A conflict ecology model applied to Nee Gronda Reservoir development

Material Information

A conflict ecology model applied to Nee Gronda Reservoir development
Brown, Sally P
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
iv, 101 pages : maps ; 28 cm


Subjects / Keywords:
Reservoirs -- Planning -- Colorado -- Kiowa County ( lcsh )
Conflict management -- Colorado -- Kiowa County ( lcsh )
Conflict management ( fast )
Reservoirs -- Planning ( fast )
Colorado -- Kiowa County ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Urban and Regional Planning, School of Architecture and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Sally P. Brown.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
27786135 ( OCLC )
LD1190.A78 1987 .B767 ( lcc )

Full Text
A Comiict Ecobay model
Kyyiie to Nee Gronia Reservoir
Sally P Brown
Department of Urban ant Regional Planning University of Colorado at Denver
December y&7

A Conflict Ecology Model Applied to Nee Gronda Reservoir Development
Sally P. Brown
A thesis presented to the University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Urban and Regional Planning
December 1987

I wish to thank Bernie Jones for his guidance and direction as my thesis advisor. I also want to thank Fritz Steiner and Bill Leon for their comments and suggestions on the work. Thanks goes to George Weber for his recommendations and advice on the development of the Conflict Ecology Model.
Special appreciation and thanks is due the Center for Community Development and Design of the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs for the opportunity to undertake this project, and for their support and assistance in its completion.

I. INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose of Study
II. CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN PLANNING 3 Nature of Planning and Conflict Planners as "Managers of Change" Areas of Conflict in Planning
III. CASE STUDY 11 Definition of Case Study Background to Nee Gronda and the Conflict
IV. METHODOLOGY 21 Literature Review Case Study Data
V. EXPLANATION OF MODEL 2 9 Basis of Model Systems Theory in Policy Analysis Origination of Model Definition of Model Components
VI. APPLICATION OF MODEL 41 Model Presentation Stage I Stage II Stage III

A. Interview Questionnaire Form
B. Editorial to the Kiowa County Press

3.1 Southeast Colorado Location Map.........................13
3.2 Great Plains Reservoir System Location Map..............14
3.3 Great Plains Reservoir System...........................15

5.1 Blank Conflict Ecology Model Matrix.......................3 6
6.1 Conflict Ecology Model - Stage 1.......................43
6.2 Conflict Ecology Model - Stage II......................59
6.3 Conflict Ecology Model - Stage III.....................77
6.4 Conflict Ecology Model - Complete Model................89

The purpose of this study is to apply a conflict management model, based on open systems theory, to a planning policy issue. Since planning often involves many societal groups with diverse interests, conflict is not uncommon in the planning process. While in small-scale planning projects, conflict may not cause significant problems, in large-scale projects, conflict can present a major obstacle to achieving project goals. How planners handle conflict can influence the quality of policy decisions.
If conflicts are to be adequately resolved, it is essential to understand the fundamental issues that underlie them. In complex planning projects, this is not an easy task. The Conflict Ecology Model being presented and applied in this study proposes a framework planners can use to understand and assess conflictual situations. The purpose of the model is to systematically outline the components of a conflict to aid in identifying critical planning issues. The goal of the model is to outline the elements of a conflict to help develop planning options and eventually planning decisions. The name Conflict Ecology Model was chosen for the model, because it suggests a model that studies the relationship between natural and social systems, and their environments.
After a brief discussion of the nature of planning and

conflict, and areas of conflict in planning, the case study is defined. The study concerns the potential development of Nee Gronda Reservoir, one of the Great Plains Reservoirs in Southeastern Colorado. Background information is provided on the conflict regarding reservoir development, and then the methodology used in the study is explained. The theoretical and conceptual basis for the Conflict Ecology Model is explained and components of the model are described. After applying the model to the reservoir conflict, an evaluation is made concerning its usefulness in outlining and understanding this planning conflict.

Nature of Conflict and Planning
Planners are faced with a wide range of conflicting objectives to implement. The gradual understanding of the earth's limited resources has heightened the likelihood of social and political conflict in attempts to find equitable ways of managing these resources. Decreasing amounts of developable land, as well as economic recessions, also impact social and cultural conflict. In a sense, planning is concerned with the allocation of limited resources, whether natural or social, and conflict concerning such allocation decisions will undoubtably always be present. Conflict in planning involves the interaction of two or more parties, with incompatible goals concerning the use of scarce resources (Minnery 1985).
The built environment is in many ways a result of conflicts in the past and present, among different groups in society.
These conflicts concern the struggle over use of limited resources. As ideologies rise and fall and balances of power shift, the built environment is affected. This can be a continuing process, "with the past constraining the present and together binding and limiting the future" (Pahl 1968; quoted from Minnery 1985). This process is a difficult one for planners to

manage with traditional planning methods. Many conventional planning methods have tended to emphasize the technical assistance and advisory roles of the planner. Perhaps planners need to place as much emphasis on conflict, when handling specific land-use issues, as on technical issues. If the pervasiveness of conflict is accepted, then one judgement of planning approaches should be how well they deal with conflict.
Planners as "Managers of Change"
Catanese suggests that planners need to be "managers of change", rather than technical experts responsible for solving all community problems (Catanese 1974). With the federal government cutbacks of the 1980's placing more responsibility on the state and local governments for planning related activities, this approach is even more critical. This shift suggests that local governments could have more control over their destinies. Planners would be invaluable as managers of the changes that could be generated by this increased local responsibility.
This approach to planners as managers, of change could help close the gap between planning and implementation that often exists. The planners would assist in the determination of overall community objectives, directed by the policies set forth by community leaders and special interest groups. In this approach, the planner would not set the objectives for the community but would act as a catalyst for achieving such goals. While planners would function as technical resource people, this

