h e a r i n g s b o a r d s . The  e x p e r t i s e on a h e a r i n g s board may be supplemented by s t a f f s  which can l o o k i n t o q u e s t i o n s  r a i s e d by t h e h e a r i n g s .  would serve the f u n c t i o n o f independent r e s e a r c h e r s . the e x p e r t i s e o f a h e a r i n g s b o a r d , then,  These s t a f f s I n examining  the r o l e o f t e c h n i c a l sup-  p o r t may be c r u c i a l . The P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s  Committee.  The P.U.C. h i r e d two c o n s u l t a n t s  from t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington Department of Economics: P r o f e s s o r Douglass C. N o r t h and P r o f e s s o r Yoram B a r z e l . board  Both s a t on the h e a r i n g s  t o ask q u e s t i o n s and supplement the gaps i n background and ex-  p e r t i s e o f the Committee.  T h e i r purpose was to g i v e p r o f e s s i o n a l  support  There was some doubt as t o the u s e f u l n e s s  of  t o the Committee.  the c o n s u l t a n t s ,  28  and the i n f l u e n c e o f t h e i r r e p o r t .  29  Another  source o f r e s e a r c h support was t h e C i t y L i g h t s t a f f who were c a l l e d upon t o g i v e i n f o r m a t i o n and t o a d v i s e on the damming p r o p o s a l . While i t i s c l e a r t h a t the C i t y L i g h t had a v e s t e d 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 to  from which  g e t t h e same i n f o r m a t i o n . The Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Commission.  m i s s i o n had access  The E c o l o g i c a l Com-  t o t h e s t a f f and s e r v i c e s o f the Washington S t a t e  148  Department o f E c o l o g y .  The Commission has a u t h o r i t y t o review the  p o l i c i e s o f 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 i n f o r m a t i o n  concerning  m a t t e r s the Commission deems  30 relevant. had  Hence, i n the m a t t e r o f the High Ross Dam, the Commission  access t o a l a r g e p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l experts  who  c o u l d be c a l l e d upon f o r t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e . The  I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission.  The Commission had a t i t s  a s s i s t a n c e a s p e c i a l ad hoc t e c h n i c a l board which was charged w i t h the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f c o n d u c t i n g whatever s t u d i e s were d e s i r e d by the Commission.  The t e c h n i c a l board drew on the e x p e r t i s e o f other  government b o d i e s t o form a group f u l l y capable o f r e s e a r c h i n g the i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d t o i t . A l i s t i n g o f t h e members o f t h e t e c h n i c a l board o f the I.J.C. chosen t o study t h e High Ross i s s u e i s found i n Appendix C. The arm  Seattle City Council.  o f government, c o u l d  The C i t y C o u n c i l , as a l e g i s l a t i v e  appropriate  the Mayor's o f f i c e f o r i n f o r m a t i o n . was not a s c e r t a i n e d .  The h e a r i n g ,  money f o r r e s e a r c h  The p o l i c y f o r the 1972 h e a r i n g however, was n o t e n v i s i o n e d as  adding new knowledge s i n c e " b r i e f i n g " i m p l i e s a p a s s i v e The  o r c a l l upon  purpose o f a t e c h n i c a l board i n such a c o n t e x t  function.  would be n e c e s -  sarily limited.  In t h e pages above, a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Intake Element was given.  T h i s d e s c r i p t i o n p o i n t s out s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the  o r g a n i z a t i o n o f h e a r i n g s under d i f f e r e n t a u t h o r i t i e s . and  Before a n a l y s i s  d i s c u s s i o n o f some o f 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 t o  149  complete two  the p i c t u r e o f the h e a r i n g s by c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the o t h e r  elements  s t u d i e d h e r e : the S c r e e n i n g Element and the  Input  Source.  THE  SCREENING ELEMENT  The s c r e e n i n g element was  d e f i n e d i n Chapter  Iv.  I n the  fol-  lowing pages the o p e r a t i o n o f the s c r e e n i n g element i n r e f e r e n c e to the p u b l i c h e a r i n g s s t u d i e d w i l l be examined.  A g a i n , the purpose  here  i s t o assemble d a t a which w i l l be of a s s i s t a n c e i n the assessment of openness and e f f i c i e n c y i n these h e a r i n g s . i s s p e c i f i e d by the t a r g e t items developed (1)  (2) (3) (4) (5)  The n e c e s s a r y i n f o r m a t i o n i n Chapter  Iv as  follows:  an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the a u t h o r i t i e s s e t t i n g the terms of r e f e r e n c e (scope o f allowed i n t a k e ) f o r the hearings, a l i s t i n g o f r e l e v a n t r u l e s f o r determing t h i s scope, 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 f o r intake, a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the scope o f coverage these r u l e s p e r m i t , and an assessment o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f the i n t a k e necess i t a t e d by t h i s scope.  These w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d 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 o f r e f e r e n c e (scope o f a l l o w e d i n t a k e ) f o r the h e a r i n g s . The P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s  Committee H e a r i n g s .  The a u t h o r i t y f o r  s e t t i n g the terms o f r e f e r e n c e (scope o f allowed i n t a k e ) f o r the P.U.C. h e a r i n g s was  the P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s  Committee, s u b j e c t o f 31  course t o the i m p l i e d consent  of the S e a t t l e C i t y C o u n c i l .  The  Committee has the a u t h o r i t y t o 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 S e a t t l e ' s u t i l i t i e s programme.  This includes  specifically  the  o p e r a t i o n s of S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t . The  Washington S t a t e  High Ross Dam  was  E c o l o g i c a l Commission.  r e f e r r e d to the Commission by  Washington S t a t e Department of E c o l o g y . providing  c i t i z e n input  Washington on the  toward d e c i d i n g  issue.  make c e r t a i n d e c i s i o n s  The  The  The  i s s u e of  the  the D i r e c t o r of  purpose was  the  s a i d to  the p o s i t i o n of the  be  State  of  Commission, however, i s empowered to  regarding  the scope of i t s i n q u i r y .  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  "In  con-  commission  shall  conduct such p u b l i c h e a r i n g s 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)  vestigate  matter p e r t i n e n t to the purposes of t h i s a c t by consent 33 of the members." The Commission thus has wide powers 34  "any  of a m a j o r i t y  In a d d i t i o n , the Commission may  in-  to determine the scope of what i t w i l l hear. The  I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission H e a r i n g s .  High Ross Dam the  two  was  r e f e r r e d to the Commission by  n a t i o n a l governments.  c o n s i d e r e d and what c o u l d Commission had The  not.  Seattle City Council.  the  a j o i n t reference  of  s p e c i f i e d what c o u l d  be  This reference  The  was  binding  and  the  c i t y c o u n c i l had wide powers to  I t can  of the C i t y of S e a t t l e .  the p o l i c i e s of S e a t t l e C i t y (2) (3)  reference  i s s u e of  v e r y l i m i t e d powers to modify the scope of i t s i n q u i r y .  s e t the scope of i t s i n q u i r y . authority  The  The  consider  anything w i t h i n  This includes  any  matter  Light.  A l i s t i n g of r e l e v a n t r u l e s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h i s Scope. 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 a c c e p t a b l e fOr i n t a k e .  the  concerning  151  (4)  A d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f the scope of coverage The  these r u l e s  permit.  t h r e e t a r g e t items above a r e c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r i n t h i s  description. G e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , respondents  felt  t h e r e s h o u l d be some f o c u s t o  35 the h e a r i n g s .  But the r u l e s c o n c e r n i n g c o n t e n t o f testimony  a l l o w e d should n o t be unduly hearings. enforced  c o n f i n i n g as they were i n the I.J.C.  In any case, the r u l e s s h o u l d be known t o everyone and impartially. *' 3  The P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s g e n e r a l l y had wide scope. of  t o be  Committee H e a r i n g s .  They were o r i e n t e d toward a g e n e r a l review  the t o t a l range o f p o l i c i e s o f S e a t t l e C i t y Geographic  i n t h e matter  Scope.  The P.U.C. h e a r i n g s  Light.  The h e a r i n g s accepted testimony  o f the High Ross Dam.  from  Canadians  On the other hand, the h e a r i n g s  as a c o l l e c t i o n d e a l t w i d e l y w i t h t h e e n t i r e g r i d of C i t y L i g h t  from  i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h the B o n n e v i l l e Power A d m i n i s t r a t i o n t o i t s Hanford  and K i k e t I s l a n d n u c l e a r p l a n t s t o t h e underground w i r i n g  system w i t h i n the C i t y o f S e a t t l e . many. and  The dam was t h e p r i n c i p a l i s s u e i n two h e a r i n g s — t h e  the seventh  fifth  (see Appendix A ) .  J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Scope. to  High Ross Dam was one i s s u e among  The P.U.C. h e a r i n g s were u n s p e c i f i c as  t h e content o f the messages which were a c c e p t a b l e . .  The i s s u e s  r a i s e d ranged w i d e l y from e n v i r o n m e n t a l  damage i n Canada from the  High Ross Dam t o economic and p o l i t i c a l  arguments f o r and a g a i n s t  many i s s u e s i n c l u d i n g the dam. i s s u e a t a time.  The h e a r i n g s d i d n o t f o c u s on any one  The High Ross was brought  up i n e i g h t o f the n i n e  152  hearings held by the Committee to look at City Light p o l i c i e s . Decisional Scope.  The hearings were directed at a review of  p o l i c y with a view toward making any changes which might appear advisable i n l i g h t of information learned from the hearings  and  other sources.  could  In reference to the High Ross Dam,  hearings  have taken testimony bearing on a recommendation to the Seattle C i t y Council to drop the project or to proceed with applications and planning.  The hearings also considered a l t e r i n g other p o l i c i e s ~  which could have i n d i r e c t l y affected the project, i n c l u d i n g i f f o r example, the issue of rate or t a r i f f structure.  A r i s e i n the rate  structure ( i . e . , the p r i c e of e l e c t r i c i t y ) would result i n a change i n the demand for e l e c t r i c i t y and, hence, for the dam. of alternatives could have led to dropping the dam other option.  Consideration  i n favour of some  This i s 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 r e s t r i c t i o n s on what could  be heard. The Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission-Hearings.  The W.S.E.C.  hearings generally had a wide scope, but focussed p r i n c i p a l l y on the High Ross  Dam.  Geographic Scope.  The authority of the Department of  Ecology,  and hence of i t s Commission, tends to l i m i t consideration to issues within Washington and significant, to Washington residents.  However,  153  the Commission d i d l i s t e n to Canadians and w i t h i n B r i t i s h Columbia.  I t was  heard testimony on  impacts  s t a t e d that Canadians c o u l d  testify  38 even though S t a t e a u t h o r i t y stopped at the  International.Boundary.  In c o n s i d e r i n g i t s p o s i t i o n , however, the Department of E c o l o g y would have to s t a y w i t h i n i t s a u t h o r i t y and base i t s d e c i s i o n on i t s  39 assessment o f impacts w i t h i n the s t a t e . neighbouring  j u r i s d i c t i o n s c o u l d not be  J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Scope.  The  E n v i r o n m e n t a l damage i n considered.  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 f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of e n v i r o n m e n t a l impacts of proposed developments w i t h i n the s t a t e . looked  In t h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n the  Commission  at economic i s s u e s such as economic growth, unemployment,  and  40 so on, i n a d d i t i o n to the environment. By law the Commission i s to l o o k at t r a d e - o f f s 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 .  T h i s broad f o c u s  led  the  Commission to admit testimony on a wide spectrum o f i s s u e s r e l a t e d to the High Ross Dam.  However, i n c o n t r a s t to the P.U.C. h e a r i n g s ,  the focus d i d l i m i t testimony to the IBdsghRoss Dam  and  associated  issues. D e c i s i o n a l Scope. of d e c i s i o n s .  The  The  hearings  f i r s t was  were d i r e c t e d at two  to c o n s i d e r  a City Light application  f o r renewal of p e r m i t s to c r e a t e a r e s e r v o i r and  to a p p r o p r i a t e  These p e r m i t s were r e q u i r e d by Washington.State Law by  the Department of Ecology.  c o n s i d e r what s h o u l d be and  The  water.  and were i s s u e d  second type of d e c i s i o n was  to  the p o s i t i o n of the Department of E c o l o g y  the S t a t e of Washington r e g a r d i n g  p o s i t i o n would be  types  taken b e f o r e  the U.S.  the High Ross Dam.  This  F e d e r a l Power Commission.  154  The  E c o l o g i c a l Commission i t s e l f had powers to a d v i s e the D i r e c t o r  of E c o l o g y  i n t h i s matter.  The  Commission c o u l d not determine  42 Department p o l i c y , but c o u l d have g r e a t i n f l u e n c e . G e n e r a l l y speaking,  then, the Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Com-  m i s s i o n h e a r i n g s had wide scope f o r a l l o w a b l e i n t a k e w i t h to the High Ross The hearings  Dam.  I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission H e a r i n g s . g e n e r a l l y had  scope was  The  I.J.C.  a narrow scope f o r a l l o w a b l e i n t a k e .  This  d i c t a t e d by the terms of r e f e r e n c e f o r the h e a r i n g s , which  came from the n a t i o n a l governments. t i o n might be had  respect  The  rationale for this  termed " n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t . "  The  limita-  respective nations  c a r e f u l l y d i s c u s s e d w i t h each o t h e r what they would a l l o w  Commission to c o n s i d e r .  The  exact reasons  on the h e a r i n g s were not announced.  f o r these  restrictions  I t might be i n f e r r e d , however,  t h a t the n a t i o n a l governments wanted to defuse  a very  volatile  r e g i o n a l i s s u e by h e a r i n g the p a r t i e s t o the c o n f l i c t and f o r a compromise s h o r t of a r e v e r s a l of p o l i c y . scope of these h e a r i n g s Geographic Scope.  looking  A l o o k at  the  is instructive. The  Commission.could and  Canadian and American w i t n e s s e s . concerning  the  d i d hear  both  I t could only consider issues  impacts w i t h i n Canada, however.  The  Commission's terms  of r e f e r e n c e s thus b a r r e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n of i s s u e s w i t h i n the U n i t e d States.  S i n c e the l a k e would f l o o d a few  thousand a c r e s i n the  U n i t e d S t a t e s 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 p r o t e s t e d by e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s . respond.  The  Commission was  was  powerless to  155  J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Scope.  The Commission was limited to considera-  t i o n of environmental e f f e c t s .  Thus, i t was discouraged from consider-  ing economic, p o l i t i c a l , and s o c i a l issues among others.  The Com-  mission i n practice viewed these r e s t r i c t i o n s with some l a t i t u d e , and did not interrupt or rule out of order witnesses who  strayed tem-  p o r a r i l y from the environmental focus. Decisional Scope.  The Commission was s p e c i f i c a l l y 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 B r i t i s h Columbia.  Thus, the Commission was  limited to recommending ways of mitigating environmental impacts. The Commission l i b e r a l l y interpreted this r e s t r i c t i o n 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 s l i g h t l y 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 un43  available, i t i s known that Canadians were allowed to t e s t i f y . Testimony was accepted on matters r e l a t i n g to the Canadian side of the border, as well as the American side.  There were no obvious r e s t r i c -  tions placed on the geographic scope of the hearings. J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Scope. the decision on the dam.  The hearings were designed to review  Presumably  this implied a wide interpretation  156  of the r e l e v a n c y of testimony and  other matters.  on e n v i r o n m e n t a l ,  There were no obvious  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l scope of the D e c i s i o n a l Scope.  The  p o l i c y of b u i l d i n g the dam, plan.  economic,  engineering  r e s t r i c t i o n s placed  hearings.  