F or water resources planners "the times they are a-changing." Success is no longer measured by the traditional yardstick of new structures, but by the basic quality and availability of our water. Environmental regulations, embodied in a growing number of regulatory agencies, surround us. Planning for the operation and maintenance of present facilities has become as critical as planning for new projects. Our guiding water resources laws and regulations ask us to project "without" and "with" project conditions. As if that isn't enough, we are told to "participate" with the public while we expand planning options. Are we water resources planners to become a new breed of democratic soothsayers or crystal ball gazers? To the contrary, systematically thinking about the future has become deadly serious to our democratic institutions, engineering services and planning professions. Let me illustrate. Do we move people to water or water to people? Past projections show adequate per capita fresh water on a global level. But usable water is often not accessible to people. A good deal of development in western and eastern civilizations can be seen in the context of answering this question. Think about it. How are we answering the question-today and tomorrow? In the upper midwestern United States we are talking about moving people away from water in flood plains. On the other hand, in the western United States, we hotly debate building further structures to bring water to people already settling far from it. Whatever the answer, as planners in the vitally important water resources arena we are part of that answer. The stakes are high but so are the opportunities. Public opinion surveys continue to reflect Americans' reduced trust in our professions and institutions. As "bureaucrats" and "engineers" our esteem is low and is getting lower. But even as this questioning of our institutions increases, so too does the call for more and new types of participation in decisions. It is a great testimony to our faith in democratic processes that we vigorously question our institutions while looking to these democratic processes for answers. Engineers and planners are at a nexus between the diver gent faith in democracy and low institutional esteem. Traditionally, they provide critical services for man's ability to survive and adapt. Or, for man, as Jacob Brownoski describes him, as an "explorer" of nature . . . the only (animal) not locked into his environment." But this tradition quickly erodes when a society's engineering capability diverges from its changing social values. Water resources planners have a unique opportunity, indeed responsibility, to help realign our institutions to our democratic faith. This means starting by discovering what should be done rather than starting by positing what cannot be done; moving beyond simply finding old solutions to old problems or even looking for new solutions to new problems. We must also creatively look for new solutions to old problems as well as to old solutions for new problems. Dr. Delli Priscoli is a social scientist with the Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Va., and currently Visiting Lecturer, Princeton University. Beyond this lofty appeal, water resources managers have practical problems. Managers must plan projects that can be implemented in some reasonable time. But projects can be halted or altered in planning, implementing and even operating stages. This is the water resources manager's "real world." A manager can ignore such possibilities, since "whatever will be, will be." He can fight the problem, and either "blow the opposition out of the water" or be "blown out of the water." Or, a manager can find ways of anticipating and mitigating such conflicts. Whatever the choice, each choice reflects an approach to managing probabilities beyond pure engineering feasibility, in an uncertain social environment. Like it or not, that is the ball park in which water resources managers are playing. In such a context this article addresses the question "why think about the future?" Specifically, the essay arrives at conclusions to that general question through discussion of these five questions: Is planning "predicting," or "creating" the future? What will thinking about the future do for us as managers? What is the meaning to society of how we anticipate the future? Prediction or Creation? What are the criteria of a good planner? Is a good planner one who makes a projection and somehow goes into hibernation for 20 years-only to return and find he is within five percent of an estimate. Or ten percent? Is the good planner one who can separate fact from fiction, or emotion from rationality? Science from politics? This or some variant is the oft-held view of planning. Often called an "instrumental" view, its results can be summed thusly: Planning must be limited to factual consideration of means toward ends which are established outside of the planning process. The view is neat and comfortable but almost useless to field planners. Ask yourself how much time is spent coordinating and meeting with people outside the agency. Compare that to time spent bending over the design board. In most cases, more and more time is spent outside with various publics. Do our managerial rewards fit such a time allocation? Simply put, we are part and parcel of that environment for which we plan. When we start planning, we interact with and change that planning environment. The