would not be their main role. Planners would work more within the political process, as managers of planning rather than as makers of plans.
Planning such as this would require skills and knowledge in conflict management. The planner managing conflict can offer practical, feasible results obtained through compromise and mutual adjustments (Catanese 1974). Compromise and coalition building are the essence of conflict management. The planner could assure that planning results meet the objectives of the community, and are fair to the community at large, as well as special interest groups.
For planners to adequately manage change and conflict, broader skills would be required, with less emphasis on technical abilities. These skills involve understanding and solving policy questions, and knowing how to intervene in the political process most effectively. The ability to resolve disputes among groups would also be necessary. These skills are difficult to employ in the often complex and contradictory duties of planners (Forester 1987) But an understanding of how and in what circumstances they can be used can lead to more practical, ethical, and socially and politically acceptable plans.
The Conflict Ecology Model presented in this study, offers a framework planners can use to understand and manage conflict. While its use would not be practical in all planning projects, the nature of the model is such that it would be useful in many policy issues. An examination of the areas of conflict in

planning could be helpful in understanding how conflict impacts various aspects of planning.
Areas of Conflict in Planning
Minnery (1985) has identified four areas of conflict affecting planning. While there are a wide range of conflicts affecting planning, this grouping offers a useful way of categorizing them. The first of these areas concerns conflicts in the human, and social and political dimensions of planning. Conflict arises when individual or group goals differ. These interpersonal conflicts can be linked with the larger society. Conflicts arising from the social and political relations of planning are possibly some of the most common. The many groups, organizations, professions and divisions of society all have some goals that differ from those of other groups. These conflicts can concern a range of questions from whether planning should be carried out at all, to zoning appeal cases. Efforts to plan for these various groups can invariably lead to conflict. This social diversity is where at least in part, planning becomes political. One definition of politics is the process whereby people, singly or in groups, try to influence the choice of social means and ends, and the distribution of valued social goods (Minnery 1985). In other words, politics basically concerns who gets what, how, when and where. Planning becomes political when the efforts of certain individuals or

organizations come into conflict with the efforts of others.
The second and possibly the most common source of conflict concerns resource based planning. The case study in this paper revolves around a resource based conflict. These resources can include non-tangibles, such as information or location, or the physical resources of land, water or air. Conflict in this area generally involves decisions concerning the optimal use or uses of the resource in question. These resource conflicts are typically most severe when the resource is widely desired or is in limited supply, either naturally or through control of a group in society. Conflict can also arise when the use of the resource for one activity precludes its use for others. Often then, conflicts over resources are value conflicts concerning the best use or allocation of the resource.
Methods of planning is the third area where conflict is often found in planning. Today, with increasing demands being placed on our natural and social resources, methods that do not consider the possibility of conflict will most likely not work. Optimally, planning methods should incorporate conflict as part of the process. Systems theory, the basis for the model being applied in this study, has contributed to these attempts to address conflict in planning methods. Systems approaches to planning suggest that the planning process can be divided into definable stages taking place in a related, logical sequence.
More recent views of this thinking emphasize the argumentation used in planning methods as sources of conflict. This approach

also attempts to address the reality of the complex environment within which planning decisions occur. Planning decisions generally involve three types of frictions; among interest groups and or decision groups, among planning options, and among the impacts of planning decisions. More technical methods can be used in investigating these decisions, such as market studies or cost-benefit analysis, but more socially-oriented methods must be used in the actual decision-making. particularly when conflicting goals are involved.
The fourth area of conflict in planning concerns organizational conflicts. Almost all planning proposals are generated, implemented and controlled by organizations, thus conflict among organizations, over a variety of issues, is common. Conflicts concerning organizations include conflicts within organizations, for example where the planning of a bikeway system falls within one organization or department but the responsibility for construction falls within another. Conflicts among or between organizations, particularly where organizations have different goals, are another type of conflict. Conflicts with organizations are the last type of conflict. This could involve conflict betweens political authorities and informal groups over issues such as environmental conservation.
Certain organizational conflict is inherent in the way planning is administered. A progressive planning process can often conflict with a strict administrative structure that does not allow all planning options to be considered. Also,

efficiency and innovation can differ within an organization, where the pressure of meeting deadlines can dominate efforts to innovatively handle conflict (Minnery 1985) .
Despite its disruptive power, conflict is believed to be an important social mechanism which cannot be removed from society or human relations (Minnery 1985). Since human conflict can be disruptive, it needs to be understood, managed and channelled. Conflict can arise from instinctive sources or rational considerations. Human intelligence can be used to manage and control conflict and even to direct it towards the improvement of life. With diminishing natural resources and the increased demands being placed on them, this need for understanding and management is essential for future generations.
The full range and extent of planning conflict is too broad to be discussed in detail. The purpose of this discussion is to provide a brief idea of how planning and conflict are related.
It is also to present new ideas on how conflict can be handled in the planning process. Just as conflict and planning can be inseparable, so too are policy planning and physical planning. Before workable physical plans can be drawn, practical policy must be developed. It is most often in the policy arena that conflict occurs. Addressing conflict in policy decisions is crucial if we are to avoid damage to our social, political and natural systems. Therefore, understanding the conflicts surrounding planning policy development is critical in making responsible planning decisions.

Definition of Case Study
The purpose of the case study is to apply the Conflict Ecology Model to an actual situation, specifically the potential development of Nee Gronda Reservoir. The reservoir study presents an opportunity to use the model, and evaluate how well it outlines a conflict in a time-oriented fashion. While many of the issues surrounding Nee Gronda development are complex, the intention here is not to pursue these issues in depth.
Models are the devises humans use to represent, implement or test results of theoretical thinking (Krone 1980). They are simplifications or abstractions of reality. Even with attempts to avoid nonobjective analysis, any application of a model such as this incurs some degree of subjectivity. The intent is that the model can be useful across a range of planning situations, as a way to organize knowledge and produce insights into critical planning issues.
Background to Nee Gronda and the Conflict
The historical information presented here was obtained from the 1979 Nee Gronda Reservoir Study (Blossom et al. 1979). Nee Gronda reservoir is the largest of four naturally occurring

depressions known as the Great Plains Reservoirs. They are used for storing irrigation water in Southeastern Colorado. The reservoirs are located in Kiowa County approximately 150 miles southeast of Denver, via Interstate 70 and U.S. 287. (See Figure 3.1 for a map of the region.) The reservoir names are Indian in origin, with Nee Gronda meaning "Big Water", Neenoshe meaning "Standing Water", Neesopah meaning "Black Water", and Neeskah meaning "Queen". (Figures 3.2 and 3.3 are maps of the Great Plains Reservoir system.)
Natural depressions such as these reservoirs occur throughout this mid-west region of the United States. Geologists have theorized that they were formed by wind erosion or structural subsidence. These depressions can vary in size from just a few acres to several thousand acres, and up to a 60 foot depth (Blossom et al. 1979). The Great Plains Reservoirs cover several thousand acres, making them some of the largest.
The reservoirs have been repositories of water for centuries. Prior to their development for irrigation water, flood and storm runoff was the source of water. Despite their erratic water levels, the reservoirs attracted people Indians, settlers, trappers in the early years. During this period, the reservoirs were referred to as "Buffalo Wallows" since they were used as watering holes by the herds of buffalo that roamed the plains.
Because of the harsh, arid conditions, the Great Plains settled slowly after the Civil War. The Homestead Act of 1862

