© 2003 by Leo Poppoff

July 10, 2003

Basin Watch

by

Leo Poppoff

SURVEYING TAHOE'S POLICYMAKERS

In 1984, Paul Sabatier wanted to test a theory. Sabatier, a political
scientist, is Professor of Environmental Policy at UC-Davis. The theory,
as I understand it, is that conflicts eventually breed advocacy
coalitions. For his test, Sabatier selected two areas \-- Tahoe, which
was obviously in conflict, and San Francisco's Bay Conservation and
Development Commission, a coalition resulting from conflict over
development. Eventually, of course, coalitions also formed at Tahoe.
But, it wasn't very obvious to me - or most other folks - in 1984 that
it would ever happen.

Earlier, in 1970, another UC professor, E. Constantini, had conducted a
similar, less detailed, survey. It was a time when folks were optimistic
that the new agency would save the lake, allow development, and not
trample on locals' property rights. It was a tall order. And within a
decade, it was obvious that those diverse hopes and dreams couldn't be
fulfilled.

For his survey, Constantini selected agency officials, leaders of public
interest groups, and people mentioned in news articles. He looked for
folks that could somehow influence policy in the Tahoe Basin. It was an
elite group of 318 people.

By 1984, when Sabatier conducted his survey, the atmosphere was quite
different. There was a new and improved TRPA. Its Board of Governors and
Advisory Planning Commission had just completed an arduous three years
struggle to set environmental standards and fashion a regional plan to
achieve those standards. But California's Attorney General and
environmentalists didn't like it. They had obtained a restraining order
against the plan. Folks were tense, testy and discouraged.

Sabatier and colleagues surveyed 334 individuals during that 1984
controversy. They followed up with a survey of 534 people in 1990, when
things were looking better. By then, a series of consensus workshops had
modified the regional plan, and the litigation had been settled.

Finally, in 2001, Sabatier surveyed 657 of Tahoe's policy makers and
stakeholders. By this time, the current version of the TRPA had been in
existence for a couple of decades, but the lake was still deteriorating.
Things weren't looking very good.

So, Sabatier and his associates had the results of three surveys over
roughly two decades. If Constantini's survey is included, there are data
on the attitudes of Tahoe's policy makers over a three-decade span of
Tahoe planning and regulation. Sabatier cautions that the Constantini
survey was different enough from his that it's difficult to make direct
comparisons. However, some of Constantini's results add perspective to
changes over the three decades.

The U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station asked
Sabatier and his colleagues to compare the four sets of data. The idea
was to learn how policy maker attitudes had changed over the three
decades of regional planning in the Tahoe Basin. The results are
presented in "Stakeholder Belief Change in the Lake Tahoe Basin, 1970 to
200l." It was written by Paul Sabatier, Chris Weible and Maryann Hulsman
of UC-Davis, and Mark Nechodom of the Forest Service. It was published
in May 2003.

Who are the surveyed policy makers? They represent six sectors of
Tahoe's stakeholders: Local Governments and Public Utility Districts,
Regional Governments, State and Federal Governments, Environmental
Groups, Scientists and Consultants, and Business and Property Rights
Groups. Over three decades, the number and percentage of regional
government respondents increased considerably, state/ federal Government
respondents increased somewhat. Conversely, the percentage of local
government and business/property owners in the mix has decreased.

Sabatier points out that this reflects the general shift of authority
from a locally-dominated system in 1970 to a system in which regional
and state/federal institutions have grown in influence. There was a
small change in the percentage of survey respondents with principal or
part-time residences in the Basin, from 64% in 1970 to 57% in 2001. The
percentage of women in the policy maker group increased slightly from
21% to 27%. The percentage of policy makers with college or advanced
degrees increased from 62% in 1970 to 92% in 2001.

From answers to certain questions on the survey, respondents were
classified as conservative or liberal. Local government officials and
property rights groups were found to be most conservative, while
state/federal officials and environmental groups were the most liberal
\-- no surprise there. Regional government officials were found to have
become more liberal over the years, as have environmental groups.

According to Sabatier, the individuals surveyed changed between each
survey, reflecting personnel changes in agencies and interest groups
during the 30 years of the study. In each survey, some 2/3 of the
participants were new. Only one person was interviewed in all four
surveys. So, some of the changes in attitudes are due to the fact that
different folks are currently running things.

Now that we have an idea of why and when folks were surveyed, and who
they were, we'll look at how their attitudes have changed since 1970 and
what it means. Next time.

Comments? Send them to basinwatch@earthlink.net