planning itself becomes a change agent, and a degree of "'interactive bias" sets into the planning process. As a result, planners can subtly cross the line from scientific prediction to self-fulfilling prophecy. Social scientists have long recognized, and actual field experiences are now confirming, this observation. Consider for a moment population projections. When projecting small area population growth, any number-high or low-can become a political tool. A high number satisfies growthoriented values; a low number, status quo and low growth values. You can spend time arguing about the numbers but negotiation over the number often merely reflects values and preferred futures held by the negotiators. Is the number negotiation forum the proper forum for developing consensus about future growth? Maybe. But it is likely to be played out in technical terms which may exclude interested and even influential parties from participation. We can agree on a number call it a "prediction"-and defend it as scientifically objective. Increasingly, this will not work. If we are really thinking about the way things should be, perhaps the discussion format needs to be altered. As we do more impact assessment and evaluation, people will become more attentive. They will listen to our projections. I think the Bureau of Reclamation's estimation of recharge rates in the summer of 1977 illustrates how closely planners interact with their planning environment. A lot of farmers reduced planting due to low ground water recharge predictions. When these predictions proved to be far too low, farmers became irate. How many incidents such as this does it take before an institution finds that nobody listens? In one Corps of Engineer district, assessors armed with good technical engineering data started talking with people living near a reservoir take line. Unfortunately, a local church was inside that line. Concerned local citizens began to protest and even boycott pro-reservoir businesses. Upon reexamination, the church did not fall under the take line. A mistake had been made. However, the new information was not believed and only enhanced the Corps' "devious" image. Study after study of drought shows that the perception of drought-rather than less-than-minimum amounts of cubic feet per second or other technical measurement-determines public reactions. In the Northeast drought some years ago management of just such perception was the key issue. Low flow in Philadelphia raised the risk of salt encroachment in the water supply. Upstream releases raised the spectre of jeopardizing New York City for the sake of Philadelphia. To 'That boundary of a proposed impoundment inside of which all land is to be purchased prior to inundation. the degree that drought had been "projected" as serious, this germ of conflict escalated. We have only to look at western water rights "wars" to see how nasty things can become. When such conflict occurs we have to ask ourselves, "what role did our projections or process of projecting play in the outcome?" Often a strict instrumental view of planning can turn our well-meaning problem solving efforts into problem generating activities. Suppose, as has occurred, we are authorized to control urban flooding. As good planners, we talk to all concerned parties and develop a nice solution-channelizing through a blighted area, thereby ending the flooding and creating an aesthetic green space. Much to our surprise opposition mounts. The area is an urban, low income community. Crime rates are the chief area concerns. Our green belt is now viewed as providing the opportunity for more rape, theft and assault. In other words, our nice solution to a not so important problem has itself become a larger problem than the one we set out to solve. What happened? Too narrow an instrumental view of planning allows us to look comfortably at only that which is simple, easy and familiar. However, what have we done to meet our "without project" and "with project" analysis? The same means-toends reasoning that limited us could also aid us, if only we had projected how our proposed ends could then be used as means to various ends by others. If our planning activity does effect the planning milieu and we are, consciously or not, creating the future, what about the process by which we project? This begs the second question. Scientific-Administration or Political-Legislation Is planning politics or administration? This is no idle question. Planning and democracy often seem opposed. At least since the New Deal our political system has been attempting to synthesize these activities. Now there are almost as many definitions of politics as there are definers. One observer notes that "politics is the authoritative allocation of values." One of the best known contemporary definitions is "politics is who gets what, where and how." You notice what we are talking about-values, distribution of benefits, and future "Compare... time spent bending over the design board..." images. As planners, are we not also involved in such matters? Norton Long, a well known political scientist, sums up this thought: "The question is not whether planning will reflect politics, but whose politics will it reflect. . . ? Plans are in reality political programs. . . In the broad sense they represent political philosophies . . . ways of implementing different conceptions of the good life." rankly, those who are both receiving and not receiving about their