F i gure
3. i


Fi gure

or City

was instrumental in the settling of the Great Plains region.
Early settlers primarily ranched. But farming and commerce were encouraged with the development of railroads and irrigation in the 1880's. Also in the late 1880's the U.S. government granted thousands of acres of land and water rights to the State of Colorado. As a result, water decrees were established and irrigated farming was underway by 1890.
In 1892 a complex system of canals and dams was proposed, using water from the Arkansas River. The Great Plains Water Storage Company was organized to construct the system in 1895.
The canal and storage system was completed in only four years, by 1899. Final decrees for water rights were granted in 1927 to the original irrigation companies, predecessors to the current irrigation companies.
A community developed near Nee Gronda in the early 1900's. People from the community and the surrounding region were attracted to the reservoirs for recreation, and it soon became a favorite gathering spot. But with the unpredictable climate of the plains and the dust bowl of the 1930's, people moved away leaving only a few abandoned buildings as reminders today.
With the development of other water storage facilities, the Great Plains Reservoirs have been used less for water storage. Recreation virtually ceased at Nee Gronda when the irrigation companies stopped running water to it in the 1950's. History shows however, that Nee Gronda is, with the more suitable vegetation and wildlife, the most popular and appropriate spot

for recreation of all the Great Plains Reservoirs.
With this history of water storage and recreation, it is inevitable that Nee Gronda should again someday serve as a recreation area for Southeastern Colorado. Citizens have dreamed of Nee Gronda as a permanent, developed resource for many years. This interest led to the Kiowa County Commissioners initiating a study of Nee Gronda by the University of Colorado in 1979. Since that time interest continued to grow and became organized in 1985 when the Southeast Colorado Recreation Association (SECRA) was formed. A contributing factor has been surplus water from above average precipitation, meaning the reservoir has been full since the mid 1980's. SECRA has spearheaded the efforts of attempting to realize a multiple-use reservoir. SECRA requested assistance from the Center of Community Development and Design (CCDD) of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs for research, planning and community facilitation. Proposed studies were approved and funded by SECRA, local governments, local citizens and the Colorado Department of Local Affairs in 1985, and are currently underway.
The purpose of the CCDD study is to investigate the feasibility of three primary goals for the development of Nee Gronda. These goals include permanently storing water in Nee Gronda in sufficient quantity to :
- increase the quantity of water for irrigation.
develop the reservoir into a recreation area and wildlife refuge.

improve the quantity and quality of domestic water supplies.
use the reservoir and related developments to stimulate and diversify economic development (Weber and Johnson 1986) .
The primary objective of CCDD is to eventually reach consensus (incorporating the above goals) on first, whether the reservoir should be developed and second, if so, what form the development should take. The goals obviously represent the interests of many groups of people in Southeastern Colorado. Because of this, there are differing views concerning whether Nee Gronda should be developed and if so, how it should be developed. Conflict arises in attempts to meet the interests of all groups involved. Conflict is also generated by the many questions needing to be answered, including ones dealing with engineering hydrology, recreation and wildlife issues, domestic water supply and legal and financing issues. The CCDD is attempting is address these questions at the present time (December 1987).
A key factor in the possible development of Nee Gronda is to identify options available for obtaining permanent water storage at the reservoir. Two irrigation companies in the area own the direct flow and storage rights to the reservoir. The companies are the Amity Mutual Irrigation Company, which owns water and storage rights, and the Fort Lyon Ditch Company, which owns diversion rights and the canal for the initial transport of water to Nee Gronda.
There are many participants that need to be involved in

development plan decisions, as well as many political, social and economic issues that need to be addressed. Citizens must work together to reach consensus, and to develop and implement their own ideas and solutions. The purpose of the case study is to apply the Conflict Ecology Model to the issues and debate surrounding Nee Gronda. How this conflict is addressed and managed could have significant implications regarding whether consensus is reached about how and whether Nee Gronda should be developed.

The research for this study has two dimensions. First, a literature review was undertaken in the areas of conflict management in planning and systems theory as the basis for the Conflict Ecology Model. The second area of research involved gathering data for the case study.
Literature Review
A literature search was conducted at the Auraria Higher Education Center Library in Denver and the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs (UCCS) Library. A computerized search was also done on two national database systems.
The library sources were essentially their respective card catalogue systems, the computerized system at Auraria and the Library of Congress Classification card system at UCCS. Subject areas searched included those related to conflict management or conflict resolution, urban and environmental planning, public policy analysis, open systems theory and community development.
The computerized search used the GeoBase Abstracts (Geographical) Database and the PAIS (Public Affairs Information Service) Database. Combinations of the following terms were used to search these databases:

conflict management
conflict resolution
urban and environmental planning
water resource development
policy analysis
systems theory
community development
The following resources were most useful for this study. In the area of systems theory, Katz's and Kahn's book The Social Psychology of Organizations 2ed. described the background and formulation of open systems theory and its application to social systems. Katz and Kahn were among the first authors to write about open systems theory applied to the social sciences and to provide the theoretical basis for this approach. Robert M. Krone's book Systems Analysis and Policy Sciences combined systems theory and policy analysis concepts. The book provided useful definitions of the terminology and concepts used in these areas of study. The book Public Policy-Making by James E. Anderson provided good descriptions of public policy-making and decision-making theories as a basis for the Conflict Ecology Model.
Since the area of conflict management in urban planning is a relatively new field of study, literature specifically combining the two was limited. John R. Minnery's book Conflict Management in Urban Planning was most useful in examining the theoretical aspect of conflict and planning. The book provided a good