C o u n c i l had powers t o c o n t i n u e or to r e v e r s e t h i s p o l i c y and  the drop  In the former case, C o u n c i l p l a n s would be s u b j e c t t o  p r o v a l o f o t h e r a g e n c i e s , e.g.,  the U.S.  be f i n a l and  In dropping decisive.  the dam,  the  ap-  F e d e r a l Power Commission,  the Washington S t a t e Department of E c o l o g y , authorities.  on  and v a r i o u s  other  the C o u n c i l ' s powers would  Thus, the scope of p o l i c y upon which t h i s  h e a r i n g c o u l d have a b e a r i n g was a v a i l a b l e , however, and was  definitive.  followed.  A third position  T h i s was  was  the p o s i t i o n of  c o n t i n u i n g w i t h p l a n s u n t i l the p l a n s were stopped  and h o p e f u l l y  44 compensation The  C o u n c i l ' s h e a r i n g thus had wide scope w i t h r e f e r e n c e to  the High Ross (5)  gained.  Dam.  An assessment of the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f i n t a k e n e c e s s i t a t e d by t h i s scope. In Chapter IV we  d i s c u s s e d how  the scope o f i n p u t which i s  taken by a communication system can n e c e s s i t a t e . s o m e aimed at s y n t h e s i s and  testing.  received.  Some of  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 .  s c r e e n i n g i s the p r o c e s s  of s i f t i n g  i s u s e f u l to d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s .  labour  In a l l o f these h e a r i n g s , a g r e a t  d e a l of i n f o r m a t i o n and o t h e r i n p u t was may  form of  the testimony  this  P a r t of.  to determine what  T h i s i n c l u d e s j u d g i n g what has  been  157  heard i n terms of i t s v e r a c i t y , p e r t i n e n c e , f o l l o w i n g paragraphs we w i l l  and  significance.  In  the  l o o k at the attempts made to o r g a n i z e  the  i n p u t r e c e i v e d i n t o a m e a n i n g f u l form. The  Public U t i l i t i e s  a r e p o r t was  Committee H e a r i n g s .  made by the s t a f f c o n s u l t a n t s  on i s s u e s r a i s e d i n the h e a r i n g s .  on the High Ross Dam,  T h i s r e p o r t was  i n v e s t i g a t i o n based m a i n l y on the h e a r i n g s with  A f t e r the P.U.C. h e a r i n g s , based  a somewhat l i m i t e d  themselves and  on  discussions  some of the p a r t i c i p a n t s , i n c l u d i n g C i t y L i g h t . The Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Commission H e a r i n g s .  hearings  uncovered a number of i s s u e s which had  partment of E c o l o g y ' s p o s i t i o n . as w e l l as at o t h e r s , and  a bearing  The Department looked  The W.S.E.C. on the  at'these  framed an "in-house'Vreport e n t i t l e d  Deissues,  Environ-  45 mental A s s e s s m e n t — H i g h Ross Dam.  The  r e p o r t , not w i d e l y  available  to the p u b l i c as of t h i s w r i t i n g , c o n t a i n s a p i e r c i n g and  lucid  s i d e r a t i o n of the i s s u e .  contains  candid  The  r e p o r t i s i n p o i n t form and  cona  d e f i n i t i o n of the Department's e v a l u a t i o n of each i s s u e r a i s e d  i n the h e a r i n g s The  and  elsewhere.  I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission H e a r i n g s .  uncovered a v a r i e t y of i s s u e s many of which had hearings  of other a u t h o r i t i e s .  the Commission and  The  The  I.J.C.  hearings  arisen i n earlier  i s s u e s r a i s e d were i n v e s t i g a t e d by  i t s t e c h n i c a l board.  The  c o n c l u s i o n s were r e p o r t e d  i n a 191-page document e n t i t l e d E n v i r o n m e n t a l and E c o l o g i c a l Consequences  46 i n Canada of R a i s i n g Ross Lake i n the S k a g i t V a l l e y to E l e v a t i o n T h i s r e p o r t takes each of the i s s u e s w i t h i n the scope of. the r e f e r e n c e and makes an a n a l y s i s of i t . The  1725.  Commission's  a n a l y s i s i s followed  by  158  s p e c i f i c recommendations.  The a n a l y s e s are p r o f e s s i o n a l and s o p h i s -  t i c a t e d i n n a t u r e , but e a s i l y f o l l o w e d by the layman. was  published for public The  release.  Seattle C i t y C o u n c i l Hearings.  The  S.C.C. hearings  were not f o l l o w e d by a r e p o r t or p o s t f a c t o a n a l y s i s . left  t o the Councilmen  The r e p o r t  who  may  or may  in  1972  A n a l y s i s was  not have been p r e s e n t f o r the  hearing.  In  the pages above, we have c o n s i d e r e d the Intake Element  the S c r e e n i n g Element. who at  developed  Input  Below we w i l l l o o k a t the work o f c i t i z e n s  a p o s i t i o n and appeared  the h e a r i n g s .  and  We w i l l  on b e h a l f o f t h a t  position  c o n s i d e r t h i s p a r t o f the p r o c e s s — t h e  Source.  THE The  i n p u t source was  INPUT SOURCE  d e f i n e d i n Chapter  IV.  In the f o l l o w i n g  pages we w i l l examine the i n p u t sources o p e r a t i n g i n r e f e r e n c e t o the p u b l i c h e a r i n g s b e i n g s t u d i e d . to  The purpose h e r e i s t o c o n t i n u e  develop d a t a n e c e s s a r y t o the assessment o f openness and  i n these h e a r i n g s .  The n e c e s s a r y i n f o r m a t i o n i s s p e c i f i e d by  t a r g e t items developed (1)  (2) (3)  efficiency  i n Chapter  IV as  follows:  the i d e n t i t y i n broad terms o f the i n p u t s o u r c e s and t h e i r v i s i b l e o r g a n i z a t i o n s and l e a d i n g spokesmen. an examination o f the s t r a t e g i e s open to i n p u t s o u r c e s i n the h e a r i n g s and w h i c h were used. an examination of the c o s t t o c i t i z e n s i n making testimony i n terms of e x p e r t i s e , time , or money.  the  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 i n p u t groups i n u s i n g t h e s e hearings.  These w i l l be  (1)  considered  below.  The i d e n t i t y i n broad terms of the i n p u t sources and v i s i b l e o r g a n i z a t i o n s and l e a d i n g spokesmen. Input sources g i v i n g testimony at. the h e a r i n g s  v e r y broad c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . and  one A.  dam  one  were of  two  s i d e f a v o u r i n g the  dam  s i d e opposing i t . These w i l l be d e s c r i b e d below. Those Favouring  the Dam.  included three general  C i t y of S e a t t l e and o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and 1.  There was  their  The  The  input sources favouring  classifications.  These were: 1.  S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t , 2. commercial and  the  industrial  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 .  C i t y o f S e a t t l e and  Seattle City Light.  prpponentoofttheddamwwasSSeatt'leCCity L i g h t . L i g h t i s the p u b l i c l y - o w n e d the C i t y of S e a t t l e .  C i t y L i g h t was  "substantial."  Mr.  principle  Seattle City  the a p p l i c a n t under  to r a i s e Ross Dam.  L i g h t ' s c o s t s were p a i d out of c i t y and These c o s t s , a c c o r d i n g  The  u t i l i t y providing e l e c t r i c i t y  various a u t h o r i t i e s f o r permission  amount, but  the  to the  City  company revenue.  to Superintendent Gordon V i c k e r y , were  V i c k e r y d e c l i n e d to r e l e a s e the  exact  i n d i c a t e d t h a t these c o s t s would i n c l u d e r e t a i n i n g 47  t h r e e law  f i r m s and  Light u t i l i z e d  several consultants.  i t s own  s t a f f f o r v a r i o u s r e p o r t s and  These i n d i v i d u a l s r e p r e s e n t e d at the h e a r i n g s .  In a d d i t i o n , C i t y  and  testimony.  defended C i t y L i g h t ' s p o s i t i o n  They were supported by  a s u b s t a n t i a l research  160  s t a f f a l l of whom were payrolled employees or consultants. (See Appendix E) 2.  Commercial and i n d u s t r i a l 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 i n t e r e s t s which responded through i n dustry associations.  These groups include at least l y or-  ganizations of the following c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s : 7 groups of a chamber of commerce nature or representing general  business  interests (one of which was from Hope, B.C.), 6 groups representing energy using industries or trades, 2 corporations, and 2 groups representing a g r i c u l t u r a l i n t e r e s t s . groups are l i s t e d i n Appendix F.  These  A number of industry wit-  nesses also appeared p r i v a t e l y or on behalf of t h e i r companies . 3.  Certain private c i t i z e n s .  A number of persons appeared  on behalf of themselves to support  the dam.  These i n d i v i d u a l s  included two former Seattle Mayors, as well as other private citizens.  In addition, there was testimony from persons re-  presenting other c i t i z e n s 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.  included three c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s :  The ''citizens opposing the dam 1. large ad hoc c o a l i t i o n s  organized  161  s p e c i f i c a l l y to oppose the dam,  2. other environmental and sporting  groups, and 3. other c i t i z e n s and 1.  groups.  Large ad hoc c o a l i t i o n s organized s p e c i f i c a l l y 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. the dam, alitions.  In order to oppose  these groups joined i n two loosely organized coOne of these c o a l i t i o n s was  the Seattle-based  c o a l i t i o n led by the 2,000-member North Cascades Conservation Council (the N.C.C.C.).  This group had been extensively  involved i n studied and i n lobbying with reference to the North Cascades National Park i n northern Washington.  Its  f a m i l i a r i t y with the area and i t s size gave i t s p e c i a l claim to leadership of a c o a l i t i o n , including 11 other environmental groups.  The N.C.C.C. c o a l i t i o n 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 s p e c i a l i t y .  (See Appendix E) A second c o a l i t i o n was based i n B r i t i s h Columbia and called "the R.O.S.S. Committee."  R.O.S.S. was an acronym  standing for "Run Out Skagit Spoilers." a c o l l e c t i o n of 9 groups who c i t i z e n s of Canada. appeared  This group was  claimed to represent 45,000  The group had several spokesmen who  to give expert testimony on the issues before  162  the h e a r i n g s .  While the R.O.S.S. Committee d i d i n s u r e c o -  o r d i n a t i o n between t h e testimony o f v a r i o u s w i t n e s s e s , i t d i d not have t h e same l e v e l o f o r g a n i z a t i o n as the N.C.C.C7. coalition  (see Appendix E ) .  These c o a l i t i o n s f i n a n c e d some though n o t a l l o f the s t u d i e s and r e p o r t s made a t the h e a r i n g s .  A v a s t amount  of p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e r t i s e and time was v o l u n t e e r e d by e x p e r t s who appeared a t the h e a r i n g s o r h e l p e d w i t h s t u d y . 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 t a l e n t a t their  disposal.  The advantages o f forming c o a l i t i o n s such as these were clear.  No one r e j e c t e d  t h e i r importance o r v a l i d i t y .  a l i t i o n s s e r v e d t o o r g a n i z e testimony i n t o l e s s  Co-  repetitious  49 and more i n t e n s i v e o r d e r . h e a r i n g s boards."'  0  They were w e l l r e c e i v e d by  There was an attempt a t l i a i s o n a c r o s s  the b o r d e r between the N.C.C.C. group and the R.O.S.S. Committee."'"'"  T h i s s o r t o f c o a l i t i o n was seen as an impor52  t a n t development 2.  f o r the p r o t e c t i o n o f the environment.  E n v i r o n m e n t a l and s p o r t i n g groups.  I n a d d i t i o n t o the  l a r g e c o a l i t i o n s , i n d i v i d u a l groups w i t h t h e same concerns about the environment and s p o r t i n g i s s u e s a l s o made i n p u t at the h e a r i n g s .  Some o f the spokesmen f o r the c o a l i t i o n s  were a l s o among the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f s m a l l e r groups. There were a t l e a s t 47 e n v i r o n m e n t a l groups and s p o r t i n g groups from both s i d e s o f t h e b o r d e r 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 o p p o s i t i o n t o  163  the dam.  There were 24 groups independent of c o a l i t i o n s  g i v i n g testimony.  There were many w i t n e s s e s a p p e a r i n g  a t some o f the h e a r i n g s from t h e s e groups. are l i s t e d i n Appendix 3.  These  groups  H.  Other c i t i z e n s and groups.  In a d d i t i o n to the co-  a l i t i o n s and the o t h e r e n v i r o n m e n t a l and s p o r t i n g groups, t h e r e was  a s i z e a b l e number o f c i t i z e n s who  an i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y .  appeared i n  Among the most a c t i v e i n S e a t t l e  were R i c h a r d J . Brooks and Theodore Beck, b o t h of whom are engineers.  A prominent Canadian who  at the h e a r i n g s was  frequently  David Brousson, a B r i t i s h  spoke  Columbia  M.L.A. from the L i b e r a l P a r t y . a n d an e n g i n e e r .  Other  w i t n e s s e s a p p e a r i n g i n c l u d e d s e v e r a l s t u d e n t s and s t u d e n t groups from j u n i o r h i g h through t h e u n i v e r s i t y  level.  These w i t n e s s e s brought wide r a n g i n g c h a l l e n g e s t o C i t y L i g h t testimony.  (2)  An examination of the s t r a t e g i e s open to i n p u t s o u r c e s i n the h e a r i n g s and which were used. The o b j e c t of any s t r a t e g y used by i n p u t s o u r c e s i n a h e a r i n g i s  to make a p o s i t i o n c l e a r and t o i n f l u e n c e the h e a r i n g s board t o adopt t h a t p o s i t i o n i n subsequent recommendations and a - t i o n . there are s e v e r a l s t r a t e g i e s of varying e f f i c a c y .  To do  this  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. T h i s s t r a t e g y c o u l d be s t r e n g t h e n e d by some f o r e t h o u g h t and a w r i t t e n s e t o f notes t o argue from.  A more s o p h i s t i c a t e d s t r a t e g y would be to  164  r e s e a r c h the i s s u e and d r a f t a c a r e f u l l y worded document to be or summarized o r a l l y and  then submitted  to the h e a r i n g s  board.  I f i t i s a group which d e s i r e s t o make a statement, of l e g i t i m i z i n g a p o s i t i o n f o r the group may  read  some way  be n e c e s s a r y .  This  would i n c l u d e a v o t e of the membership w i t h e x a c t d e t a i l s to be worked out by the e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r s , o r simply a p o s i t i o n by the e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r s committing e v e r , d i s s e n t i n g members may the spokesman.  taken  the group t o a p o s i t i o n .  c h a l l e n g e the statement  F r e q u e n t l y a s i m p l e statement  and  How-  embarrass  of a p o s i t i o n may  be  c o n s i d e r e d adequate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the group, or perhaps some statement  of p o s i t i o n a l o n g w i t h r e s e a r c h and a c a r e f u l l y worded  s t a t e m e n t — e i t h e r w r i t t e n or  oral.  I f t h e r e are s e v e r a l groups w i t h common p o s i t i o n s , these groups might be j o i n e d i n a c o a l i t i o n .  A c o a l i t i o n has  v i s i b i l i t y because of i t s s i z e and ments t o p o o l r e s o u r c e s . may  In any  the advantage of  g r e a t e r s t r e n g t h due  to  case, e i t h e r a group or a  agreecoalition  a l l o w f o r s p e c i a l i z a t i o n w i t h s p e c i a l i s t s t a k i n g component  i s s u e s and  sub-  a p p l y i n g t h e i r time and work toward d e v e l o p i n g a w e l l -  53 researched  statement.  In the case of the h e a r i n g s of the High Ross Dam, approaches were used. i n p u t was  The wide range of s t r a t e g i e s employed i n making  v e r y evident.. . The most s o p h i s t i c a t e d p r e s e n t a t i o n s came  from S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t which had each w i t h a s p e c i f i c assignment.to issue.  a l l of these  The  Seattle  a cadre of p r o f e s s i o n a l  witnesses  cover c e r t a i n , a s p e c t s of the  (N.C.C.C.) c o a l i t i o n was  a planned programme of p r e s e n t a t i o n s .  also w e l l organized with  The R.O.S.S. Committee  was  165  l o o s e l y o r g a n i z e d b u t testimony was w e l l - c o o r d i n a t e d .  After  these  groups, groups and i n d i v i d u a l s appeared w i t h d e c r e a s i n g l y w e l l o r ganized s t r a t e g i e s .  C e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l s , however, evidenced w e l l  planned testimony d e s p i t e t h e i r m o s t l y 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  (3)  and Theodore Beck.  An examination o f t h e c o s t t o c i t i z e n s i n making testimony a t h e a r i n g s i n terms o f e x p e r t i s e , time, o r money. The s t r a t e g i e s above have v a r y i n g c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h them.  In some c a s e s , a w i t n e s s walked  a few b l o c k s and d e l i v e r e d a s t a t e -  ment and l e f t w i t h o u t s t a y i n g f o r t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e h e a r i n g .  This  54 might  take o n l y a c o u p l e o f hours i n a l l ,  including preparation.  On t h e other hand, c e r t a i n w i t n e s s e s attended s e v e r a l h e a r i n g s w i t h w e l l - r e s e a r c h e d statements based on t h e i r own r e s e a r c h .  