Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Decision Making Tools topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Water boards outline practical tools for difficult decision making at coordinating committee
Summary
State and regional water board officials at the Water Quality Coordinating Committee reviewed approaches to handle contentious, high‑stakes decisions, emphasizing preparedness, public engagement, and procedural tools such as advance workshops, motions, and timing strategies.
Members of the State Water Resources Control Board and regional boards discussed tools and approaches to help elected members and staff reach and explain decisions that are likely to be contentious.
The discussion at the Water Quality Coordinating Committee emphasized preparation and public engagement as foundations for better outcomes. Michael Laufer, who led a session on the subject, said ‘‘preparedness … will help you work through a difficult decision’’ and urged board members to ask questions in advance so staff can bring the right material to the meeting.
Speakers recommended a suite of practical steps: use advance workshops to narrow issues; invest in broad public engagement early and often; treat staff as technical and public‑engagement resources to be tested, not presumed infallible; put motions on the record to let alternatives be considered; and use time strategically — either pressing to finish while stakeholders are present or continuing items when a majority is not ready. "Don't be afraid to have these difficult decisions in public. It's what Bagley‑Keene was put there for," Laufer said.
Panelists also advised procedural clarity and professionalism. They urged board members to limit out‑of‑meeting contacts, speak from the dais when making choices, and keep post‑decision commentary collegial so boards can continue to function. Eric Oppenheimer, State Water Board executive director, described staff’s role: to present thorough, objective options but not to make the board’s vote.
The session included case‑study presentations (below) that leaders said illustrated the approach: intense stakeholder engagement, adaptation of draft rules where feasible, and the use of work groups to turn resistance into collaboration. Speakers repeatedly framed these techniques as a way to make the process—and the outcome—more defensible and understandable to the public.
The committee closed the session by inviting members to apply lessons learned to future rulemakings and enforcement matters, and to treat difficult decisions as opportunities for iterative improvement.