overview, from the conceptual side, to the more practical matters concerning conflict and planning. The more practical concerns of conflict in planning were well addressed by John Forester in his article "Planning In the Face of Conflict" in the Journal of the American Planning Association(JAPA). Forester discusses the elements of land use conflicts and suggests six strategies planners can use in handling various planning disputes. A book written by Anthony James Catanese in 1974, Planners and Local Politics, suggests that planners need to act as "managers of change," in less technical and advisory roles. The book also addresses the need for planners to possess conflict management skills.
In summary, the literature reviewed indicated a need for practical methods planners can use in assessing conflict in policy planning issues. While Catanese suggests planners need to work more as conflict managers, he does not offer specific suggestions on how planners should do this. This study deals with issues such as these raised by Catanese, by offering and applying the Conflict Ecology Model to the Nee Gronda situation.. In order to do this certain kinds of data were needed.
Case Study Data
With the many issues and participants involved in the Nee Gronda situation, collecting data was not an easy task. The purpose of this data gathering was to determine the key issues and participants, within a broad framework of knowledge. Data

for the case study were obtained from three sources; interviews, document review and observation.
The primary source of information was a series interviews with key individuals involved in the conflict. How the questionnaire used in the interviews was constructed and administered, and how the sample was chosen are explained below.
The questionnaire was designed based on the Conflict Ecology Model. Rather than a strict set of questions, standardized categories of information were used, with these categories defined by the model components. (See Appendix A for the questionnaire form.) The interviews were structured, meaning an attempt was made to collect the same or similar information from all those interviewed, using open ended questions, within the broad categories of information. While the questioning tended to be structured, the nature of the interviews was more informal. The interviews were conducted in person at locations chosen by the interviewee, such as offices, homes and cafes. Written notes were taken during the interviews in an attempt to obtain accurate data. The interviews generally lasted about one hour and were conducted in September and October of 1987. The purpose of these interviews was only to collect data, not to influence the people in the conflict in any way.
The sample was chosen to select those people identified as being in positions of power in regards to decision-making or as having some interest or stake in the decision-making or decision outcomes. The decision about whom to interview was made based on

review of existing Nee Gronda documents, newspaper clippings and observations from meetings. Attempts were made to identify people according to what position they held in the situation; whether an institutional role, a reputational role (meaning they have a reputation for being powerful and indeed are), or decision-making role (meaning who within an organization actually has the decision-making power). Eleven in-person interviews were conducted. Interviews were held with the Kiowa County Commissioners, the Prowers County Commissioners, the mayor of Lamar, representatives from SECRA, representatives from both irrigation companies and three landowners. In addition, some technical information was collected over the phone.
Document review was another source of data for the case study. Two studies had already been published on Nee Gronda, Nee Gronda Reservoir Study (Blossom et al. 1979) and Nee Gronda Reservoir Development Plan Phase I: Preliminary Assessment and Concept Plan (Weber and Johnson 1986). These reports were invaluable sources of information about the reservoir. Other sources included newspaper articles from the Lamar Daily News and the Kiowa County Press, collected over the past few years by CCDD. Various other documents were collected from the Lamar Chamber of Commerce and the Prowers County Historical Society.
Direct observation occurred at a community meeting held by CCDD on October 19, 1987 in Eads. The purpose of the meeting was to involve local citizens in research efforts and decisionmaking. The meeting was attended by over 50 people, with almost

all of the key groups being represented. This was an excellent opportunity to observe the interaction among the groups involved in Nee Gronda decision-making.
The data collected from these sources were used to build the Conflict Ecology Model. These data can be grouped into three general categories. The first category was historical or factual information. When the Great Plains Reservoir Systems was developed or the number of acre-feet of water in the reservoir would be examples of this type of data. These data were mainly used in outlining the context component of the model.
The second category of information concerned the individuals or organizations involved in the Nee Gronda issue. An effort was made to identify all the parties needing to be involved, to be certain all interests would be represented. The type of relationships that existed between the parties were also identified, whether the relationships were cooperative or conflictual in nature. Questions were also directed at determining what one party believed another party's interests to be about Nee Gronda. This was examined in an attempt to understand what participants' perceptions were of each other.
This information was applied to the structure and process components of the model.
The interests or opinions of the various parties formed the third category of data. Attempts were made to determine what each parties interests were in the development of Nee Gronda. Also, an effort was made to find out what opinions and concerns

the parties had, such as whether the reservoir should be developed and if so, how it should be developed and what problems or benefits it might incur. Another area investigated was the resources a participant might have available to aid in the development of Nee Gronda. This could be such things as financial resources, technical assistance or political skills. This information was applied to the structure, process and product components of the model.
The information discussed in this chapter concerned the general findings of the literature review, and the actual data collected about Nee Gronda used in completing the Conflict Ecology Model. In the next chapter the specific theoretical and conceptual basis for the model is examined in more detail.

Basis of Model
Open systems theory is the basis for the Conflict Ecology Model being used in the case study. While there are many historical examples of systems thinking, particularly in the scientific fields, this approach to problem solving did not become well defined in the United States until the 1940's as an approach to warfare problems of World War II (Krone 1980). Since that time, systems theory applications have grown into many fields of study and have offered a new way of viewing the world, one concerned with the relationships within integrated and organized wholes, rather than one concerned with isolated events and narrowly defined facts (Krone 1980).
In general terms, a system can be defined as a set of interrelated elements engaged in some activity. Systems theory attempts to impose a common conceptual order on a wide range of events (White 1980). A system is characterized by wholeness, organized complexity and an interdependence among actions within the system. System components include inputs of people, structure, processes and outputs, creating a dynamic arrangement which grows, alters or decays over time. The term "equifinality" has been applied to systems, meaning that from several beginning

states, a final state may be reached and from one beginning, several end states may be reached. This indicates the dynamic nature of theory.
Open systems theory, as opposed to closed system theory characterized by the "black box" syndrome, emphasizes the close relationship between a structure and its supporting environment. Katz and Kahn (1978) approach open systems theory through the concept of entropy, which assumes that a system will soon run down without continued inputs. This approach is well suited to the study of social systems, since humans are the energy sources of the systems, through their motivations, behaviors and interactions. Inputs of energy and the conversion of output into further energetic input constitute transactions between the social system and its environment (Katz and Kahn 1978). This characteristic of open systems suggests that the output, after being processed by the system, will yield an outcome that will be used again by that system or other systems or groups. From this point of view, environmental inputs and systems outputs should be constantly examined. Different levels of systems and their interrelationships are also considered in open systems theory. Individual functions can be brought together as collective behavior in achieving more general outcomes.
The definition and application of system theory offered here is but one of many points of view. Many disciplines of study in the physical, natural and social sciences have applied systems thinking in their practices. The roots of systems theory can be