In t h i s  case, the c o s t i n time may have been s u b s t a n t i a l , both i n p r e p a r i n g statements and s i t t i n g through h e a r i n g s t o hear  responses.In  each o f these cases out o f pocket c o s t o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n was i n s i g n i ficant.  The r e a l c o s t was i n the a p p l i c a t i o n o f p r o f e s s i o n a l  which t h e w i t n e s s may possess by v i r t u e o f p r e v i o u s t r a i n i n g .  talent If  t h i s t a l e n t has a monetary v a l u e when a p p l i e d t o an o c c u p a t i o n , then t h e r e i s a s a c r i f i c e when t h i s time i s a p p l i e d t o t e s t i f y i n g .  The  c o s t o f the o p p o r t u n i t i e s which the w i t n e s s f o r e g o e s i n o r d e r t o testify.  I f an e n g i n e e r has t o take time from h i s c o n s u l t i n g work  to v o l u n t e e r t e s t i m o n y , t h i s time can n o t be a l s o a p p l i e d . t o making a living.  I n terms o f t h i s type o f c o s t , r e f e r r e d t o by economists  as o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t , t h e c o s t s o f c i t i z e n i n p u t v a r i e d , s u b s t a n t i a l l y .  166  C o l l e c t i v e l y , the Seattle c o a l i t i o n , for example, engaged i n extensive studies to support their testimony.  In f a i r n e s s , i t should be  said that some of this work was also applied to other ends, such as proposals Manning).  for planning or parklands"'""' or writing of books (Harvey  But extensive organizational work and s p e c i a l research  work was necessary to implement the strategy that the c o a l i t i o n members f e l t was absolutely essential."' c o a l i t i o n members volunteered  7  I t i s safe to say that the  s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n excess of a thousand 58  hours of time c o l l e c t i v e l y toward opposition of the dam.  Valued  at ten to twenty d o l l a r s an hour p r o f e s s i o n a l l y , this -time could be work tens of thousands of d o l l a r s .  When the testimony of the R.O.S.S.  Committee i s computed, as w e l l as the time of independent c i t i z e n s and groups f o r 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 s u b s t a n t i a l , are a  small share of the t o t a l 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 i n opposing the well-organized 59 campaign of City Light.  and financed  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. c o a l i t i o n had to  go to Vancouver to h i r e some s p e c i a l witnesses because those i n 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 i n terms of expertise are also worth  167  noting.  Reviewing the professional backgrounds of witnesses  appearing at the hearings quickly indicates that the l e v e l of exp e r t i s e was very high.  Figuring prominently i n the roster of wit-  nesses on both side are very w e l l respected experts.  There were  lawyers, engineers, professors, economists, b i o l o g i s t s , 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 q u a l i f i c a t i o n s or background.  Thus testimony was  heard  from housewives, junior high school students, and ordinary c i t i z e n s of a l l types.  On this issue, however, there was some agreement from  hearings o f f i c e r s that informed testimony was much more e f f e c t i v e , thus giving substantial weight to.professional testimony. The representatives and i m p a r t i a l i t y of paid witnesses and consultants, however, was strongly questioned.  It was  said that paid  62 witnesses would say whatever the employer wanted.  Professionals 63 can e a s i l y become "prostitutes" i n such a s i t u a t i o n . 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 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. The p r i n c i p a l d i f f i c u l t i e s experienced by input sources i n  using the hearings were occasioned by the competition i n presenting the most persuasive argument before, the various hearings boards. For those who  opposed the dam,  the p r i n c i p a l obstacle to "winning  the debate" was i n the superior resources which the chief  proponent  168  of the dam, apply  C i t y L i g h t , had.  to s t u d i e s and  C i t y L i g h t had  consultants'  fees.  The  immense r e s o u r c e s  resources  of the  to  dam  66 opponents were h i g h l y r e s t r i c t e d . p a r t by  T h i s weakness was  the l a r g e numbers of persons who  s e r v i c e s t o the f i g h t a g a i n s t  the  were w i l l i n g to  due  volunteer  dam.  There were some complaints as t o the l o c a t i o n of T h i s was  overcome i n  hearings.  m a i n l y to f e a r of the i n f l u e n c e of groups l o c a t e d near  the l o c a t i o n s of some h e a r i n g s . hearings i n northern  Some of the pro-dam groups  feared  Washington because of the ease w i t h which  67 Canadians c o u l d make t e s t i m o n y . northern  Washington r e s e n t e d  On  the o t h e r  hand, some p e o p l e i n  hearings i n S e a t t l e i n d i c a t i n g that  68 p e o p l e i n the S k a g i t v a l l e y should To  determine what happens  them, c i t i z e n s i n S e a t t l e were o u t s i d e r s .  there.  Both of these arguments  seemed to be based on f r u s t r a t i o n s i n c e the " o u t s i d e " groups make more work f o r those on the other o u t s i d e r which r e c e i v e d  little  p l e t e l y o u t s i d e of the a r e a . example, were p e r c e i v e d Canadians, n o r t h e r n all  s i d e of the i s s u e .  sympathy was  One  the p e r s o n from com-  Witnesses from P o r t l a n d ,  t o have l i t t l e  type of  Oregon, f o r  v a l i d concern over the  Washington r e s i d e n t s , and  issue.  S e a t t l e r e s i d e n t s were  seen to have a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s i n the. v a l l e y , but not  persons  69 from o u t s i d e  the  There was  region.  one more source o f 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 i n f l u e n c e on the d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s . i n f l u e n c i n g d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s and  The  r o l e of the media i n  i n l e a d i n g p u b l i c o p i n i o n was  as a f o r c e to be reckoned w i t h i n making a case. t h a t two  newspapers took a s i d e i n the i s s u e .  The  I t was  seen  believed  Vancouver  Sun  169  i n B r i t i s h Columbia  tended  t o oppose the dam g i v i n g much p u b l i c i t y  to t h e i s s u e . On the o t h e r hand, t h e S e a t t l e Times took a stand which seemed t o favour t h e dam.^ e f f e c t of t h e p r e s s .  T h i s l e d t o e f f o r t s t o n e u t r a l i z e the  I t cannot be s a i d j u s t how s i g n i f i c a n t  this  f a c t o r was i n the i s s u e , ^ b u t 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 m e r i t some study.  No a n a l y s i s was made i n t h i s i n q u i r y , however.  DISCUSSION The h e a r i n g s were t h e s u b j e c t o f concern t o a good many p e o p l e . Each o f t h e people i n t e r v i e w e d expressed a unique p i c t u r e o f the r o l e and p r o p e r o p e r a t i o n o f t h e h e a r i n g s p r o c e s s . purpose  o f i n t e r v i e w i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s was t o c a p t u r e some o f t h i s  diverse perspective.  Below we s h a l l l o o k a t some o f these  The Hearings P r o c e s s . regarded by the p a r t i c i p a n t s sary.  P a r t o f the  insights.  The h e a r i n g s on t h e High Ross Dam were (witnesses o r h e a r i n g s boards)  as neces-  Respondents d i d i n d i c a t e t h a t some h e a r i n g s , n o t n e c e s s a r i l y  on t h e High Ross Dam, were a waste o f time.  72  P u b l i c o f f i c i a l s who  a t t e n d numerous h e a r i n g s as a p a r t o f t h e i r d u t i e s may g e t t i r e d 73 o f them.  I n t h e case o f the High Ross, one respondent  said  that  74 the i s s u e was "heard t o death." p r o c e s s i t s e l f was u n c h a l l e n g e d .  But the n e c e s s i t y o f the h e a r i n g s The h e a r i n g s p r o c e s s means t o  c i t i z e n s t h a t whether or not they agree w i t h the u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n s , they know how these d e c i s i o n s were a r r i v e d a t . t h a t t h i n g s a r e n o t g o i n g on behind h i s b a c k . ^  The c i t i z e n  feels  T h i s i s important  i n a system where o f t e n both s i d e s a r e u n s a t i s f i e d w i t h the u l t i m a t e  170  76  decision.  I n many c a s e s , the d e c i s i o n i s h a r d t o r e a c h ,  77  and t h e  p u b l i c h e a r i n g i s an important a i d t o d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . Hearings a r e a c o s t l y p r o c e s s . of the N.C.C.C. c o a l i t i o n , s a i d . t h a t  Dr. P a t r i c k Goldsworthy,  leader  the High Ross i s s u e was " t h e  most expensive i s s u e " h i s group was i n v o l v e d  in.  But, even  consider-  i n g the expense, the i s s u e was e s s e n t i a l t o the group, which was i n t e r e s t e d i n the f u t u r e o f the N o r t h Cascades, and c o s t s were a c 78 cepted as p a r t o f the ongoing a c t i v i t i e s o f h i s group.  I n any  c a s e , Goldsworthy seemed t o echo the sentiment o f many o f the r e s pondents when he s a i d , " I n a d e m o c r a t i c s o c i e t y e f f i c i e n c y i s n o t one  o f the g o a l s — o n e o f t h e p r i c e s i s a c e r t a i n amount o f s l i p p a g e • ..79 in efficiency. The  Canadians were not so s u r e , however.  R.O.S.S. Committee  spokesman Ken Farquharson i n d i c a t e d much concern about t h e c o s t s of the h e a r i n g s .  He s a i d t h a t  the i s s u e had c o s t him s e v e r a l  sand d o l l a r s i n p e r s o n a l income as p r o f e s s i o n a l an i n c r e a s i n g l y c o s t l y v e n t u r e i n p r o t e c t i n g  thou-  time was devoted t o  the v a l l e y .  c l o s e t o p r e v e n t i n g R.O.S.S. p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the F e d e r a l  C o s t s came Power Com-  m i s s i o n h e a r i n g s 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  aid.  8 0  D e f i n i t i o n of A f f e c t e d interviews  Interests.  One c o n s i s t e n t  was the d i f f i c u l t y i n d e f i n i n g  theme i n the  the " a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s "  to which t h e h e a r i n g s boards s h o u l d l i s t e n .  No one seemed t o f e e l  t h a t Canadians should n o t be heard a t t h e h e a r i n g s i n t h e U n i t e d 81 States.  On the o t h e r hand, groups from w e l l o u t s i d e the r e g i o n 82 were n o t seen as " a f f e c t e d . " Witnesses from " P o r t l a n d " were  171  singled out as intruders.  83  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 l i s t e n to persons who are d i r e c t l y i n volved. ^  Hearings should be held i n the areas a f f e c t e d . ^  On  the input side, l o c a l groups should be used i n pursuing l o c a l 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  o r a l testimony.  In some cases hearings board members may be absent 90 or not l i s t e n i n g to the testimony. Many suggested that o r a l 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^ oral!testimonycmaymreachsimportantepef'sonsfpresent at 94 93 theshearings u n o f f i c i a l l y , or may be quoted i n the newspapers. f  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  the h e a r i n g s was w i d e l y r e c o g n i z e d . avoidance o f r e p e t i t i o n .  95  o f o r g a n i z e d testimony a t  P a r t i c u l a r l y important i s t h e  T h i s may i n v o l v e c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h  o t h e r groups o r f o r e g o i n g testimony which d u p l i c a t e s e a r l i e r  testi-  96 mony.  Testimony  s h o u l d be p r e s e n t e d as a c l e a r , l o g i c a l argument 97  based on the f a c t s and knowledge.  E m o t i o n a l testimony i s f r e q u e n t l y  98 discounted,  but t h e r e should be some p l a c e f o r p u b l i c e x p r e s s i o n 99  of  feelings. Sworn Testimony.  t r u t h was suggested  The i d e a o f swearing w i t n e s s e s t o t e l l the  as a means o f keeping testimony t o the f a c t s . " ' '  But o t h e r respondents  d i s a g r e e d , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t such a procedure  would f r i g h t e n w i t n e s s e s and l i m i t t h e i r f r e e expression."'" "'" I n 0  any case, i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t whether testimony i s sworn o r n o t 102 would have l i t t l e e f f e c t on the d e c i s i o n makers. Ann W i d d i t s c h of t h e E c o l o g i c a l Commission i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n e v a l u a t i n g honesty 103 she would "see which guy she would buy a used c a r from." SUMMARY Sifting  through t h i s m a t e r i a l , one cannot b u t be impressed  w i t h the p o s i t i v e s e r i o u s n e s s w i t h which t h e h e a r i n g s p r o c e s s i s seen.  I n some cases they a r e s c o f f e d a t and i n o t h e r cases  zed, but i n no case a r e they r e j e c t e d a s , i n s i g n i f i c a n t . p o l i t i c a l influence of hearings i s widely Openness i s a s i g n i f i c a n t hearings.  ideali-  The  supported.  concern o f people i n v o l v e d i n the  Hearings a r e c l o s e l y watched by h e a r i n g s boards and  c i t i z e n s f o r s i g n s o f r e s t r i c t e d openness.  The watchdog e f f e c t o f  00  173  p u b l i c censure encourages  openness.  On the o t h e r hand, p u b l i c  s c r u t i n y can encourage e x c e s s i v e openness where too much non-germaine testimony i s admitted because o f a d e s i r e f o r f a i r n e s s . E f f i c i e n c y i s a l s o a c l e a r concern o f people i n v o l v e d i n the hearings.  Suggestions o f time l i m i t s and o r g a n i z i n g testimony  are numerous.  The c i t i z e n s and h e a r i n g s o f f i c e r s a l i k e seemed t o  be f u l l y w i l l i n g t o e x p e d i t e e f f i c i e n c y wherever t h i s can be done w i t h o u t compromising openness.  The P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Openness.  Committee Hearings  The scope of t h e P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s  was too wide t o s c r e e n out extraneous i s s u e adequately.  Committee h e a r i n g s  i s s u e s and f o c u s on any s i n g l e  On the o t h e r hand, the h e a r i n g s board had l i m i t e d  t e c h n i c a l understanding of the i s s u e s i t faced.  Since perception  i s an important p a r t o f openness, the h e a r i n g s were l e s s a b l e t o r e ^ ceive input.  The h e a r i n g s a l s o a l l o w e d b l o c k s o f time t o C i t y  Light  which a l l o w e d t h e C i t y s p e c i a l a c c e s s t o the rostrum, b u t adequate a c c e s s was a l s o allowed t h e opponents t o t h e dam. a v a i l e d themselves  of t h i s opportunity.  Opponents, however, had  not y e t formed c o a l i t i o n s and thus were s t i l l o r g a n i z e d i n making i n p u t .  The opponents  a b i t random and d i s -  A l l t h i n g s c o n s i d e r e d , however, the  h e a r i n g s were open and w i t h t h e above r e s e r v a t i o n s d i d a l l o w adequate access t o d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s . Efficiency. were m i n i m a l .  The c o s t s o f p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e P.U.C. h e a r i n g s  The c i t i z e n s had n o t y e t o r g a n i z e d and. simply  and made statements.  I n some cases these statements  appeared  d i d i n v o l v e sub-  174  s t a n t i a l preparation, but costs had not yet r i s e n to p r o h i b i t i v e levels.  The Washington State E c o l o g i c a l Commission Hearings Openness.  The W.S.E.C. hearings were characterized by wide  scope f o r allowable intake and t e c h n i c a l p r o f i c i e n c y f o r comprehending t h i s input.  The hearings simply l i m i t e d scope to the  High Ross Dam and pertinent issues.  The p r o f e s s i o n a l and voca-  t i o n a l background of the hearings board insured.a sound understanding of the issues.  In a d d i t i o n , 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, C i t y Light had a s p e c i a l block of time, but c i t i z e n s managed to obtain adequate access to the rostrum.  C o a l i t i o n s 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. Efficiency.  The hearings of the W.S.E.C. were simple t o use,  but the cost of testimony began to r i s e with the development of s o p h i s t i c a t e d 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 s o p h i s t i c a t e d presentations,  thus making a s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n 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 h i s p o s i t i o n and whether he agreed w i t h e i t h e r C i t y Light or the c o a l i t i o n s .  175  T h i s c i t i z e n ' s i n p u t o f new testimony might be l i m i t e d t o coverage of i s s u e s which he f e l t quately  C i t y L i g h t o r t h e c o a l i t i o n s d i d n o t ade-  cover.  The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission Openness.  