future are made. The secret is out; Pandora's box is once again open. People are questioning the "technical" in decisions, especially decisions that make projections about their futures. Planning decisions are more and more clearly perceived as effecting the distribution of values within society. In such a world can we explain our role purely as scientific-administration? Often we refer to the "political" versus the "technical,' or the "citizen" versus the "expert." Although the distinctions are useful, the gray area between these extremes in creases. People working within institutions make public policy decisions. A tenet of our democratic ideology is that govemmental institutions provide opportunities for citizens to have a say in decisions which will affect their lives. In today's world, important decisions are made while carrying out activities we call "planning." Government planning activities are generally housed in administrative-bureaucratic agencies. Consequently, it is easy to see how planning can be viewed as primarily an administrative problem. But is it? For example, reducing the risk of flood damage obviously involves a set of rationally" thought out steps. A situation can be objectively studied, a structure proposed, engineering specifications established, and personnel requirements estimated. Certainly these technical operations require administrative and technical skill. But is there a risk if potentially flooded farmers don't perceive a risk? If not, and they are flooded, who pays the bill? Should a structure always be built? Should you propose an economical earth dam in a locality with a large cement industry? In short, does planning really assure public interest and welfare? ver the years accountability and representativeness of larly debate. If we are to help align important institutional resources to social values and needs, the accountability of those projecting the future is critical. Actually, broad scale future thinking is moving closer to our elected representatives. Look at Congresses' "alphabet-soup-scramble" for sovereignty over interpretation of the future. We now have CBO, OTA and GAO-all looking into the future and advising Congress. We are moving away from making planners into politicians and more toward making politicians planners. We all know that elected officials often avoid raising unknown future issues which could upset the apple cart. However, projecting the future in an open forum-as planners are required to do will increase the costs to elected officials of avoiding future projection formats. Non-involvement might even cost an election. The "layback and mousetrap the planner" syndrome will change. In making future projections, planners are forcing those with constituent accountability to buy-in" early. That activism is good. It helps planners solve socially relevant problems in socially acceptable ways. Although this sounds nice, will such open future projection increase conflict? The answer, I believe, is yes. But increased conflict can help crystallize issues. We are better off learning more about value impacts and issues early than late. Future projection can help us isolate extreme positions and clarify negotiable intermediary positions. The clarification of issues and conflicts as other than extremes offers hope for finding new mechanisms of conflict resolution to supplement the old. The fact that we so frequently ask the legal system to resolve conflict is testimony to our belief in rule of law. But that legal system is expensive and has limits. Like steel it is perfectly elastic until it breaks. When it snaps, it does so quickly and with little warning. Moreover, assuming before conflict arises that the legal system will be the primary mode of conflict resolution builds expensive conflict resolution into planning. If everybody knows they are going to court, the only way to play is to be "for" or "against." You can be sure that we will find those extremes. We can also be sure that those in the middle will either drop out or join an extreme. In short, the very system we believe so strongly in to resolve conflict, when misapplied, will end up generating more of that very conflict we wish to avoid. Open futures projection is a tool to help us avoid this dangerous syndrome. It helps expand and clarify that vast middle ground. For there is not one, but many possible futures. What is the Planner's Emerging Role? Given many possible futures, given the creation aspects of planning and given the value impact of planning decisions, planners obviously influence which future society follows. In this light, we can use our expertise purely to limit options and to conform with comfortable, timeworn solutions. On the other hand, we can also use expertise to ge nerate new options to meet changing social values. The first approach is heavily negative. The second is positive and much closer to the spirit of the planning profession. Figure 1 characterizes a simple two actor planning situation. Often our view of the planner's role is to negotiate close to point P; that is, to find an equilibrium among X and Y losses and gains. The further our plans move into Zones 1 and 2 the more "political" and difficult they become to imple ment. Zone 3 characterizes another view of the planner's role; that is, creating options and expanding horizons. In this view, we try to increase the wins for both X and Y. Indeed, our legal and regulatory requirements for anticipatory think |