traced to several individuals and many fields of study. Ludwig von Bertalanffy is responsible for the formulation of general systems theory. Bertalanffy originated this theory in the 1920's in the field of biology, in suggesting an approach to life based on a organismic point of view rather than a mechanistic one (Hughes 1969). His definition of general systems theory states that "it is a logico-mathematical field, the subject matter of which is the formulation and derivation of those principles which hold for systems in general. A system can be defined as a complex set of elements standing in interaction. These are general principles holding for systems, irrespective of the nature of the component elements and of relations of forces between them" (von Bertalanffy; quoted from Hughes 1969).
Many other people have contributed to systems theory, such as Marx, who concentrated on systems and the social sciences, emphasizing the internal dynamics of social structures and societal organizations (Katz and Kahn 1978). Structural-functional theory, formulated by Talcott Parsons, examines social structures from the point of view of the functions they serve.
F. H. Allport's event-structure theory and Kenneth Boulding's applications to economics have also served has major contributions. These are just a few of the individuals who have contributed to systems thinking.
Systems Theory in Policy Analysis
Systems thinking has been applied to public policy analysis,

which is the discipline of study upon which the Conflict Ecology Model is based. Systems application to public policy analysis is relevant to planning since it allows insight into the complex and highly interrelated cultural, social, political and spatial phenomena that defines planning. This approach allows planning to modeled or formulated into understandable, quantifiable systems (Hughes 1969). Of the public policy analysis approaches defined in the literature, political systems theory and functional process theory would most closely correspond to an open systems theory model. Political systems theory, as defined by Easton, looks at political system as those distinguishable and interrelated institutions and activities in society that make authoritative and value allocation decisions which are binding on society (Anderson 1975).
The first system component defined by the theory is inputs into the political system, such as demands and resources from the environment. The environment is composed of the conditions and events outside the boundaries of the political system. The demands are the actions taken by individuals or groups to satisfy their interests, while supports are the acceptance by the members of society of the decisions and actions undertaken by the political system. A key component to this theory, which clearly is based in open systems, is the concept of feedback. This suggests that public policy may alter the demands and supports as well as the environment, thus possibly altering the character of the political system itself. This implies a flow or ongoing

process of public policy outcomes producing new demands leading to further policy outcomes. The usefulness of such an approach to public policy decisions is in organizing inquires into policy formulations, as well as addressing such questions as "How do external factors affect the context of public policy (or vice versa)?" and "How do external factors generate demands on the system?" While political systems theory is strong in describing system components, its weakness is in describing internal processes such as decision-making, or in describing how decisions are made in the "black box" of the political system.
Functional process theory focuses on the functional activities that occur in the policy process. Harold Laswell (Anderson 1975) is a noted contributor to this theory, and has defined a scheme of seven categories for functional analysis to use in policy analysis. The stages defined by Laswell include:
1. intelligence how do policy makers obtain the information they need and how is it developed
2. recommendations how are policy recommendations made and promoted for specific issues
3. prescription how are general rules adopted, enacted and by whom
4. invocation who determines whether behavior contravenes rules or laws
5. application how are rules and laws applied and enforced
6. appraisal who appraises the operation, success or

failure, of policies
7. termination how are rules or laws changed or terminated from their original form Laswell refers to this as a "decision process." While this does imply a process on a particular issue, it goes beyond that in suggesting a course of action concerning some policy matter (Anderson 1975). The process becomes cyclical in fashion since policy-makers may seek and use new information in changing the original policy process. Since the theory is not tied to any particular institutions or political or social arrangements, it lends itself to a helpful form of comparative policy formation analysis and represents a way of simplifying policy issues into functional categories. A problem though in functional process theory is its tendency to define policy formation as an intellectual process, neglecting political and social variables in the environment.
Origination of Model
These public policy analysis theories serve as the theoretical basis for the Conflict Ecology Model. While the original concept for this model can be attributed to Dean Marshall Kaplan of the Graduate School of Public Affairs of the University of Colorado at Denver, the model has been modified and expanded through discussions with various individuals in the Public Administration and Planning and Community Development schools. The basis for the application of the model in this

study is a belief that planning issues can inherently cause conflict among individuals, institutions and groups in society competing for scarce resources. These conflicts that may arise in planning policy decisions can be significant obstacles to achieving agreement on physical planning decisions. Policy analysis and planning are inseparable: policy issues must first be addressed and resolved before successful physical planning can be achieved. If a model could be devised to systematically outline and assess controversial planning issues, then possibly it could be a tool to aid planners in handling conflict situations.
A useful model would need to address actual social system problems as effectively as possible, not just ideal, theoretical circumstances. Open systems theory offers this approach. One problem in working with social systems, unlike physical systems, is the definition of physical boundaries. Allport (Katz and Kahn 1978) contributed an answer to this by stating that the structure of social systems is an interrelated set of events which return upon themselves to complete and renew a cycle of activities. It is not things but events that are structured in a social system, so that such systems are dynamic rather than static. This concept of a "cycle of events" is the foundation for the Conflict Ecology Model being used here. The goal of the model is to view conflict as a process that changes over time and can be understood in a way beneficial to the specific project objectives.

Table 5.1
Conflict Ecology Model
Time Stages* Context Structure Processes Outcomes
Stage I 1880 to 1979
Stage II 1979 to 1987 l
Stage III -future j '
*The dates and number of the stages presented here were chosen to suit the application of the model to the Nee Gronda conflict.
The number of stages and appropriate dates for the stages must be determined for each application.