Hearings  The h e a r i n g s o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t  Commission  were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by l i m i t e d scope o f allowed i n t a k e w i t h r e s p e c t to a l l c a t e g o r i e s : g e o g r a p h i c , 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. d i d n o t r i g i d l y adhere t o i t s terms o f r e f e r e n c e . In a d d i t i o n , t h e I.J.C. had wide t e c h n i c a l p r o f i c i e n c y a t i n t e r p r e t i n g the i s s u e s and s u b s t a n t i a l t e c h n i c a l , s u p p o r t . p a r t l y a m e l i o r a t e d the impact of r e f e r e n c e .  The l a t t e r may have  on openness o f the r e s t r i c t e d  However, i t must be noted  that the r e s t r i c t e d  scope scope  of r e f e r e n c e o f the o n l y i n t e r n a t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y h o l d i n g , h e a r i n g s and  the o n l y a u t h o r i t y even p a r t l y under the a u s p i c e s o f Canadian  a u t h o r i t i e s , must c e r t a i n l y be r e g r e t t e d . As i n p r e v i o u s h e a r i n g s , the I.J.C. h e a r i n g s a l l o w e d a s p e c i a l b l o c k o f time t o C i t y L i g h t w h i l e l i m i t i n g opponents and o t h e r proponents  t o s h o r t statements.  A g a i n , as i n . the case o f p r e v i o u s  h e a r i n g s , t h i s d i d n o t mean opponents were n o t allowed access t o the rostrum. of  T h e i r g r e a t e r numbers i n s u r e d a s i g n i f i c a n t volume  testimony. Efficiency.  The e f f o r t i n v o l v e d i n u s i n g t h e h e a r i n g s was  not g r e a t i f t h e c i t i z e n o n l y wanted to make a simple  statement.  However, c i t i z e n s had determined, t h a t a major e f f o r t was r e q u i r e d and  t h e i r e x p e n d i t u r e s had r i s e n a c c o r d i n g l y .  The use o f l e g a l  176  a s s i s t a n c e and  the c o n d u c t i n g of s o p h i s t i c a t e d s t u d i e s c o s t sub-  s t a n t i a l sums.  In f a i r n e s s , much o f t h i s c o s t had been i n c u r r e d  i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r e a r l i e r h e a r i n g s and the i n c r e m e n t a l c o s t o f p r e p a r i n g f o r the I.J.C. h e a r i n g s was  thus not as g r e a t as i t  would have been i n the s i t u a t i o n where these were the  first  h e a r i n g s on the s u b j e c t . In terms o f e f f i c i e n c y , the I.J.C. h e a r i n g s p o i n t t o another issue.  The a u t h o r i t y of the I.J.C. as the i n t e r n a t i o n a l body a s -  s o c i a t e d w i t h the i s s u e h i g h l i g h t e d . t h e c r u c i a l n a t u r e o f t h e s e h e a r i n g s , encouraging  c i t i z e n s to engage i n e x t e n s i v e p r e p a r a t i o n .  However, i f e f f i c i e n c y i s the p r o c e s s of. g a i n i n g the most output f o r the l e a s t i n p u t , i t must be concluded t h a t the l i m i t e d  scope  of a l l o w a b l e i n t a k e f r u s t r a t e d e f f i c i e n c y i n these h e a r i n g s .  In t h i s chapter the r e s u l t s o f r e s e a r c h on the H i g h Ross h e a r i n g s were p r e s e n t e d . based  In Chapter VI a s e r i e s of c o n c l u s i o n s  on these r e s u l t s i s p r e s e n t e d .  177  FOOTNOTES  "'"See Appendix I f o r b i o g r a p h i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f i n t e r v i e w e e s . 2 W i l l i a m Pearson, i n t e r v i e w , Sedro Wooley, Washington, 9, 1974, 8:30.  April  B i g g s , i n t e r v i e w , Longview, Washington, A p r i l 111.,•'J]iW-h^ 10;:3.0. 3 Goldsworthy, i n t e r v i e w . John N e l s o n , memorandum t o Gordon F. V i c k e r y , S e a t t l e , 1972. Timothy H i l l , i n t e r v i e w . C l a y Leming, c o n v e r s a t i o n , A p r i l ^Leming,  4, 1974, 2:30 P.M.  conversation.  c  P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Commission, May 25, 1970, S e a t t l e . Cooley, i n t e r v i e w . ^Goldsworthy,  H e a r i n g s , March 25, 1970 through  interview.  8 I n t e r v i e w s : Masley, Brooks, Goldsworthy.  9 I n t e r v i e w s : Masley,  Widditsch.  "^Masley, i n t e r v i e w . Lemxng, 12 13  2:00  conversation.  Masley, Cooley, i n t e r v i e w s . Masley, W i d d i t s c h ,  •^John C. H i l l , P.M.  i n t e r v i e w , Mt. Vernon, Washington,  •^Masley, i n t e r v i e w . 16 J. H i l l ,  interviews.  interview.  April  9, 1974,  G o l d s w o r t h y , Brooks, J . H i l l ,  17  •1  interviews.  Q  Gordon V i c k e r y ,  19  2  other,  Bxggs,  i n t e r v i e w , A p r i l 1, 1974, 1:30 P.M.  interview.  °Brooks,  interview.  21 22  T. H i l l ,  interview.  J.  interview.  Hill,  23 Brooks,  interview.  24 • Goldsworthy, i n t e r v i e w . 25 T. H i l l , i n t e r v i e w . 26 Brooks, Cooley, T. H i l l , 27 28  T. H i l l ,  interviews.  interview.  Brooks, C o o l e y , i n t e r v i e w s .  29 T. H i l l ,  interview.  Masley, 31  interview.  Cooley,  interview.  R.C.W. 43. 21A.200.  32  R.C.W. 43. 21A.210.  33  •XL  35 W i d d i t s c h , Masley, B i g g s , i n t e r v i e w s . 36. Cooley, o t h e r s ,  interviews,  37 'widditsch, T. H i l l ,  interview.  interview.  179  38 Masley, 39  interview.  B i g g s , Masley,  interviews.  40 N.R.R.A. Annual Report, 1972, op. c i t . Ibxd. 42 4 3  Masley, W i d d i t s c h , i n t e r v i e w s .  T h e Vancouver Sun, A p r i l 11, 1972. S e a t t l e P o s t - I n t e l l i g e n c e r , A p r i l 1, S e a t t l e Times, A p r i l 2, 1972.  1972.  44 Cooley, T. H i l l ,  interviews.  45 E n v i r o n m e n t a l E v a l u a t i o n Team, Washington S t a t e Department of E c o l o g y , Steve M i t c h e l l ( e d . ) , E n v i r o n m e n t a l .Assessment: High Ross Dam (Olympia, 1974). 46 I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, E n v i r o n m e n t a l and E c o l o g i c a l Consequences i n Canada of R a i s i n g ROss Lake i n the S k a g i t V a l l e y to E l e v a t i o n 1725 (Ottawa-Washington, D.C., 1971). 47  Gordon V i c k e r y ,  48^  interview.  . ,  Pearson, i n t e r v i e w .  49 Goldsworthy,  interview.  "^Goldsworthy, o t h e r s ,  interviews.  "'"'"Goldsworthy, Farquharson, i n t e r v i e w s . 52 Goldsworthy,  interview.  Ibid. 54 J. H i l l ,  interview.  "'"'Brooks, i n t e r v i e w .  ^Goldsworthy,  interview.  "^Goldsworthy, Brooks, i n t e r v i e w s . "^Brooks,  interview.  59 Goldsworthy, Brooks, W i d d i t s c h "^Brooks,  interviews.  interview.  61 ... Ibid. T  ^^Masley, Goldsworthy, Brooks, "^Masley,  interviews.  interview.  64 Brooks, V i c k e r y , "^Goldsworthy,  interviews.  interview.  66 Brooks, Farquharson, i n t e r v i e w s . 67„. Biggs, 68  . «. interview.  Pearson,  interview.  69 Goldsworthy, J . H i l l , 7  °Goldsworthy, T. H i l l ,  7  """Widditsch, i n t e r v i e w .  Pearson, o t h e r s ,  interviews.  interviews. Mrs. W i d d i t s c h was  72 73  J.  Hill,  interview.  J.  Hill,  Goldsworthy, Pearson, i n t e r v i e w s .  7 4  Brooks,  interview.  7  "^Goldsworthy, i n t e r v i e w .  sceptical.  181  76 , ., Ibid. T  ^Masley,  interview.  78 Goldsworthy,  interview.  Ibid. 80^ Farquharson,  . ^ interview.  Q-|  J.  Hill,  Pearson, Cooley, W i d d i t s c h , o t h e r s ,  ^^Masley, Goldsworthy, Pearson, i n t e r v i e w s .  84 85 86 87 88  Pearson, J . H i l l , interviews. . . Pearson, i n t e r v i e w . J.  Hill,  Pearson,  others,  interview.  Goldsworthy, Biggs,  interviews.  interview.  interview.  89 Goldsworthy,  interview.  Ibid. asley, Widditsch, Cooley, i n t e r v i e w s . 92 93 94  T. H i l l ,  interview.  Goldsworthy,  interview.  T. H i l l ,  interview.  J.  Brooks, Goldsworthy,  Hill,  interviews.  interviews.  96  J.  Hill,  Brooks, Goldsworthy, Masley,  interviews.  97 Goldsworthy, J , H i l l ,  interviews.  98 J.  H i l l , Masley, Cooley, i n t e r v i e w s .  99 Brooks, Vickery, 1 0 1  interview. interview.  G o l d s w o r t h y , Brooks, o t h e r s ,  102 T. H i l l , 103  interview.  Widditsch,  interview.  interviews.  CHAPTER VI  CONCLUSIONS -AND: IMPLICATIONS  i  184  In Chapter V, the r e s u l t s o f the r e s e a r c h on c e r t a i n p u b l i c h e a r i n g s h e l d w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o the High Ross Dam were d i s c u s s e d . T h i s r e s e a r c h supports ness and e f f i c i e n c y . discussed.  s e v e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s w i t h r e g a r d to openIn t h i s chapter,  these c o n c l u s i o n s w i l l  F i n a l l y , some of the i m p l i c a t i o n s these  be  conclusions  h o l d f o r 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 c o n c l u s i o n s below a r e based on the r e s e a r c h o f Chapter V. They i n d i c a t e d t h a t the h e a r i n g s  as a c o l l e c t i o n were  i n terms o f the c r i t e r i a e s t a b l i s h e d .  Nevertheless,  democratic the h e a r i n g s  p r o c e s s has e x h i b i t e d c e r t a i n weaknesses which m e r i t our a t t e n t i o n as we d e s i g n more r e s p o n s i v e and democratic  institutional  arrange-  ments f o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l r i v e r s management.  The c o n c l u s i o n s below  a r e l i m i t e d i n r e f e r e n c e , however, t o the S k a g i t and s h o u l d not be assumed ment.  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-  I t should be s a i d t h a t 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 a t l y from t h a t of the S k a g i t . light  In t h i s  the c o n c l u s i o n s below are o f f e r e d .  Conclusions Respecting Conclusion I.  Openness  The hearings  as a collective  Based on the model o f m u l t i p l e channels  were  open.  l e a d i n g t o the d e c i s i o n -  185  makers, i t can be concluded t h a t t h e r e was adequate a c c e s s t o channels where c i t i z e n s may f r e e l y make i n p u t .  This i s substan-  t i a t e d by t h e wide scope o f i n f o r m a t i o n accepted c o l l e c t i v e l y a t the v a r i o u s h e a r i n g s 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 o f p a r t i c i p a n t s .  Conclusion I I .  considerably:  The openness of individual  hearings  the 1971 I.J.C. hearings were not fully  varied open  and the 1970 P.U.C. hearings were too open. The d i f f e r e n c e s between v a r i o u s h e a r i n g s were s t r i k i n g . h e a r i n g s were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by l i m i t e d g e o g r a p h i c , and d e c i s i o n a l scope. delimited of of  The I.J.C.  jurisdictional,  The concern o f these h e a r i n g s was too. n a r r o w l y  t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f m i t i g a t i n g measures f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n  -he <"rr:.ronme ;. :'.n. U+oxqi*. from t h e .g.ass..'D the environment i n Canada from the Ross Dam. ii  . . In f a i r n e s s , i t T  e  should be s a i d t h a t these r e s t r i c t i o n s were not r i g i d l y adhered t o . On t h e o t h e r hand, the P.U.C. h e a r i n g s d i d n o t focus a t t e n t i o n on one i s s u e a t a time, but a l l o w e d testimony f r e e l y on a v a r i e t y o f s u b j e c t s a t each o f i t s s e v e r a l h e a r i n g s i n 1970.  Conclusion I I I .  There is reason to believe  were influential  in affecting  Discussions with decision-makers  the position  that the hearings of  decision-makers.  and review o f events subsequent t o  the p u b l i c h e a r i n g s l e a d t o a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t these h e a r i n g s d i d translate to action.  While i t can n o t be argued  t h a t the h e a r i n g s  r e p r e s e n t e d a c r o s s s e c t i o n o f the p o p u l a t i o n , i t can be s a i d  that  those c i t i z e n s who t e s t i f i e d a t the h e a r i n g s r e p r e s e n t e d a p o t e n t p o l i t i c a l force.  I n one c a s e , p u b l i c e x p r e s s i o n may have l e d t o a  186  change i n the d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s In  through v o t e r a c t i o n a t t h e p o l l s .  another, t h e n e u t r a l response o f t h e h e a r i n g s commission  vali-  2 dated t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e decision-maker.  Strong p u b l i c p r e s s u r e  thus d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d p o l i t i c a l p o s i t i o n s o f decision-makers. C o n c l u s i o n IV.  by the technical porting The  Openness  of a public  proficiency  hearing  may be  of the hearings  board  affected  or sup-  staff.  l e v e l o f p e r c e p t i v e n e s s which t h e h e a r i n g s board or i t s s t a f f  may have i s s t r o n g l y a f f e c t e d by the l e v e l o f knowledge and expert i s e evidenced by the background o f i t s . p e r s o n n e l .  Thus, the  I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission and t h e Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Commission evidenced a s t r o n g background on t h e i r boards  and sup-  p o r t i n g s t a f f , w h i l e the P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Committee s u f f e r e d its  more l i m i t e d e x p e r t i s e .  from  The P.U.C. board members expressed an  awareness o f these l i m i t a t i o n s and h i r e d c o n s u l t a n t s which d i d not f u l l y r e s o l v e t h e problem.  C o n c l u s i o n V.  The goal  citizens  means that  testimony  of varying  of encouraging  an open public quality  and  free hearing  expression  by.  must admit  some  veracity.  As any j u r i s t knows, i t i s p o s s i b l e to b u i l d two s u r p r i s i n g l y cogent cases from the same s e t o f f a c t s .  Frequently the t o t a l  range o f f a c t s s u r r o u n d i n g an i s s u e a r e unknown or d i s p u t a b l e . Much f a c t u a l and s p e c i a l i z e d i n f o r m a t i o n was p r e s e n t e d a t the  187  hearings. for  In the above s e t s o f h e a r i n g s , concern was expressed  means o f t e s t i n g the accuracy o f t h i s testimony w i t h i n a  system which would n o t d i s c o u r a g e or i n t i m i d a t e w i t n e s s e s .  C o n c l u s i o n VI.  the volume  Openness  of input  of a hearing  which is expected  can be affected by the  by  hearings  officers. A consensus e x i s t s t h a t some l i m i t  on the volume o f testimony i s  necessary  t o a l l o w a f a i r a l l o c a t i o n o f time t o a l l a f f e c t e d i n -  terests.  The w i d e l y used system o f a s h o r t o r a l statement  w i t h w r i t t e n statements  seemed a c c e p t a b l e .  coupled  Some doubt was e x p r e s -  3 sed as t o whether e v e r y t h i n g w r i t t e n was r e a d ,  but e q u a l l y of  4 doubt i s t h a t e v e r y t h i n g s a i d i s l i s t e n e d t o . would depend upon the decision-makers  Ultimately, this  and t h e amount o f i n p u t .  B r o a d l y s p e a k i n g , i t was found t h a t b o t h c i t i z e n s and h e a r i n g s o f f i c e r s r e s p e c t e d c o n c i s e n e s s and b r e v i t y as most e f f e c t i v e .  Conclusion VII.  fected parties Inmost  by rules  Openness granting  and not to  of a hearing special  can be and was af-  time privileges  to some  others.  o f the h e a r i n g s on the i s s u e , the a p p l i c a n t f o r the dam,  C i t y L i g h t , was o f f e r e d a s p e c i a l and l e n g t h y b l o c k o f time t o make a case f o r the dam. for  F o l l o w i n g t h i s , l i m i t e d time was allowed  o r g a n i z a t i o n s and, f i n a l l y , f o r c i t i z e n s .  This  procedure  g i v e s the p r o t a g o n i s t s g r e a t e r o p p o r t u n i t y t o make t h e i r c l e a r , i f the time i s w e l l used.  position  Without a f r e e and e q u a l  opportu-  188  nity for the party of the second part, the opponents, to make a p o s i t i o n , this special opportunity means the hearings are more open to some than to others.  Notification  Conclusion VIII.  in determining  the openness  procedures of these  were very  public  In a l l cases, hearings o f f i c e r s had a procedure notify c i t i z e n s .  important  hearings. for attempting to  In a l l cases, this process of n o t i f i c a t i o n 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 i n n o t i f i c a t i o n procedures.  There i s no way of knowing i f a l l a f -  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 n o t i f i c a t i o n  procedures.  Conclusion IX.  The identity  fected  in the. proposals  always  interest  of witnesses considered  and their  af-  were not  determined.  In reviewing transcripts and through interviews, confusion was found as to who was t e s t i f y i n g 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 c r e d i b i l i t y and effectiveness of l o c a l groups. The representativeness of a group position with respect to i t s members has been challenged (U.B.C. student government,  Mountaineers,  189  Hope Board  of T r a d e ) .  Numerous groups l a r g e l y unknown to the  h e a r i n g s board p r e s e n t e d testimony.  On the o t h e r hand, c o n s u l -  t a n t s p a i d by the v a r i o u s groups o f f e r e d testimony w i t h o u t c l o s i n g f i n a n c i a l support. t h a t h e a r i n g s boards  Concern was  should know who  expressed i n i n t e r v i e w s  they are l i s t e n i n g  what d i r e c t concern the w i t n e s s has w i t h the i s s u e . boards  dis-  t o and  I f hearings  are t o l i s t e n t o " a l l a f f e c t e d p e r s o n s , " they must know  what the s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s o f each w i t n e s s a r e .  C o n c l u s i o n X.  With the exception  Commission hearings> were not required  of the International  the hearings authorities  to consider  the affected  Joint  investigated interests  of  Canadians. The  C i t y C o u n c i l of S e a t t l e i s a m u n i c i p a l l e g i s l a t u r e w i t h a r e -  el u* reTnp"* ~ -  >  quirement  t o be r e s p o n s i b l e t o the S e a t t l e e l e c t o r a t e .  The  ment of E c o l o g y , to which the E c o l o g i c a l Commission,reports,  Departis a  Washington S t a t e agency r e s p o n s i b l e o n l y to the c i t i z e n s o f the S t a t e of Washington.  The F e d e r a l Power Commission i s r e s p o n s i b l e  o n l y t o c i t i z e n s of the U n i t e d S t a t e s . it  In each o f these c a s e s ,  c o u l d not be h e l d l e g a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r Canadian  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 t h a t the U.S.  boards  affected  felt.  Perhaps,  d i d l i s t e n i s a unique event not found  where i n the w o r l d : the a u t h o r i t i e s of one n a t i o n accepted from the c i t i z e n s of another.  elsetestimony  Nevertheless, i t i s c l e a r that there  were no h e a r i n g s h e l d e x c l u s i v e l y under the a u t h o r i t y o f  Canadian  authorities.  public  Thus, Canadian  a u t h o r i t i e s have not sought  190  input through the hearings process from their c i t i z e n s . text of transboundary p o l i t i c a l  In a con-  involvement, this also indicates  that Americans have not had access to Canadian authorities v i a hearings.  Conclusions Respecting E f f i c i e n c y Conclusion XI.  these  hearings  The cost was very  Those who attempted  involved  in presenting  testimony  to  heavy.  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 i n any case, but i t s special costs i n these hearings were s u b s t a n t i a l .  Substantial may be taken to mean several hund-  7  reds of thousands of d o l l a r s .  On the other side, one group, the  N.C.C.C. Seattle C o a l i t i o n , had d i r e c t 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 d o l l a r s .  Conclusion XII.  hearings,  For the citizens  the costs  who participated  in these  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 t h a t i n every  case those i n t e r v i e w e d were i n a socio-economic  and e d u c a t i o n a l  p o s i t i o n which gave them t h e r e s o u r c e s w i t h which t o do the necess a r y p r e p a r a t i o n and cover the expenses they i n c u r r e d .  This  study d i d n o t d e a l w i t h the p o l i t i c a l c a p a b i l i t i e s o f low income persons.  There  Conclusion XIII.  Light  were substantial  in terms of its ability  to absorb  advantages effort  to City  costs.  The revenue base o f a l a r g e bureaucracy which attempts  t o make a  p o s i t i o n a t a h e a r i n g i s c l e a r l y a s i g n i f i c a n t advantage.  Testi-  mony p r e s e n t e d by C i t y L i g h t was p r e s e n t e d by p a i d o f f i c e r s and consultants.  Testimony  not n e c e s s a r i l y p a i d .  o f o t h e r w i t n e s s e s f o r and a g a i n s t was R e s e a r c h i n g i s s u e s t o make i n t e l l i g e n t  testimony i s an expensive p r o p o s i t i o n . s a i d t h a t the burden on t h e a p p l i c a n t .  I n f a i r n e s s , i t s h o u l d be  of p r o v i n g the f e a s i b i l i t y  o f a dam i s c l e a r l y  On t h e o t h e r hand, an incumbent p o s i t i o n  such  as the High Ross Dam p l a n has a l r e a d y been l e g i t i m i z e d and the burden  o f p r o o f f o r r e v e r s a l of the d e c i s i o n may w e l l be on the  opponents.  These p r o s c r i p t i o n s a s i d e , i t i s s t i l l  t h e r e i s advantage  that  t o the b u r e a u c r a c y .  C o n c l u s i o n XIV.  in presentation tion  clear  of testimony  Substantial of testimony  efficiency  and  can be achieved  by ad hoc coalitions  of  effectiveness by organiza-  .  citizens.  A forum which hears copious testimony from many c i t i z e n s has a g r e a t  192  amount of overlap and duplication, as well as gaps i n coverage of some issues.  A c o a l i t i o n may allow witnesses  to s p e c i a l i z e without  concern about other points of interest being neglected.  Specializa-  t i o n allows more intensive concentration on c e r t a i n issues while s t i l l covering the same range of topics.  As w e l l , i t presents the  consensual p o s i t i o n of i t s member groups.  I t allows for pooling  of expertise and f i n a n c i a l resources toward a common p o s i t i o n .  Conclusion XV.  expensive tially  The demand for sophisticated  preparation limit  the role  and educational  in hearings  of this  of persons  of limited  testimony nature  may  and poten-  socio-economic  background.  These hearings accepted  testimony  of varying s o p h i s t i c a t i o n . How-  ever, the most sophisticated testimony  required f i n a n c i a l resources  to enable preparation and appearance.  Many of the presentations  required substantial preparation including f i e l d work, materials, and l e i s u r e time.  This preparation necessitated spending con-  siderable sums of money and time.  On the other hand, s p e c i a l  b i o l o g i c a l 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  C o n c l u s i o n XVI.  affects  the effort  The location involved  of a hearing in using  substantially  it and who can  testify. A check o f the r o s t e r o f w i t n e s s e s f o r each o f the h e a r i n g s c a t e s a s u b s t a n t i a l tendency at  h e a r i n g s c l o s e t o home.  f o r witnesses to favour  indi-  attendance  I t might be s t a t e d as a p r o p o s i t i o n  t h a t the w i t n e s s has a p r o p e n s i t y f o r a t t e n d i n g a h e a r i n g which is  i n v e r s e l y p r o p o r t i o n a l t o the d i s t a n c e t o t h a t h e a r i n g .  Clearly,  h o l d i n g t h e h e a r i n g s c l o s e t o t h e a f f e c t e d c i t i z e n s s u p p o r t s an open and e f f i c i e n t h e a r i n g s p r o c e s s .  C o n c l u s i o n XVII.  on decision-makers quired  for citizens  The public  media  which affects to obtain  have a large the level  influence  of effort  the attention  re-  of these  decision-makers. The p o s i t i o n o f an o s t e n s i b l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e and n e u t r a l p r e s s corps can have a g r e a t i n f l u e n c e on d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s . f a c t u r e i s s u e s and have g r e a t impact decision-makers.  I t can manu-  on t h e p o l i t i c a l f o r t u n e s o f  I t i s convenient t o d i s c h a r g e complaints a g a i n s t  the p r e s s as a t t a c k s upon someone e l s e ' s o p i n i o n .  I t i sfashionable  to  I t was c l e a r i n  stand on t h e d o c t r i n e o f freedom o f the p r e s s .  the case o f the High Ross Dam t h a t t h e v a r i o u s newspapers took s t r o n g stands and supported these s t a n d s . w i t h news s e l e c t i v i t y . These p o s i t i o n s a f f e c t e d the l e v e l o f e f f o r t n e c e s s a r y by c i t i z e n s to  affect  the d e c i s i o n s through h e a r i n g s .  The p r e s s , i n c r e a t i n g  194  an aura o f s e v e r e c r i t i c i s m o f a , p r o j e c t , can n e c e s s i t a t e g r e a t e f f o r t toward  n e u t r a l i z i a t i o n by t h e p r o j e c t proponents.  This  study makes no assessment of the p r e s s ' s r o l e except t o i n d i c a t e that t h i s r o l e  i s l a r g e and perhaps  Openness  Conclusion XVIII.  factors  which  changes  in the level  level  operate  of openness  largely  and efficiency  in an  are  synergistic  inter.relatedepatte'rn'-in-whick';.  of efficiency  and vice  unrecognized.  cause changes  in the  versa. '  I t became e v i d e n t d u r i n g t h i s r e s e a r c h t h a t the l e v e l o f openness affects  the l e v e l o f e f f i c i e n c y .  I f h e a r i n g s a r e not s u f f i c i e n t l y  open, t h e a c c e s s t o the decision-makers  i s limited.  t h a t the e f f o r t s o f c i t i z e n s have l e s s reward  T h i s means  i n r e l a t i o n to e f f o r t .  The h e a r i n g s i n t h i s case would not be e f f i c i e n t .  On the o t h e r  hand, i f h e a r i n g s a r e not f o c u s s e d , the channels may become overloaded and the c i t i z e n ' s message on a p a r t i c u l a r in  t h e masses of. It  input.  subject i s l o s t  A g a i n , h i s e f f o r t i s wasted.  i s easy t o see t h a t t h e l e v e l o f e f f i c i e n c y a l s o  openness.  I f hearings processes are d i f f i c u l t  may be d i s c o u r a g e d from p a r t i c i p a t i n g . as t h e r e c e p t i v e n e s s o f t h e system  affects  t o use, c i t i z e n s  While openness was d e f i n e d  t o i n p u t w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o the  c o s t s t o the c i t i z e n ( e f f i c i e n c y ) , i t i s c l e a r  t h a t one p o s s i b l e  and e f f e c t i v e s c r e e n i s the l e v e l o f e f f o r t r e q u i r e d 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  hearing  to other  of input  of other  relative forms  of input  forms in  requires  public analysis  comparison.  This thesis has sought to determine was open and e f f i c i e n t .  of the  the system of public hearings  To measure adequately how open and e f f i c i e n t  the hearings were, some form of measure or index of openness or eff i c i e n c y i s necessary.  In this thesis, time constraints i n h i b i t e d re-  search of alternative channels of communication as standards of comparison.  This would involve the assessment of the comparative open-  ness and e f f i c i e n c y of the d i f f e r e n t 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 . hearings open and e f f i c i e n t ? "  The question then was "were the  The question of how e f f i c i e n t and open  the hearings were, i n terms of the "second best" a l t e r n a t i v e , was l e f t to further study i n other research.  This further study i s  very important should merit immediate attention.  IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL RIVERS MANAGEMENT The conclusions above have c e r t a i n implications for the management of international r i v e r s .  The hearings process was found to be an  open process feeding useful information on c i t i z e n preferences to decision-makers.  In terms of the management of international r i v e r s ,  t h i s 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 c i t i z e n s for whom i t i s responsible.  196  Of c o u r s e , the l i m i t a t i o n s o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t should be kept i n mind.  Commission  The I.J.C. i s n o t an e l e c t e d body, b u t an  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e arrangement between t h e two n a t i o n a l governments. As such i t has t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o r e p r e s e n t t h e n a t i o n a l of the r e s p e c t i v e n a t i o n s . national interest.  interests  L o c a l i n t e r e s t s may be s a c r i f i c e d i n the  However, the governments must have a means o f  weighing what these i n t e r e s t s a r e .  I f p o l i t i c s i s a process of  b a r g a i n i n g , then the b a r g a i n e r s should know what the s t a k e s o f the game a r e .  They s h o u l d l i s t e n t o l o c a l i n p u t .  In the case o f the Canadians,  l o c a l i n p u t went  international.  There were no h e a r i n g s under e x c l u s i v e l y Canadian c o n t r o l .  And,  the o n l y i n s t i t u t i o n w i t h 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 d i d n o t r e c e i v e  Canadian o r , f o r t h a t m a t t e r , American i n p u t v i a the h e a r i n g s cess .  There was no d i a l o g u e between Canadian and American  t i e s on a l o c a l l e v e l .  pro-  authori-  American h e a r i n g s were n o t r e q u i r e d t o take  Canadian a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s i n t o account.  Perhaps the h e a r i n g s  were open and d e m o c r a t i c , b u t , i f s o , then perhaps i t i s a l l the more important  t h a t they s h o u l d be sponsored  w i t h a r o l e i n the i s s u e .  by a l l a u t h o r i t i e s  A r e l e v a n t s u g g e s t i o n would thus be t h a t  i n i s s u e s such as the High Ross Dam, Canadians c o u l d h o l d h e a r i n g s w i t h r e s p e c t t o the p o s i t i o n r e s p e c t i v e governments s h o u l d  take  and why. The mechanics of t h i s s u g g e s t i o n a r e n o t s i m p l e .  Canadians  may have a d i f f e r e n t view o f the h e a r i n g s p r o c e s s than Americans. The Canadian governments, p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l , o p e r a t e on a  197  p a r l i a m e n t a r y system where the d e c i s i o n t o h o l d h e a r i n g s may be a t the i n i t i a t i v e  o f t h e government and thus h i g h l y p o l i t i c a l .  The  government c o u l d d e c i d e t o h o l d h e a r i n g s when i t would s e r v e the i n t e r e s t s of the government, and n o t n e c e s s a r i l y the i n t e r e s t s o f the c i t i z e n s . to  Thus c e r t a i n automatic p r o v i s i o n s would be n e c e s s a r y  i n s u r e openness.  An example o f an automatic p r o c e s s i s t h e  Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Commission. independent  The Commission has t h e  a u t h o r i t y t o d e c i d e t o h o l d h e a r i n g s on any i s s u e under  the a u t h o r i t y o f the Department o f E c o l o g y .  The Commission a l s o  c o n t a i n s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f s e v e r a l segments o f s o c i e t y . a c t s as a watchdog on the a c t i o n s o f the Department.  Thus, i t  T h i s procedure  i n s u r e s t h a t t h e h e a r i n g s w i l l be h e l d when c i t i z e n i n t e r e s t s and n o t when h e a r i n g s a r e p o l i t i c a l l y Another  dictate  expedient.  i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s study i s t h a t the c o s t s o f c e r t a i n  types o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n a r e v e r y h i g h .  T h i s may l e a d t o g r e a t advan-  tage t o the i n p u t source w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t f i n a n c i a l and t e c h n i c a l resources.  To quote Dr. Ian E f f o r d , a Canadian  opponent t o the  dam: I t i s g e n e r a l l y accepted t h a t every accused s h o u l d be defended a t h i s t r i a l and t h a t , i f he i s poor, the s t a t e s h o u l d pay f o r h i s defense. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , i t i s n o t y e t a c c e p t e d p r a c t i c e f o r the s t a t e t o pay f o r the defense of our environment when i t i s on trial. A p r o p o s a l t o develop o r use an e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e s o u r c e i s accompanied u s u a l l y by a p o w e r f u l a r g u ment supported by e x p e r t testimony which i s b o t h funded and e d i t e d by t h e d e v e l o p e r . Arguments t h a t the n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e might be b e t t e r used i n o t h e r ways or j u s t l e f t u n t o u c h e d — a s an investment i n the f u t u r e — a r e u s u a l l y p r e s e n t e d by amateurs and r a r e l y funded by more than a few d o l l a r s . 8  198  Somehow, to have a f a i r h e a r i n g of a problem, some form of i s necessary.  There i s some m e r i t i n f i n a n c i a l , or t e c h n i c a l sup-  p o r t of the " p a r t y of the second p a r t " where The mechanics of how clear.  balance  necessary.  to d e l i v e r t h i s support  are not a t a l l  To l e a v e 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 c h o i c e s would be i n v o l v e d 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.  justified.  Rather,  support would have to be  In the l a s t a n a l y s i s , any  d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e s o u r c e s and  support  a l t e r s the  carefully existing  i s thus h i g h l y p o l i t i c a l .  In t h i s v e i n , the Canadian f e d e r a l government i s g i v i n g a i d to the R.O.S.S. Committee i n support  of i t s p r e s e n t a t i o n a t the  9 F e d e r a l Power Commission h e a r i n g s .  The F e d e r a l Power Commission  i s h i r i n g c e r t a i n spokesmen of the U.S. testify  3° exp . " i t w i t n e s s e s .  Anv  o p p o s i t i o n to the dam  means xf. s u p w . *- hps  to  strong,  t e s t i f y as expert w i t n e s s e s .  Any means of support has  t i c a l o v e r t o n e s , but some way  of overcoming the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l o r  f i n a n c i a l advantages of the s t r o n g s i d e s h o u l d be  strong  explored.  Meanwhile, c i t i z e n s s h o u l d be encouraged to form  coalitions  where t h i s makes f o r more e f f i c i e n t use of t h e i r r e s o u r c e s . s i m p l i f i c a t i o n and  to o t h e r  The  s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of t h e i r work g r e a t l y a i d s i n  the p r o c e s s of a c c e p t i n g i n p u t . the second p a r t .  poli-  I t p r o v i d e s a a t a n g i b l e p a r t y of  I t a b b r e v i a t e s testimony  and  l e a v e s more  time  witnesses.  F i n a l l y , i n l i g h t of t h i s r e s e a r c h , c e r t a i n p r i n c i p l e s of a democratic  h e a r i n g may  be i n f e r r e d .  Hearings  time r u l e s , adequate n o t i f i c a t i o n , and  s h o u l d have b a l a n c e d  so f o r t h .  