Definition of Model Components
The components of the Conflict Ecology Model and how they are applied to the case study are discussed in this section.
Table 5.1 is a blank outline of the model. The actual case study on Nee Gronda is presented in the next chapter.
Time stages. The time dimension element was incorporated in the model in order to observe how and where the interest and conflict concerning a particular policy issue starts and how these factors change over time. The staged approach allows consideration of changes in the larger society, such as economic decline or recreation demand, which impact the issue under study. Applying the time dimension also attempts to address the weaknesses in the policy analysis theories discussed previously, specifically the "black box" tendency of political systems theory and the tendency to exclude external variables in the functional process theory. Looking historically at a policy issue allows more sensitivity to outside social, political or economic variables and how these variables could impact internal processes such as decisionmaking.
The definition of these time stages would be determined by the particular factors of the conflict being modeled.
Determinants could be changes in larger societal factors or in the specific conflict situation itself. These should be events that produced a significant change in the conflict process.

Context. The first component of the model is the context of the conflict situation. This refers to the physical, social or political setting in which the conflict resides. These can be determinants within the system or external factors outside the system. While the context may involve determining factors, that does not suggest that they cannot be changed or impacted by outcomes from the system itself or from outside the system. This component suggests the close relationship between a system and its environment as outlined in open systems theory. The contextual factors serve as a background for the three other model components.
Structure. The second component of the model is structure. The structure is the set of public and private institutions, individuals and issues that are involved in the decisions concerning the situation. This correlates with the political systems theory of Easton (Anderson 1975), which examines the interrelationship and activities of institutions. Viewing the model as an open system implies that many parties in larger contexts could be included, such as foreign markets or federal regulatory policy. Since some limit needs to be established concerning who is involved, the institutions and individuals listed should be those key parties necessary in decision-making. How the participants would be grouped would be determined by the specific application.

For this case study, the participants represent those people that citizens at Nee Gronda community meetings felt should to be involved. In the structure component of this case study, public parties and private parties are listed separately. Public parties are primarily government or educational organizations. Their mission is to represent a particular public interest. Private parties are individuals or groups concerned with meeting certain personal interests. The two ditch companies involved are listed as private, along with the recreation association. This is because these groups are comprised of individuals who came together for the purpose of representing common personal interests, not those of the larger citizenry.
Process. The third component is composed of the processes that have occurred between the structural members of the model. This basically concerns the interactions or relationships involved in creating the conflictual situation.
For the Nee Gronda conflict, these processes are categorized in general terms, such as a social, political, legal or economic process. The interactions among the participants are identified as being either conflictual or cooperative. While there have been many interactions among the many participants to Nee Gronda, only the critical ones are detailed and only in general terms.
The purpose of the model as it is applied in this case study, is not to investigate every detail but to offer a framework for charting the more general interactions or processes.

Outcomes. Outcomes are the last component in the model.
Outcomes are the results of interest concerning the policy issue in a broad sense, such as documents, lawsuits or animosity. The outcomes relate directly to the processes that have occurred.
The model also suggests that outcomes can lead to some change in the other components of the model, context, structure or process in the next stage of time, thus giving the model a dynamic quality. This approach does not denote a closed system but suggests an accounting process which can be carried through time stages to help understand the conflict process.

Explanation of Model Presentation
In this chapter, the model, as described in the previous section, is applied to the Nee Gronda conflict. The model is outlined according to the three time stages. Stage I covers the years between the 1880's to the late 1970's. It was in the late 1880's that the Great Plains Irrigation System was created, allowing control of the water delivery into the reservoirs. The late 1970's was chosen as the end of the first stage because that is when interest in developing Nee Gronda became more organized, with the government becoming involved and studies undertaken.
The period from the late 1970's to the fall of 1987 frames Stage II. In this second stage, there is an examination of what has occurred in the ten year period since interest has developed.
Stage III involves speculation about the future. Based on what has been examined from the first two stages and events outside the system, observations are made concerning what the critical issues may be for the future of the conflict.
Each stage is discussed individually, examining all four components through that stage. Outcomes of Stage I are evaluated to explore what changes they may have induced on the model components for Stage II. These changes will then be explained in

the Stage II discussion. Finally, based on the previous stages, Stage III will be outlined observing what the critical aspects of each model component may be for future decision-making. There are many different courses of action the conflict could take in the future, depending upon a number of different variables discussed in this chapter. The course chosen for Stage III of this paper represents the ideal situation, where all participants cooperate to reach consensus on the key decisions.
A chart outlining the components for each stage of the model is included at the beginning of each section. The model chart briefly lists the factors discussed in the text. In the structure component, abbreviations are made of the participants to use in outlining the interactions in the process component.
For example, in Table 6.1, Amity (AMT) and Fort Lyon (FTL) are listed in the process component as AMT/FTL, indicating that they have had interactions with each other, and that the interactions have been of a legal, conflictual nature. A complete model is presented after outlining all three stages.
Stage I 1880 to 1979
Stage I examines the period from the 1880's when the Great Plains Reservoir System was developed to 1979 when interest in Nee Gronda became organized. Table 6.1 outlines the components of Stage I.

Table 6.1
STAGE I Hydrologic System
1880-1979 Water Law
Soli / Vegetation / Wildlife
Demographic / Social Systems
Economic Base
Political Organizations
DOW Department of Wildlife
SECWCD Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy District
Landowner Amity Fort Lyon
AMT/FTL Legal --> Lawsuits /
Conf1let Animosity
LAN Social --> Recreation /
Cooperation Friendliness
* (AMT-FTL)/LAN - > Animosity
Social Conflict
* DOW Political --> Wildlife /
Cooperation Recreation

Context Stage I
The context provides the background for the Nee Gronda conflict.
Hydrologic System Because Nee Gronda receives water primarily through the ditch companies canals, the hydrologic system is an important factor. (See Figures 3.2 and 3.3 of the Great Plains Reservoir System.) The irrigation system was built in the late 1890's. Both of the ditch companies, Amity and Fort Lyon, have rights to store water in the Great Plains Reservoirs from decrees established in the late 1880's. At that time, Nee Gronda was the first of the reservoirs to receive water since it is the deepest. The total capacity of Nee Gronda is approximately 98,000 acre feet. While the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has jurisdiction over the surface of the lakes, the Amity Mutual Irrigation Company obtained a perpetual lease from the Bureau of Land Management in the 1890's to store its water at the Great Plains Reservoirs.
For the first approximately 40 miles, from its diversion off the Arkansas River north of Las Animas, Amity water flows through Fort Lyon canals. After leaving the Fort Lyon canal, Amity water runs through its own Kicking Bird Canal on to the Great Plains Reservoirs. This is a gravity flow system with the canals being slightly higher in elevation than the reservoirs. Once at the Great Plains Reservoirs, water can be diverted to Nee Gronda through the Satanta Canal. Prior to the late 1950's Nee Gronda