I t would seem a  199  p o s i t i v e step f o r h e a r i n g s a u t h o r i t i e s t o adopt T h i s procedure  should be f l e x i b l e ,  a c t i o n should be thought  a clear  procedure.  b u t the reasons f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y  about and made e x p l i c i t .  use a v e r y important v e h i c l e o f p o l i t i c a l  I n t h i s way, we  communication i n a thought-  f u l way.  The h e a r i n g s p r o c e s s i s an o s t e n s i b l y s i m p l e v e h i c l e f o r communicating with decision-makers. North American p o l i t i c a l  I t has become an important p a r t o f  communication.  Beneath the s i m p l e  exterior,  however, a r e s u b l e v a r i a b l e s which may f l u c t u a t e from h e a r i n g t o hearing.  Hearings may be open i n terms o f t h e i r scope o f a l l o w e d  i n t a k e and y e t c l o s e d i n terms of t h e a b i l i t y board t o understand what i s p r e s e n t e d . therapy s e s s i o n s to r e l i e v e p o l i t i c a l vehicles of c i t i z e n  o f the h e a r i n g s  Hearings may be meant as f r u s t r a t i o n s , or m e a n i n g f u l  communication and c o n t r o l .  These and many  o t h e r v a r i a b l e s can determine how open and easy the h e a r i n g i s t o use.  I n the end, w i t h 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 t h e h e a r i n g s p r o c e s s f o r i n f o r m a t i o n , knowledge c o n c e r n i n g these v a r i a b l e s may have a tremendous i n f l u e n c e on the c h a r a c t e r of North American democracy.  200  FOOTNOTES  •"T. H i l l ,  Cooley, i n t e r v i e w s .  2 Biggs,  3  interview.  T. H i l l ,  interview.  4 Goldsworthy,  ^J.  Hill,  interview.  Pearson,  interviews.  "^Goldsworthy, i n t e r v i e w . ^Vickery,  interview.  I a n E f f o r d , Ph.D., " P r e f a c e , " The F u t u r e o f the S k a g i t V a l l e y , op. c i t . 8  9  Farquharson,  interview.  BIBLIOGRAPHY  202  GENERAL  ALMOND', GABRIEL A. and G. BINGHAM POWELL, JR. Comparative P o l i 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 C u l t u r e . Boston: L i t t l e , Brown and Company, 1963. ALTSHULER, ALAN A. Community C o n t r o l . Indianapolis: B o b b s - M e r r i l l Company, I n c . , 1970. BACH, GEORGE.  The I n t i m a t e Enemy.  New  York:  BERBER, F. J . R i v e r s i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law. and Sons, L t d . , . 1959.  The  Avon Books, London:  1968.  Stevens  BISHOP, A. BRUCE. P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Water Resources P l a n n i n g . Alexandria, V i r g i n i a : I n s t i t u t e f o r Water Resources, December, 1970. BLALOCK, HUBERT M., JR. C a u s a l I n f e r e n c e s i n Non-Experimental Research. Chapel H i l l : The U n i v e r s i t y of N o r t h C a r o l i n a P r e s s , 1964. BLAU,-PETERM. and W. RICHARD SCOTT. Formal O r g a n i z a t i o n s : Comparative Approach. San Francisco': Chandler Publ i s h i n g Company, 1962.  A  BLOOMFIELD, F. M. and GERALD F. FITZGERALD. Boundary Waters Problems of Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s . T o r o n t o : The C a r s w e l l Company, L t d . , 1958. BOWER, BLAIR T. "Some P h y s i c a l , T e c h n i c a l , and Economic Charact e r i s t i c s of Water and Water- Resources Systems I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , " N a t u r a l Resources' J o u r n a l , I I I (October, 1963), 215-38. BUTRICO, R. F., C. J . TOUHILL, and I . L. WHITMAN ( e d s . ) . Resource Management i n the Great Lakes B a s i n . L e x i n g t o n , Mass.: D. C. Heath and Company, 1971. CAMPBELL, THOMAS H. and ROBERT 0. SYLVESTER. Water Resources Management and P u b l i c 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 s h i n g t o n , 1968. CHACKO, CHIRAKAIKARAN J . The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission. New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1932.  203  CHAPMAN, J . D. (ed.)- The I n t e r n a t i o n a l R i v e r B a s i n . Vancouver, B.C.: U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia P u b l i c a t i o n s C e n t r e , 1963. CHARLESWORTH, JAMES G. ( e d . ) . Contemporary New York: The F r e e P r e s s , 1967.  P o l i t i c a l Analysis.  CHEVALIER, MICHAEL. S o c i a l Science and Water Management: A P l a n n i n g S t r a t e g y . Ottawa: Queens P r i n t e r , 1970. CHILSON, HATFIELD. " F e d e r a l - S t a t e R e l a t i o n s i n t h e F i e l d o f Water R i g h t s , " S t a t e Government, XXXIII (Winter, 1966), 32-38. CHURCHMAN, C. WEST. The Systems Approach. P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1962.  New York:  Dell  COLEMAN, JAMES S. , AMATAI ETZIONI, and JOHN PORTER. Macros o c i o l o g y : R e s e a r c h and Theory. B o s t o n : A l l y n and Bacon I n c . , 1970. COLLINSON, J . D. "Water Management i n Canada," The F o r e s t r y C h r o n i c l e , - 4 2 (March, 1967), 24-33. CRUTCHFIELD, JAMES A. "The Marine F i s h e r i e s : A Problem o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Cooperation," American Economic Review, LIV (May, 1964), 207-218. DAHL, ROBERT. A f t e r t h e R e v o l u t i o n ? P r e s s , 1970. .  . Modern P o l i t i c a l A n a l y s i s . P r e n t i c e H a l l , I n c . , 1963.  New Haven:  Englewood  Yale U n i v e r s i t y  C l i f f s , N. J . :  DAVIES, JAMES C. "Toward a Theory of R e v o l u t i o n , " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. F e b r u a r y , 1962, 5-19. DAVISON, W. PHILLIPS." I n t e r n a t i o n a l P o l i t i c a l Communication. New York: F r e d e r i c k A. P r a e g e r , P u b l i s h e r s , 1965. DEUTSCH, KARL W. Englewood  The A n a l y s i s o f - I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s . C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1968.  . N a t i o n a l i s m and S o c i a l " Communication. The M.I.T. P r e s s , 1953. . The Nerves of Government. 1963.  New York:  Cambridge:  The F r e e  Press,  204  DOWNS, ANTHONY. I n s i d e B u r e a u c r a c y . and Company, 1967.  Boston:  L i t t l e , Brown  DWORSKY, LEONARD ( e d . ) . S o c i a l and Economic A s p e c t s of Water Resources' Development. P r o c e e d i n g s of a symposium h e l d by the American Water Resources A s s o c i a t i o n i n I t h a c a , 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 Knopf, 1953. .  System.  New  York:  . A Systems A n a l y s i s of P o l i t i c a l L i f e . John W i l e y and Sons, I n c . , 1965.  ETZIONI, AMATAi: P o l i t i c a l U n i f i c a t i o n . New R i n e h a r t and Winston, I n c . , 1965.  A l f r e d A.  New  York:  York:  Holt,  FAGAN, RICHARD R. P o l i t i c scvand Communication. Brown and Company, 1966;  Boston:  F e d e r a l Power Commission v s . Oregon, 349 U.S.  Reports 435  Little,  (1955).  "The F e d e r a l Role i n Water Management," Water and P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l , 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, P u b l i s h e r s , 1956. FISHER, HEINTZ-DIETRICH and JOHN-CALHOUN MERRILL ( e d s . ) . . I n t e r n a t i o n a l Communication: Media, Channels, F u n c t i o n s . New York: H a s t i n g s House, P u b l i s h e r s , 1970. FOX,  IRVING K. "Work P l a n f o r P r o j e c t on I n t e r n a t i o n a l R i v e r s . " Vancouver, B.C.: Westwater'Research C e n t r e , 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 Holbrook Press,' I n c . , 1971. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF PERMANENT JUSTICE. P.J.I.C., Ser. A, No. 10.  Science Methods.  Boston:  The L o t u s Case.  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 R u l e s on the Uses of Waters of I n t e r n a t i o n a l R i v e r s . R e s o l u t i o n adopted by i t s F i f t y ^ S e c o n d Conference h e l d i n H e l s i n k i , F i n l a n d , August 20, 1966.  205  INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION. P r i n c i p l e s ' of' Law Governing t h e Uses of I n t e r n a t i o n a l R i v e r s . R e s o l u t i o n adopted by A s s o c i a t i o n a t i t s Conference h e l d i n Dubrovnik, Yugos l a v i a , August, 1956. KUHN, THOMAS S. The S t r u c t u r e o f S c i e n t i f i c R e v o l u t i o n s . The U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago'Press,'1962. LANE, ROBERT E. and DAVID 0. SEARS. P u b l i c O p i n i o n . C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1964. LIPSET, SEYMOUR MARTIN. ' P o l i t i c a l Man. Company, I n c . , 1960.  New York:  Englewood  Doubleday and  MAC CALLUM, J . L. "The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission," Geographic J o u r n a l , LXXII (March, 1966), 76-78. MADGE, JOHN.. The T o o l s of S o c i a l S c i e n c e . Books, 1965.  New York:  MARCH, JAMES G. ( e d . ) . Handbook' o f ' O r g a n i z a t i o n s . Rand M c N a l l e y and Company, 1965.  Chicago:  Canadian  Anchor  Chicago:  MARPLE, WARREN H. and LEONARD' E. DWORSKY." " R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g : Some Problems i n t h e P a c i f i c Northwest," Western Resources Papers 1960. B o u l d e r : U n i v e r s i t y of C o l o r a d o P r e s s , I960', 35-61. MAYO, H. B. An. I n t r o d u c t i o n to Democratic Theory. Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1960.  New York:  MERRITT, RICHARD L. S y s t e m a t i c Approaches t o Comparative P o l i tics. C h i c a g o : Rand McNalley and Company, 1970. MICHAEL, H. P. ( e d . ) . Water Development i n L e s s Developed A r e a s . T r a n s a c t i o n s of an I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference h e l d 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 C o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r the D e s i g n of Water I n s t i t u t i o n s , " " "Public' A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , XXV (December, 1965). MITCHELL, JOYCE and WILLIAM C. I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P o l i t i c a l Chicago: Rand M c N a l l e y , 1968.  Analysis.  NORTH, ROBERT C , OLE R. H0LSTI, M. GEORGE ZANINOVICH, and DINA A. ZINNESY Content A n a l y s i s : A Handbook w i t h A p p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e Study of I n t e r n a t i o n a l C r i s i s . Chicago: Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1963.  206  PETERSON, KENNETH and IRVING K. FOX. "A Normative S t r u c t u r e f o r E v a l u a t i n g Water Q u a l i t y Management I n s t i t u t i o n s . " Vancouver, B.C. Westwater Research C e n t r e , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. J u l y , 1973. (Mimeographed) PORTER, DONALD E. and PHILIP B.' APPLEWHITE. S t u d i e s i n O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Management. S c r a n t o n , Penn.: I n t e r n a t i o n a l Textbook Company, 1964. SEWELL, W.R. DERRICK, RICHARD W. JUDY, and LIONEL OUELLET. Water Management R e s e a r c h : S o c i a l S c i e n c e P r i o r i t i e s . Ottawa: Queens P r i n t e r , 1969. . "The Columbia R i v e r T r e a t y : Some Lessons and I m p l i c a t i o n s , " The Canadian Geographer, 10 (1966),- 145-156. DE TOCQUEVILLE, ALEXIS. Democracy i n America. New American L i b r a r y , 1965.  New  York:  The  UNITED NATIONS, OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION. Yearbook of the U n i t e d Nations,-1970. New York, 1970, 817-819. . UNITED STATES, DEPARTMENT OF STATE. " L e g a l A s p e c t s of t h e Use of Systems of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Waters." Eighty-Fifth Congress, Second S e s s i o n , Document" No. 118. Washington, D.C.: Government P r i n t i n g " O f f i c e , 1958. WASHINGTON STATE ECOLOGICAL COMMISSION. O b s e r v a t i o n of Meeting h e l d i n Longview, Washington, A p r i l 11, 1974. WASHINGTON STATE, NATURAL RESOURCES AND RECREATION AGENCIES. Annual Report 1971. Olympia: S t a t e of Washington, 1972. . Annual Report 1972. 1973. WASHINGTON STATE, Department Chapter 43.21A.  Olympia:  S t a t e of Washington,  of E c o l o g y A c t 1970. R.C.W.  "Water D i v e r s i o n — T o u c h y B.C. S u b j e c t , " Water P o l l u t i o n 107 (November, 1969), 44-46. WATERFIELD, DONALD. The C o n t i n e n t a l Waterboy. I r w i n Company, L t d . , 1970. WELSH, MATTHEW E. Department 311-314.  Toronto:  Control,  Clarke,  "The Work o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Joint Commission," of State" B u l l e t i n , 59 (September 23, 1968),  207  WESTERN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS RESEARCH COUNCIL. P r o c e e d i n g s . P o r t l a n d , Oregon, 1961. WILSON, J . W/ People i n t h e Way. Toronto P r e s s , 1973.  Toronto:  Conference  The U n i v e r s i t y of  YINGER, F. MILTON. "Anomie, A l i e n a t i o n , and P o l i t i c a l B e h a v i o u r , " i n J e a n n i e N. Knutson C e d . ) . Handbook of P o l i t i c a l S o c i o logy. San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass P u b l i s h e r s , 1973, 171-202.  208  THE S K A G I T R I V E R (Items l i s t e d by date)  An 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 and Snohomish C o u n t i e s ; Their P e o p l e , t h e i r Commerce and t h e i r R e s o u r c e s . Chicago: I n t e r s t a t e P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1906. "Power 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 , " The C o a s t ./(December, 1 9 0 8 ) , 386386. " 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 ) , p7.7"What's t h e h u r r y ? 1918).  ( S k a g i t R i v e r P r o j e c t ' , " Town C r i e r , (May 1 1 ,  " 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 . Uhden, C F . " S e a t t l e b u i l d i n g large municipal h y d r o e l e c t r i c dev 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- ( N o v e m b e r 1 8 , 1 9 2 0 ) , 994-6. t  S C O T T , W.A. "Skagit River H y d r o e l e c t r i c Development," 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 on t h e S k a g i t R i v e r Power P r o j e c t , " E n g i n e e r i n g ( 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 on S k a g i t R i v e r D e f e r r e d , " News-Record ( J u l y 24, 1924. Advertisement.  News  Engineering  S e a t t l e Times (September 26, 1924).  " S e a t t l e C e l e b r a t e s Completion of S k a g i t Power P r o j e c t , " S e a t t l e D a i l y Times (September 28, 1924). "Power f o r S e a t t l e from S k a g i t R i v e r , " Power P l a n t X X V I I I (November 15, 1 9 2 4 ) , 1170-1172.  Engineering,  " S k a g i t R i v e r Development f o r S e a t t l e System," Power (June 16, 1925), 970. H O R N E R , 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 ) , 112-113.  209  ROSS, J . D. " S k a g i t R i v e r Development of the C i t y of S e a t t l e , " J o u r n a l of E l e c t r i c i t y (August, 1 9 2 5 ) . ROSS, J . D. C i t y L i g h t , The M u n i c i p a l L i g h t and Power System o f S e a t t l e , Washington. C h i c a g o : The P u b l i c Ownership League of America, 1 9 2 8 . "Campaign L i t e r a t u r e on t h e R e c a l l of Mayor Edwards." File. Municipal Reference L i b r a r y , S e a t t l e Municipal B u i l d i n g , S e a t t l e , Washington. BURMASTER, VIOLET. "The H i s t o r y of S k a g i t County." U n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t 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 S k a g i t R i v e r , " 1935). BURN,  The New American  (October,  JUNE. " I ' P u g e t S S b u h d i ^ :  '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 . l i s h i n g Company, 1 9 3 7 .  Seattle:  S t a r Pub-  BURN, JUNE. " S k a g i t R i v e r of Puget Sound," (April, 1938), 1 f f .  The Puget Sounder  BENSON, LUCILE. Community Surveys of Counties', 1 9 3 7 - 3 8 . Olympia: Washington S t a t e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y Department, 1 9 3 8 . COLEMAN, M. "America's B e s t - L i g h t e d 1 9 3 9 ) , 193-5.  City,"  Nation  (August 1 9 ,  INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION. A p p l i c a t i o n of_ the C i t y of S e a t t l e f o r A p p r o v a l of t h e P r o p o s a l t o R a i s e t h e Water L e v e l o f t h e S k a g i t R i v e r , S t a t e of" Washington, a t and above the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary. H e a r i n g , September 12, 1941. " R a i s i n g Ross' Dam t o 475 f t . height'," EngineeringsNews (September 20, 1 9 4 5 ) , 378-81. BRITISH COLUMBIA.  The S k a g i t V a l l e y Lands A c t .  "Ross Dam t h i r d step n e a r s c o m p l e t i o n , " ( A p r i l 1, 1 9 4 8 ) , 4 8 7 - 9 . " W a f f l e - f a c e Dam,"  Life  (1947).  E n g i n e e r i n g News-Record  (September 1 2 , 1 9 4 9 ) .  ?  210  COOPER, CARL L. 1951. MC  "Skagit  Story,"  Seattle  Post-Intelligencer,  WILLIAMS, MARY. S e a t t l e Water Development H i s t o r y . C i t y of S e a t t l e , 1955.  " S e a t t l e - B . C . d i s p u t e goes to j o i n t (October 10, 1958), 12.  board,"  S e a t t l e Times -  "$5,000,000 Spent i n Good F a i t h , S e a t t l e to S t r e s s at B. Hearing," S e a t t l e Times (October 12, 1958), 9. " F i f t h h i g h e s t i n the w o r l d — R o s s Dam," (February 2, 1959). "Power U t i l i t y Founded i n 1902," 8, 1959), 25. S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t News, June,  Seattle:  Seattle  C.  Post-Intelligencer  Seattle Post-Intelligencer  (February  1959.  " S e a t t l e seeks'new t a l k s ' i n B.C. 15, 1960), 39.  D i s p u t e , " S e a t t l e Times  (January  SPARKS, WILLIAM 0'. " J . D. Ross-and' S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t , " U n p u b l i s h e d M a s t e r ' s t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, 1964. "Control  of S k a g i t R i v e r needed f o r Development," H e r a l d (October 13, 1964), 1.  Bellingham  DICK, WESLEY. "The Genesis of C i t y L i g h t , " U n p u b l i s h e d M a s t e r ' s t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, 1965. " C i t y L i g h t seeking 1965), 89.  'tame' S k a g i t  flow,"  S e a t t l e Times (May  2,  PITZER, PAUL CURTIS. "A H i s t o r y of the Upper S k a g i t V a l l e y , 18801924," U n p u b l i s h e d M a s t e r ' s t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, 1966. "Man  and  the R i v e r , "  S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t News, November, 1967,  "Looking over C i t y L i g h t ' s P i c t o r i a l (May 19,  Skagit P r o j e c t , " 1968) ,.> 28-33.  The  P r o v i n c e , January, 1969  through A p r i l ,  The  Seattle Post-Intelligencer,  5-7.  S e a t t l e Sunday Times  1974.  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. P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Committee, S e a t t l e C i t y Council. The Goals of C i t y L i g h t . Hearings, March 20 and March 26, 1970. S e a t t l e , Washington, 1970. ._. The Role of C i t y Government. S e a t t l e , Washington, 1970. "  Hearing, March 31, 1970.  . Environment. Hearings, A p r i l 8 and A p r i l 16, 1970. Washington, 1970. . Finances. Hearings, May 1 and May 7, 1970. ington, 1970. . Underground WWif.ings • Hearing, May 15, 1970. Washington, 1970.  Seattle,  S e a t t l e , WashSeattle,  _. F i n a n c i a l Obligations of P u b l i c U t i l i t y to Municipal Government. Hearing, May 25, 1970. S e a t t l e , Washington, 1970. F. F. SLANEY AND COMPANY. Skagit V a l l e y and Ross Lake Reservoir i n Canada. Vancouver, B.C., 1970. WASHINGTON STATE ECOLOGICAL COMMISSION. State of Washington Ecol o g i c a l Commission Hearing Regarding Proposal to Raise Ross Dam. Hearing, March 16, 1971, S e a t t l e , and March 17, 1971, Mount Vernon, Washington. 2 v o l . Olympia, Washington, 1971.  CITY.OF SEATTLE, DEPARTMENT OF LIGHTING. Memorandum to the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission: Environmental Investigations Skagit V a l l e y i n Ganada and Indications of Consequences from Raising the Level of Ross Lake. S e a t t l e , June, 1971. EEFQRD, IAN (ed.). The Future of the Skagit V a l l e y . Vancouver, B.C.: I n s t i t u t e of Animal Resource Ecology, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971. BIGGS, JOHN A. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY. " P o s i t i o n Statement on High Ross Dam; F.P.C. Project No. 553," L e t t e r to the Federal Power Commission, Olympia, Washington, 1971.  INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION. Environmental and E c o l o g i c a l Consequences 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. Ottawa, Canada and Washington, D.C, 1971. "'33... -123,  CITY OF SEATTLE. t  -i ri-.-n 3, \_-.  v-  Sf  1':' n/ :  •  OEPARIMN  M--  212  NELSON, JOHN. CITY OF SEATTLE. LIGHTING DEPARTMENT. to Gordon F. V i c k e r y . S e a t t l e , 1972.  Memorandum  WASHINGTON.STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION TEAM. E n v i r o n m e n t a l Assessment: H i g h Ross Dam. Olympia, 1974. VICKERY, GORDON. P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w . S e a t t l e , Washington. COOLEY, GEORGE. P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w . S e a t t l e , Washington.  1:30 P.M., A p r i l  3:30 P.M., A p r i l  GOLDSWORTHY, PATRICK. P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w . 1974. S e a t t l e , Washington. BROOKS, RICHARD J . P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w . S e a t t l e , Washington. LEMING, CLAY. C o n v e r s a t i o n . Washington.  HILL, TIMOTHY. P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w . S e a t t l e , Washington.  1, 1974.  11:30 P.M., A p r i l 2,  3:00 P.M., A p r i l  2:30 P.M., A p r i l  WIDDITSCH, ANN. • P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w . S e a t t l e , Washington.  1, 1974.  4, 1974.  2, 1974.  Seattle,  3:30 P.M., A p r i l 4, 1974.  11:30 A.M., A p r i l  5, 1974.  MASLEY, ARPAD, M.D. Personal interview. Bremerton, Washington.  1:30 P.M., A p r i l  5, 1974.  PEARSON, WILLIAM R. P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w . Sedro Woolley, Washington.  8:30 A.M. ,- A p r i l  9, 1974.  HILL, JOHN C. P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w . Mount Vernon, Washington.  2:00 P.M.', A p r i l  WASHINGTON STATE ECOLOGICAL COMMISSION. O b s e r v a t i o n A p r i l 11, 1974. Longview, Washington. BIGGS, JOHN. P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w . Longview, Washington.  9, 1974.  of M e e t i n g .  10:30 A.M., A p r i l 11, 1974.  LEMARQUAND, DAVID. P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w . Vancouver, B.C.  2:00 P.M., A p r i l  FARQUHARSON, KENNETH. P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w . 1974. Vancouver, B.C.  15, 1974.  8:00 A.M., A p r i l 17,  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 P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Committee of the S e a t t l e C i t y C o u n c i l a s e t o f n i n e h e a r i n g s from March 20, 1970  t o May  25, 1970.  held  These  h e a r i n g s were i n i t i a t e d because of a r e c o g n i z e d i n t e r e s t o f S e a t t l e c i t i z e n s i n r e v i e w i n g a wide range o f pcpblicresB o f the c i t y ' s  uti-  lity,  uti-  Seattle City Light.  Concern had been expressed  l i t y ' s p o l i c i e s were out of step w i t h the wishes i t s residents.  The  t h a t the  of the c i t y  and  f o l l o w i n g i s a survey o f these h e a r i n g s meant as  background t o a n a l y s e s found i n the t e x t . T h i s review w i l l c o n s i s t o f two p a r t s : h e a r i n g s w i t h minimal  the d e s c r i p t i o n of  testimony on the High Ross Dam,  and then a  d e s c r i p t i o n o f the h e a r i n g s w i t h e x t e n s i v e testimony on the  Hearings w i t h Minimal High Ross 1.  H e a r i n g Number One,  the h e a r i n g was  Testimony  March 20, 1970.  The  the "Goals of C i t y L i g h t . "  t o p i c announced f o r The Dam  was  i n s c a t t e r e d p l a c e s as p a r t o f more g e n e r a l testimony. Mr.  dam.  mentioned One  citizen,  R. J . Brooks o f S e a t t l e , d e l i v e r e d testimony i n d i c a t i n g o p p o s i -  t i o n t o C i t y L i g h t ' s High Ross p o l i c y as p a r t of a more g e n e r a l c r i t i c i s m of C i t y L i g h t . 2.  H e a r i n g Number Two,  t h i s h e a r i n g was  March 26, 1970.  The  t o p i c announced f o r  a l s o the "Goals o f C i t y L i g h t . "  t e r e d r e f e r e n c e s to the Dam  There were s c a t -  by C i t y L i g h t o f f i c i a l s , but no  intensive  215  treatment o f the i s s u e .  There was a group o f c i t i z e n s  Four o f these c i t i z e n s spoke a g a i n s t the Dam. speakers i n f a v o u r .  testifying.  There were no  These w i t n e s s e s were R. J . Brooks  (Seattle),  Ken Farquharson and F. J . Bartholomew ( B r i t i s h Columbia,  repre-  s e n t i n g s e v e r a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l / o u t d o o r g r o u p s ) , and Theodore (Seattle).  Beck  Testimony o f these w i t n e s s e s r e p r e s e n t s about a q u a r t e r  of the time o f the h e a r i n g .  °' - Hear nK 1  3.  H e a r i n g Number Three, March 31, 1970.  was "The R o l e o f C i t y Government."  The t o p i c o f t h i s h e a r i n g  Very l i t t l e  testimony was d i r e c -  ted toward the High Ross, w i t h no w i t n e s s e s speaking d i r e c t l y t o the i s s u e o f the Dam.  R e f e r e n c e s were o c c a s i o n a l l y made t o the Dam  i n r e l a t i o n t o some o t h e r i s s u e . 4.  H e a r i n g Number Four, A p r i l 8, 1970.  t h i s h e a r i n g was the "Environment."  The announced  subject of  F i v e e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s appeared  on t h e Dam, i n c l u d i n g Dr. P a t r i c k Goldsworthy, Margaret  Miller  and Brock Evans of t h e North Cascades C o n s e r v a t i o n C o u n c i l , and C h a r l e s Dolan o f the S i e r r a Club o f Western Washington. w i t n e s s mentioning the Dam was P o l l y Dyer.  These w i t n e s s e s accoun-  ted f o r about a q u a r t e r o f the testimony a t the h e a r i n g . spoke i n o p p o s i t i o n t o the Dam.  Another  They a l l  C i t y L i g h t d i d not present t e s t i -  mony a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of the h e a r i n g as was t h e u s u a l p r a c t i c e . 5.  H e a r i n g Number S i x , May 1, 1970.  was " F i n a n c e s . "  The t o p i c o f t h i s h e a r i n g  Testimony on the Dam was minimal, w i t h P a t r i c k  Goldsworthy, R. J . Brooks, and Theodore Beck making s h o r t statements and r e q u e s t i n g c e r t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n a t t h e h e a r i n g .  216  6.  H e a r i n g Number E i g h t , May  15, 1970.  T h i s h e a r i n g was  ground W i r i n g " and c o n t a i n e d no testimony on the 7.  H e a r i n g Number Nine, May  of the s e r i e s and was  25, 1970.  on "Under-  Dam.  T h i s h e a r i n g was  the  on the " F i n a n c i a l O b l i g a t i o n s o f P u b l i c  to M u n i c i p a l Government."  The High Ross was  A l l spoke i n o p p o s i t i o n t o the  Hearings w i t h E x t e n s i v e High Ross  Utility  mentioned by f o u r  speakers i n c l u d i n g Theodore Beck, R. J . Brooks, David H i l l , K a t i e Madsen.  last  and  Dam.  Testimony  The above h e a r i n g s were more g e n e r a l h e a r i n g s and d e a l t w i t h s u b j e c t s i n a d d i t i o n to the High Ross Dam.  They were mentioned to  g i v e some assessment of t h e i r r o l e i n the p r e s e n t a t i o n of the S k a g i t issue.  The above h e a r i n g s r e p r e s e n t a minor amount of testimony  sented on the Dam. w i t h the Dam.  Two  h e a r i n g s of the t o t a l n i n e d i d d e a l m a i n l y  These w i l l be surveyed b r i e f l y  1.  H e a r i n g Number F i v e , A p r i l 16, 1970.  was  to d i s c u s s the "Environment."  Ross Dam.  here.  The purpose  of  this.hearing  The f o c u s q u i c k l y became the High  About 97 per cent o f the h e a r i n g d e a l t w i t h the  There were twenty-eight w i t n e s s e s p r e s e n t t o t e s t i f y and were i n c l u d e d among the speakers. the Dam.  pre-  The h e a r i n g was  Dam.  Canadians  Twenty-one w i t n e s s e s were a g a i n s t  l o n g e r than the o t h e r h e a r i n g s and many  of the speakers p r e s e n t e d w r i t t e n b r i e f s a l o n g w i t h There were 19 w r i t t e n submissions  totalling  2.  H e a r i n g Number Seven, May  7, 1970.  was  to d i s c u s s " F i n a n c e s , " but i t was  testimony.  89 pages.  The purpose  of t h i s h e a r i n g  announced a t an e a r l i e r h e a r i n g  217  t h a t the High Ross Dam  would a l s o be c o n s i d e r e d .  of the h e a r i n g d e a l t w i t h the Dam.  About 68 per cent  The main w i t n e s s was  the Power Manager of C i t y L i g h t , s p e a k i n g f o r the Dam. to Mr.  Bradeen,  Cas  Bradeen,  In a d d i t i o n  C i t y L i g h t S u p e r i n t e n d e n t John N e l s o n and Norm Jacox  spoke f o r the Dam. P a t r i c k Goldsworthy,  Three w i t n e s s e s spoke i n o p p o s i t i o n ,  including  Theodore Beck, and R. J . Brooks.  Summary The High Ross Dam  was  the primary s u b j e c t of two h e a r i n g s ,  Hearings Number F i v e and Seven.  Statements  on the Dam  f o u r o t h e r h e a r i n g s i n c l u d i n g Hearings Number One, Six.  There was  the Dam  Two,  Four,  and  d i s c u s s i o n but no f o r m a l statements i n r e f e r e n c e to  i n H e a r i n g Three.  H e a r i n g E i g h t d i d not c o n s i d e r the i s s u e .  Thus h e a r i n g s c o n t a i n e d amounts o f testimony on the Dam zero t o 97 per c e n t . d e t a i l elsewhere  were made a t  v a r y i n g from  Hearings F i v e and Seven are a n a l y z e d i n more  i n this  inquiry.  APPENDIX B COMPOSITION OF THE HEARINGS BOARDS  The P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Committee,  Seattle City Council.  Members: Chairman George Cooley Councilman Liem T u a i Councilwoman J e a n e t t e W i l l i a m s Councilman Wayne L a r k i n Councilman Timothy H i l l Special  Consultants:  P r o f e s s o r Douglass C. N o r t h , U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington P r o f e s s o r Yoram B a r z e l , U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington  The Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Commission. Chairman Arpad Masley, M.D. V i c e Chairman H a r o l d Heacock Ann W i d d i t s c h John McGregor C h a r l e s Stewart Sargent P r o f e s s o r Gordon O r i a n s Sam K i n v i l l e  The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission. Canadian  Section:  Chairman L o u i s Robichaud P r o f e s s o r Anthony S c o t t 5 c a . : : i Mr. Beaupre American S e c t i o n : Chairman C h r i s t i a n H e r t e r , J r . C h a r l e s Ross Eugene Weber  The S e a t t l e C i t y C o u n c i l . Hearings Chairman Wayne L a r k i n The C o u n c i l  219  APPENDIX C LISTING OF TECHNICAL BOARD PERSONNEL OF  THE  INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION  The I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission i s supported by ad hoc t e 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 i s s u e s b e f o r e the Commission. Boards are n o r m a l l y assembled to i n v e s t i g a t e an i s s u e w i t h p e r s o n n e l coming from v a r i o u s l o c a l and n a t i o n a l a g e n c i e s and p r i v a t e l i f e , and r e t u r n i n g to t h e i r normal p u r s u i t s a t the c o n c l u s i o n of t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . - Below i s a l i s t o f the i n d i v i d u a l s who a s s i s t e d the I n t e r 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 o f the e n v i r o n mental consequences i n Canada o f r a i s i n g Ross Dam t o e l e v a t i o n 1725.  Gary Bowden (Leader of the t e c h n i c a l group) w i t h P e a r c e , Bowden Economic C o n s u l t a n t s Vancouver, B.C. D i c k s o n MacKinnon Fisheries Biologist Department of F i s h e r i e s and F o r e s t r y P r o v i n c e 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 o f F i s h e r i e s and F o r e s t r y P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia V i c t o r i a , B.C. Dennis Lundblad Hydrographies E n g i n e e r Geologist Environmental Review and E v a l u a t i o n Department o f E c o l o g y Olympia, Washington  Section  Henderson M c l n t y r e C h i e f , Branch of Power Resources B o n n e v i l l e Power A d m i n i s t r a t i o n P o r t l a n d , Oregon Robert M c N e i l Plans Coordinator P a c i f i c Northwest R i v e r B a s i n s  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  516  1394  1910  PUC # 7 Seattle  713  563  0  1276  WSEC Seattle  2334  2439  70  4843  WSEC  2141  2369  54  4564  1426  1961  226  3613  1291  4652  222  6165  8421  13,378  572  22,371  Mr. Vernon IJC Bellingham IJC Vancouver TOTAL  LINES OF CANADIAN TESTIMONY BY POSITION HEARING  LINES PRO-DAM  CON-DAM  NEUTRAL  TOTAL FOR HEARING  PUC # 5 Seattle  0  851  0  851  PUC # 7 Seattle  0  0  0  0  WSEC Seattle  0  321  0  321  535  1360  0  1895  189  37  44  270  938  4652  222  5812  1662  7221  266  9149  WSEC Mt. Vernon IJC Bellingham IJC Vancouver TOTAL  S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t h i r e d Canadian c o n s u l t a n t s t o t e s t i f y a t t h e v a r i o u s hearings. T h e i r t e s t i m o n y accounted f o r 670 l i n e s o f 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  357  0  0  357  6759  6157  306  13,222  IJC Vancouver  TOTAL  S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t testimony g i v e n by Americans a t the v a r i o u s h e a r i n g s accounted f o r 4,666 l i n e s , a l l o f which was i n f a v o u r of t h e dam.  DISCUSSION Testimony i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e dam accounted f o r 60% o f a l l t e s t i mony a t t h e h e a r i n g s . Of t h i s testimony, 62% was Canadian. About 60% of t h e American testimony was i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e dam. About 79% o f the Canadian testimony was i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e dam. Testimony i n f a v o u r o f t h e dam accounted f o r about 40% o f the testimony a t a l l t h e h e a r i n g s . C i t y L i g h t w i t n e s s e s p r e s e n t e d about 63% o f t h i s testimony. C i t y L i g h t w i t n e s s e s accounted f o r about 30% of Canadian testimony i n f a v o u r o f t h e dam. Testimony by Canadians accounted 59% p r e s e n t e d by Americans.  