was the primary storage reservoir for Amity. Diversion gates to Nee Gronda were blocked in the 1950's because of Nee Gronda1s large dead storage capacity, making approximately 40,000 acre feet of the total 98,000 acre feet unavailable for irrigation, given the current outlet system from the reservoir. Because of this, Nee Gronda has received water only in wet years when surplus water has been available. Clearly, water supply, as well as the ditch company's decision about which reservoir to use, are key variables in water availability for Nee Gronda.
Water Law Water law in Colorado is based on the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation, which dates back to the gold rush of the 1850's and has evolved, since that time, into a complex system. Prior Appropriation means that the first person to divert water from a stream for beneficial use owns or has rights to that water and has priority over later users, as long as water use is continued. Based on this priority system, water is allocated based on priority order of the water user, with higher priority users receiving their full share of water before lower priority users receive any. This implies that in water-short years, lower priority users could receive little, if any, water.
Water can either be diverted or be stored for later use, if rights exist. A "direct flow" right refers to water diverted for immediate use. A "storage" right refers to water stored for use at a later date. Storage rights are necessary to assure that water is available in the later summer months after spring runoff

has been depleted. Both Amity and Fort Lyon ditch companies own direct flow and storage rights in the Great Plains System. These rights date back to decrees filed in 1896. The ditch companies have a history of conflict and lawsuits over these water rights, as well as other issues pertaining to the operation of their respective canal systems.
Both direct flow and storage rights can be bought and sold. This transfer system of water rights is a complicated one, with prices fluctuating according to supply and demand. Furthermore, most of the state water has been appropriated, with over appropriation occurring in many places. These legal factors are critical to Nee Gronda since the irrigation companies own the water rights, which could be key factors in achieving a permanent pool of water in the reservoir.
Recreation Nee Gronda has a history of recreational use dating back to the early part of this century. Prior to the late 1950's when Amity stopped diverting water to Nee Gronda, the reservoir attracted people from western Kansas, Oklahoma and Colorado. A variety of recreational activities were provided by this large body of water, which at one time in the 1940's was 90 feet deep and covered 2000 acres (Blossom et al. 1979). Activities included boating, fishing, swimming, picnicking and hunting.
But, when water was no longer diverted to Nee Gronda, and the reservoir went dry, most recreational activities were no longer possible.

A large number of migratory water fowl take up residence at the Great Plains Reservoirs making the reservoirs one of the major bird hunting areas in Colorado if not the nation.
Pheasant, goose, duck and deer all attract hunters to the area. The area is known locally as the "Goose Hunting Capital of the Nation" (Lamar Chamber of Commerce 1987). A variety of fish are stocked at the reservoir by the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
The type of fish stocked include white bass, bullheads, walleye, carp and wiper.
Local residents, who have lived in the area for most of their lives, say they remember many pleasant summer days spent at the reservoir swimming, fishing or hunting. These people who support the development of Nee Gronda see it as an oasis amidst the flat, vast treeless plains. These memories and dreams of Nee Gronda and its recreational resources have been a strong force in efforts to develop the reservoir.
Soils. Vegetation and Wildlife The natural systems relevant to this study include soils, vegetation and wildlife. The Nee Gronda Reservoir Study (Blossom et al. 1979) prepared by the Center for Community Development and Design (CCDD) at the University of Colorado at Denver (UCD) (now the Center for Built Environment Studies) and the Landscape Architecture Program at UCD is the primary source for information on soils, vegetation and wildlife. The Colorado Soil Conservation Service, prior to 1979, had mapped the soils around the lake and rated them

according to their capability for certain uses.
The types of soil found at Nee Gronda need to be considered to determine if they are suitable to support such uses as roads, buildings, sanitation, recreation and wildlife. The primary soils at Nee Gronda are loams, sandy loams and clays. The suitability of soils for roads, buildings and sanitation was found to be acceptable. The soils were found to be suitable for recreational activities and facilities, such as campgrounds, trails, picnic areas and playgrounds. The carrying capacity of vegetation for wildlife habitat was deemed only fair. This is a concern only if the lake bed were dry since water in the reservoir can support much vegetation.
Information on wildlife has been collected by wildlife experts as outlined in the 1979 Nee Gronda Reservoir Study (Blossom et al. 1979) One hundred and eighty one species of animals were reported to reside in the Nee Gronda area. Of these 181 species, 78 percent are birds, with the remainder being mammals and reptiles. The riparian and aguatic habitat of the reservoir is important since approximately 65 percent of the birds are found in these areas. Thirty-eight percent of the 181 species have been classified as game animals. Seventy percent of the birds, as well as many other species, breed in the area and are year-round residents, while 30 percent are migratory. In addition, bald eagles and white pelicans, both endangered species, have been reported in the reservoir area. The wildlife potential and, therefore, hunting potential are quite high at Nee

Gronda. To preserve the existing wildlife, there needs to be a permanent pool of water to provide the necessary habitat.
The vegetative characteristics of the reservoir area is of mixed grassland plants. There are a variety of plant communities found at Nee Gronda. The primary zone at the reservoir is riparian, where pioneer forbes are dominant, offering nesting and roosting for water fowl. Due to the variety and maturity of plants found at the site, it is estimated to have high potential to withstand human use. The plant life at the reservoir is regionally unique, ecologically and visually, offering an area with much promise as a recreation facility and wildlife conservation site.
Demographic and Social Systems The Great Plains Reservoirs are located in southern Kiowa County, near the border with Prowers County. The population of Kiowa County in 1986 was 1,852 and the population of Eads, the county's largest town, was 891 in 1986 (Colorado Division of Local Government 1986). The estimated population of Prowers County in 1984 was 14,072 and the estimated population of Lamar, the largest town in Prowers County and in the region, was 9,423 in 1984 (Colorado Division of Local Government 1986).
The following information was obtained from the 1980 United States Department of Commerce Census of Population. The primary industry in both Kiowa and Prowers Counties was agriculture in 1980. Of the 897 persons employed in Kiowa County, 341 (38%)