f o r 41% o f a l l testimony, w i t h  222  APPENDIX E THE  SEATTLE CITY LIGHT HEARINGS ORGANIZATION  S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t had a number of w i t n e s s e s appearing a t the h e a r i n g s to r e p r e s e n t the company's p o s i t i o n on the dam. City Light as the a p p l i c a n t had t o prove t h a t the dam would b e n e f i t s o c i e t y and not cause the damages c l a i m e d by opponents. To do t h i s , S e a t t l e used s t a f f and c o n s u l t a n t s to p r e s e n t i t s case. Some of these a r e : A r t h u r Lane C o r p o r a t e Counsel f o r C i t y L i g h t Cas  Bradeen C i t y L i g h t Power Manager  John Nelson t h e n Superintendent of C i t y L i g h t R i c h a r d White Corporate Counsel F. F. Slaney F. F. Slaney and Company Resource P l a n n i n g C o n s u l t a n t s Vancouver, B.C. P r o f e s s o r Grant Sharpe S p e c i a l Consultant P r o f e s s o r , U n i v e r s i t y of Washington P r o f e s s o r H e r s c h e l Jones S p e c i a l Consultant P r o f e s s o r , U n i v e r s i t y of Washington  In a d d i t i o n , the company h i r e d t h r e e law f i r m s , one each i n Vancouver, B.C., S e a t t l e , and Washington, D.C. The company a l s o 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 Vancouver, B.C., T o r r e s a n and Associates. C i t y L i g h t spent s e v e r a l hundred thousand d o l l a r s on i t s p r e sentation. I t should be noted t h a t much of t h i s would have been n e c e s s a r y i n any case t o p l a n f o r the dam. But the t o t a l e x p e n d i t u r e s 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 L i g h t r e g u l a r s t a f f time i s i n c l u d e d .  223  CITY LIGHT TESTIMONY  C i t y L i g h t testimony r e p r e s e n t e d 24% o f a l l testimony and 63% of a l l testimony i n f a v o u r o f t h e dam. Below i s a l i s t o f t h e testimony o f C i t y L i g h t , a l l o f which, o f c o u r s e , i s i n f a v o u r o f the dam.  LINES OF TESTIMONY  HEARING  HEARING  TOTAL  PUC # 5  1910  309  PUC # 7  1276  stm  WSEC (Seattle)  4843  WSEC (Mt. Vernon)  4564  IJC (Bellingham)  3613  IJC (Vancouver)  6165  TOTAL  CITY LIGHT  1601  bm  1232  3611  .U363  3201  7<16  22,371  BALANCE  1023  fS35:6  28!9>  5142  17,0«1'5  APPENDIX F BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL AND AGRICULTURAL  ORGANIZATIONS  IN FAVOUR OF THE DAM  S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t and Power  Authority  A s s o c i a t i o n o f Washington B u s i n e s s Bendix S k a g i t Corporation E l e c t r i c a l Women's Round T a b l e E l e c t r i c League o f the P a c i f i c Northwest Hope (B.C.) Board o f Trade I n d u s t r i a l Energy Users Committee Mount Vernon Chamber o f Commerce Mount Vernon J u n i o r Chamber of Commerce National E l e c t r i c a l Contractors A s s o c i a t i o n Northwest P u b l i c Power A s s o c i a t i o n RugetLSbund Power and L i g h t Ross Lake R e s o r t s S e a t t l e Area I n d u s t r i a l Council S e a t t l e Chamber o f Commerce S k a g i t B u i l d i n g Trades C o u n c i l S k a g i t County A g r i c u l t u r a l C o o r d i n a t i n g Council Washington P.U.D. A s s o c i a t i o n Washington S t a t e 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 a t h e a r i n g s i n opp o s i t i o n to the p r o p o s a l t o 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 t h e N.C.C. C o a l i t i o n and the R.O.S.S. Committee.  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 S e a t t l e - b a s e d c o a l i t i o n a p p e a r i n g mainly t o argue a g a i n s t the dam because o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l impacts which would occur i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s ' s e c t i o n o f the r e s e r v o i r . In p a r t i c u l a r , they opposed f l o o d i n g o f 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 B i g Beaver V a l l e y . The N.C.C. C o a l i t i o n has no f o r m a l name, but i s u s u a l l y c a l l e d " t h e N t h r e e C" because the l e a d i n g group i n the c o a l i t i o n i s the two thousand-member N o r t h Cascades C o n s e r v a t i o n C o u n c i l . The twelve groups composing the coalition are:  the North Cascades C o n s e r v a t i o n C o u n c i l (2000 members) Friends of the Earth (600 members) Areo Club N a t i o n a l Parks C o n s e r v a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n the W i l d e r n e s s S o c i e t y the N a t i o n a l Audubon S o c i e t y X'ihe F e d e r a t i o n o f Western Outdoor Clubs o f Mountaineers (25,000 members) the E l k Park A s s o c i a t i o n the S e a t t l e Audubon S o c i e t y (2000 members) the S k a g i t E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o u n c i l the Washington E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o u n c i l  The N.C.C.C. C o a l i t i o n had s e v e r a l spokesmen. The member groups pooled t h e i r r e s o u r c e s and time a t h e a r i n g s t o a l l o w e x p e r t w i t n e s s ( * ) t o appear on v a r i o u s s u b j e c t s . Below i s a l i s t o f the c o a l i t i o n ' s w i t n e s s e s and t h e volume o f testimony they del i v e r e d a t the v a r i o u s s e t s o f h e a r i n g s :  226  LINES OF TESTIMONY BY N.C.C.C. COALITION  WITNESS  (HEARING)  PUC  WSEC  IJC  TOTAL  134  147  225  506  0  222  563  785  42  141  172  355  Margaret M i l l e r * the M i l l e r s a r e two b i o l o g i s t s who were c o n d u c t i n g a two-year study o f B i g Beaver V a l l e y near the S k a g i t  0  82  328  410  Dr. J e r r y F r a n k l i n * U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e  0  94  0  94  Dr. Dale C o l e * 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 o f s e v e r a l books the N o r t h Cascades  0  115  0  115  John Knowles* a c i v i l engineer with a Vancouver, B.C. c o n s u l t i n g firm  0  73  104  177  Dr. Mary Eysenbach* an a s s i s t a n t p r o f e s s o r of economics a t the U n i v e r s i t y of Washington  0  96  161  257  Tom Brucker lawyer f o r the C o a l i t i o n  0  36  83  119  31  282  37  487  207  1370  1917  3631  Dr. P a t r i c k Goldsworthy Chairman of the C o a l i t i o n , l e a d e r of the N.C.C.C. and a biochemistry professor, U n i v e r s i t y of Washington Brock Evans* the Northwest R e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the F e d e r a t i o n of Western Outdoor Clubs Joseph M i l l e r *  Others TOTAL  on  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 app e a r i n g m a i n l y t o argue a g a i n s t the dam because o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l impacts which would o c c u r i n Canada due t o the f l o o d i n g . The r e s e r v o i r would cover over 5,000 a c r e s o f the S k a g i t V a l l e y i n Canada. T h i s would f l o o d a prime r e c r e a t i o n a l a r e a which the Canadians c l a i m e d was o f growing importance t o a f a s t d e v e l o p i n g urban complex i n B r i t i s h Columbia and Washington. "R.O.S.S." stands f o r "Run Out S k a g i t S p o i l e r s " and i s a s p e c i a l group s e t up f o r t h i s i s s u e . The c o a l i t i o n has t h i r t e e n member groups including: the the the the the the the  B.C. W i l d l i f e F e d e r a t i o n (40,000 members) B.C. F e d e r a t i o n o f N a t u r a l i s t s (6,000 members) A l p i n e Club o f Canada (500 members) B.C. S i e r r a Club (500 members) Lower Mainland W i l d l i f e F e d e r a t i o n (6,000 members) Totem F l y F i s h i n g Club (100 members) S o c i e t y f o r P o l l u t i o n and E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o n t r o l (S.P.E.C., 3,000 members) Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y Outdoor Club (200 members) the Alma Mater S o c i e t y (Student government o f the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia) the B.C. M o u n t a i n e e r i n g Club (500 members) the B.C. N a t u r a l H i s t o r y S o c i e t y Community O r g a n i z a t i o n i n the Environment Environmental Systems A s s o c i a t i o n  Membership f i g u r e s must be taken as approximations and a r e n o t a d d i t i v e s i n c e persons may belong t o more than one group. Spokesmen f o r t h e R.O.S.S. Committee l i s t e d t h e i r membership as 45,000 members a t t h e h e a r i n g s .  The R.O.S.S. Committee had s e v e r a l spokesmen. Spokesmen appeared to r e p r e s e n t the Committee, member groups, o r both. While spokesmen agreed on t h e s t r a t e g i e s f o r the h e a r i n g s , they were n o t as f o r m a l l y o r g a n i z e d a t t h e h e a r i n g s as the N.C.C.C. C o a l i t i o n . Below i s a l i s t o f the committee's w i t n e s s e s and the volume o f testimony they presented:  228 LINES OF TESTIMONY BY R.O.S.S. COMMITTEE WITNESS  (HEARING)  John Massey Chairman o f R.O.S.S. & member of Totem F l y F i s h i n g Club Ken Farquharson a hydro e n g i n e e r & Chairman o f the B.C. S i e r r a C l u b ; R.O.S.S. Secretary Geoff Warden b i o l o g i s t w i t h B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch  PUC(5&7)  WSEC  IJC  TOTAL  276  72  212  560  (0) appeared at o t h e r PUC hearings  74  302  376  132  79  239  28  Bryan Gates b i o l o g i s t w i t h B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch C h a r l e s Dunham professor of f o r e s t r y Howard P a i s h p r e s i d e n t o f Howard P a i s h and Associates, a w e l l respected resource planning consultants' f i r m i n Vancouver, B.C.  26  26  64  34  98  134  118  252  John F r a s e r environmental lawyer & now Member o f P a r l i a m e n t f o r the Progressive Conservative Party  325  325  Dr. I a n E f f o r d p r o f e s s o r o f Animal Resource Ecology at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia  574  574  F. J . Bartholomew engineer  0  0  80  80  G. I . Culhane  0  103  669  772  Dr. Robin Harger  0  78  124  202  Mickey Rockwell  0  85  91  176  14  165  381  560  516  887  2837  4240  Others  TOTAL  229 The C o a l i t i o n s  Collectively  The C o a l i t i o n s d i d have knowledge o f the e x i s t e n c e o f one another and met on o c c a s i o n t o d i s c u s s the i s s u e and how t o pursue i t . They r e t a i n e d t h e i r s e p a r a t e i d e n t i t i e s , however, and appeared s e p a r a t e l y 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 d i d r e p r e s e n t a s u b s t a n t i a l segment o f i n p u t a t the hearings. VOLUME OF TESTIMONY BY COALITION COALITION  (Hearing)  TOTAL COALITIONS  PUC(5&7)  WSEC  IJC  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  T h i s volume o f testimony r e p r e s e n t s a s i z e a b l e p e r c e n t a g e o f the testimony a t the h e a r i n g s . Below i s a t a b l e showing p e r c e n t a g e s :  PERCENTAGES OF TESTIMONY BY COALITION COALITION Type o f 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%  T o t a l Testimony  19%  16%  35%  T o t a l 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. W i l d l i f e Federation (R.O.S.S.) Burlington Edison Environmental Club Chilliwack Fish and Game Protective Association Community Organization i n 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 P o l l u t i o n Programme Lower Mainland W i l d l i f e Association (R.O.S.S.) The Mountaineers (Officers) M.S.A. F i s h , Game, and Forest Protective Association National and P r o v i n c i a l 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 C l u b — P a c i f i c Northwest Chapter Skagit Alpine Club Skagit Environmental Council (N.C.C.C.) Society f o r P o l l u t i o n and Environmental Control (R.O.S.S.) Totem F l y Fishing Club (R.O.S.S.) Unit 26 Army, Navy, and A i r 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 B r i t i s h Columbia) B.C. Mountaineering Club Simon Fraser University Outdoor Club  231 APPENDIX I BIOGRAPHICAL LISTING OF INTERVIEWEES  JOHN BIGGS Mr. Biggs i s t h e D i r e c t o r o f t h e Department o f Ecology o f t h e S t a t e o f Washington. He s a t w i t h Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Comm i s s i o n i n t h i s c a p a c i t y as D i r e c t o r . He d e l i v e r e d a statement t o P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Committee h e a r i n g s when head o f the S t a t e Game Department. Mr. Biggs opposed t h e dam and when t h e E c o l o g i c a l Commission became deadlocked and unable t o make a d e c i s i o n , he committed t h e Department o f E c o l o g y t o opposing t h e dam. R. J . BROOKS Mr. Brooks i s an engineer w i t h t h e Chemithon C o r p o r a t i o n o f S e a t t l e . He has appeared a t s e v e r a l h e a r i n g s t o oppose the dam, i n c l u d i n g s e v e r a l o f the P.U.C. h e a r i n g s and t h e S e a t t l e W.S.E.C. h e a r i n g . GEORGE COOLEY Mr. Cooley was a C i t y Councilman f o r t h e C i t y o f S e a t t l e a t t h e time o f t h e h e a r i n g s . He s a t as Chairman o f the P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Committee d u r i n g i t s h e a r i n g s . He d e l i v e r e d a statement t o t h e W.S.E.C. h e a r i n g s f a v o u r i n g t h e dam on b e h a l f o f a m a j o r i t y o f t h e C i t y C o u n c i l . Mr. Cooley i s a drug salesman by o c c u p a t i o n but i s c u r r e n t l y employed w i t h t h e C i t y T r e a s u r e r ' s o f f i c e . He l e f t t h e C i t y C o u n c i l i n 1974. v  KEN FARQUHARSON Mr. Farquharson i s an eningeer w i t h wide e x p e r i e n c e i n h y d r o e l e c t r i c p r o j e c t p l a n n i n g . He i s chairman o f t h e B.C. S i e r r a Club and s e c r e t a r y o f the R.O.S.S. Committee. He spoke a t s e v e r a l h e a r i n g s i n o p p o s i t i o n to t h e dam, i n c l u d i n g P.U.C. h e a r i n g s , t h e W.S.E.C. Mt. Vernon h e a r i n g , sand t h e I.J.C. Vancouver h e a r i n g . Mr. Farquharson i s one of t h e s t r a t e g i s t s o f the Canadian o p p o s i t i o n t o the dam. PATRICK GOLDSWORTHY Dr. Goldsworthy i s a b i o c h e m i s t r y p r o f e s s o r a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington. He i s Chairman o f t h e North Cascades C o n s e r v a t i o n C o u n c i l and l e a d e r o f t h e N.C.C.C. C o a l i t i o n . He has been a c t i v e f o r a numb e r o f y e a r s i n support o f t h e N o r t h Cascades. N a t i o n a l Park p r o p o s a l s and o t h e r p r o p o s a l s f o r c o n s e r v a t i o n i n n o r t h e r n Washington. He has been on a study team and a c o n s u l t a n t t o t h e N a t i o n a l Parks S e r v i c e and has appeared i n numerous h e a r i n g s o f a l l d e s c r i p t i o n s . With r e f e r e n c e t o t h e Ross Dam, Dr. Goldsworthy has appeared a t t h e P.U.C. h e a r i n g s , t h e W.S.E.C. h e a r i n g s , and t h e I.J.C. h e a r i n g s . JOHN C. HILL Mr. H i l l i s t h e manager o f t h e Mount Vernon Chamber o f Commerce. As such, Mr. H i l l r e p r e s e n t s t h e Chamber a t h e a r i n g s . He has a Master's degree i n s o c i a l psychology. Mr. H i l l p r e s e n t e d a b r i e f f o r the Chamber i n f a v o u r o f t h e dam a t t h e W.S.E.C. h e a r i n g h e l d 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 o f S e a t t l e and a member o f the P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Committee a t the time of i t s h e a r i n g s . He i s a lawyer. Mr. H i l l p r e s e n t e d a b r i e f on b e h a l f o f a m i n o r i t y of the C i t y C o u n c i l i n o p p o s i t i o n to the dam a t the W.S.E.C. S e a t t l e hearing. DAVID LEMARQUAND Mr. Lemarquand was one of e i g h t co-authors o f the book The F u t u r e of the S k a g i t V a l l e y , which was w r i t t e n on a g r a n t from the Opportun i t i e s f o r Youth programme. The book was submitted to the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission. Mr. Lemarquand was p r e s e n t at the I.J.C. h e a r i n g s , but d i d 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 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia S c h o o l of Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , 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 o f the Environment. H i s assignment was the S k a g i t . He i s c u r r e n t l y w i t h the Westwater Research C e n t r e , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. CLAY LEMING Mr. Leming i s the person r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r e c o r d i n g o f h e a r i n g s and meetings of the S e a t t l e C i t y C o u n c i l . ARPAD MASLEY Dr, Masley i s the Chairman of the Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Commission and was Chairman a t the time of the h e a r i n g s . He i s one o f the opponents o f the dam on the Commission. Dr. Masley i s a p h y s i c i a n from -"&i?eWer#onV- Wa%tiU*n'g#om. :  WILLIAM PEARSON Mr. P e a r s o n i s t h e Mayor o f Sedro Woolley, Washington, and d e l i v e r e d a statement f a v o u r i n g the dam a t the W.S.E.C. h e a r i n g s i n Mount Vernon. Mr. Pearson i s the former owner o f W.RiJP. Lumber Company i n Sedro Woolley, and now i s employed as a c o n s u l t a n t t o the company. He i s a long time r e s i d e n t of the c i t y . ANN WIDDITSCH Mrs. W i d d i t s c h i s a member of the Washington S t a t e E c o l o g i c a l Commission and was so at the time of the W.S.E.C. h e a r i n g s . She was opposed to the dam. Mrs. W i d d i t s c h was an a c t i v i s t w i t h the American C i v i l L i b e r t i e s Union and the Washington E n v i r o n m e n t a l Council. She works as a c o n s u l t a n t on e n v i r o n m e n t a l and o t h e r matters. GORDON VICKERY Mr. V i c k e r y i s the S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of S e a t t l e C i t y L i g h t . He has been a t t h a t p o s t f o r almost two y e a r s , but was not w i t h t h e company at the time of the h e a r i n g s . He was f o r m e r l y the c h i e f o f the S e a t t l e F i r e Department and was a p p o i n t e d t o h i s p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n as a r e c r u i t from o u t s i d e 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}]}"
                            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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0099932/manifest

Comment

Related Items