were involved in agriculture. In Prowers County, 510 of its 2,226 employed persons (23%) were involved in agriculture. Three hundred and seventy persons in Prowers County (17%) were involved in retail trade occupations, indicating Lamar's attraction as a regional shopping center. The median income of families in Kiowa County was $14,665 in 1979. Prower's County median income in 1979 was $14,838. The median age of Kiowa County residents was 40.6 and 28.9 in Prowers County in 1980.
The difference in median age of Kiowa County at 40 years versus Prowers County at 28, is fairly significant. This could indicate the prominence of farming in the area, with older people remaining on their farms, and the younger people leaving the area due to a lack of diversity in industry and jobs. Prowers County may have a lower median age due to a somewhat more diversified economy and due to Lamar being a regional shopping center, offering more job opportunities.
In the years from the 1880's to the 1970's, the primary way of life for people in this region was farming. Some of the people farming today are descendants of the original homesteaders. These people have known the hardships and rewards of farming on the dry plains.
Economic Base The economic base of Southeastern Colorado was agriculture from 1880 to 1979. This area was and is ideally suited for dryland wheat farming, with wheat being the principal crop. The four major crops in the area were wheat, sorghum,

alfalfa and corn. In addition, there were approximately 2,000 livestock beef producers in the region at one time (Blossom et al. 1979) .
As mentioned above, Lamar in Prowers County, has served as a regional shopping center for many years. This helped diversify the economic base in the region.
Political Organizations The Great Plains Reservoirs fall within the political jurisdiction of Kiowa County. The county has three county commissioners who manage its affairs. Prowers County to the south has three commissioners as well. Both of the largest towns, and county seats for Kiowa and Prowers Counties, Eads and Lamar respectively, have a home rule city government with mayors and city councils.
Citizens of the region have served in the state government since the turn of the century by working in either the Colorado State Senate or House of Representatives (Lamar Centennial History Committee 1986). Many residents of the area have served on state boards or agencies representing Southeastern Colorado.
Structure Stage I
The structural component is defined by public parties and private parties. Public parties are government or educational organizations representing the interest of the public. Private parties mainly represent personal interests or goals. The responsibilities or concerns of the participants are outlined

Public Stage I
Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) The DOW has been involved at the Great Plains Reservoirs through controlling and monitoring wildlife populations for a number of years. Their primary involvement has been to stock a variety of fish at the reservoirs. The DOW also controls hunting at the reservoirs, primarily of fowl and deer.
Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy District fSECWCD) The SECWCD manages Arkansas River water, which is the source of the water that flows to the Great Plains Reservoirs. Approximately 300,000 acres of irrigable land in the Arkansas River Basin is served by the SECWCD (Weber and Johnson 1986). The Amity and the Fort Lyon ditch companies irrigation lands are within the SECWCD boundaries.
The FryingPan-Arkansas Project (FAP) and the Winter Storage Program (WSP) are programs of SECWCD relevant to the Great Plains Reservoir System. The FAP water is primarily a concern since it allows the transport of water over the continental divide to the Arkansas River basin and into storage facilities. Lamar, Eads and Wiley are municipalities involved in the FAP. The concern for these municipalities is buying and selling of FAP water.
These cities are eligible to buy the water but it is conditional based on SECWCD terms. One option for water for Nee Gronda could

be the purchasing of more FAP water by these municipalities.
The WSP simply involves the SECWCD allowing storage in other reservoirs along the Arkansas during periods of high water availability. Amity can store up to 50,000 acre-feet of water in John Martin Reservoir near La Junta. This is an issue since it is water which could be stored in the Great Plains Reservoir, particularly Nee Gronda.
Private Stage I
Irrigation Companies The irrigation companies involved in the Nee Gronda situation are the Amity Mutual Irrigation Company and the Fort Lyon Canal Company. These irrigation companies were formed around the turn of the century to manage irrigation water for farming. The companies are comprised of farmers and ranchers in the area. They are the largest suppliers of irrigation water from the Arkansas River in Southeastern Colorado.
The main issue for these irrigation companies in Stage I was in operating and maintaining their canal systems so that water holders would be assured their necessary supply of water. These companies were decreed their rights to storage and direct flow in the 1880's and they have continued to operate under these decrees, with minor changes over the years. Since the Amity and Fort Lyon canal systems overlap, there have been disputes over the years between the companies concerning delivery of water and canal maintenance.

Landowners With the exception of a small amount of U.S. Bureau of Land Management land, the entire area around the lake is privately owned. Only a few of the owners actually live at or near the lake.
None of the land directly around the lake had been developed in Stage I by landowners. The land has been left in its riparian state. The main concern of the property owners in this phase was in farming or ranching. The exception to this situation would be before the water was diverted from Nee Gronda in the 1950's.
There were evidently boat docks and ramps built during this time on the private property, but with the draining of the reservoir, those structures no longer remain.
Processes Stage I
The process section outlines the interactions that occurred among the structural participants.
Irrigation Companies A legal interaction was prevalent in Stage I between the two irrigation companies, Amity and Fort Lyon, for a number of years. This has been a conflictual one with little cooperation or agreement. Disputes have existed between the companies concerning the delivery water, canal maintenance and failure to disclose canal data. More specifically, litigation has involved canal transit losses of water, since the companies share canals. Social conflict could characterize the dispute between the irrigation companies also, since their debates have

been fraught by unfriendly and impolite meetings, well known to the citizens of the area.
Landowners The landowners interactions have been primarily ones of social cooperation in Stage I. Since few of the landowners actually live at or near Nee Gronda, there has been little reason for disputes concerning land-use issues.
The landowners in the past have generally cooperated with hunters by allowing access to the reservoirs. There is land around the other reservoirs that is managed by the Division of Wildlife, which caters mainly to the public. Overall, there appeared to be a sense of agreement on the recreation and hunting usage at the reservoirs.
Irrigation Companies and Landowners The irrigation companies have obtained right-of-way easements to run their canals through the private property surrounding the reservoirs. There have been problems among certain landowners who do farm and ranch the land about the maintenance and operation of the canals. This has been a social and an economic conflict, with the irrigation companies accused of not being sensitive to the needs of the landowners in the farming of their land.
Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) The process carried out by the DOW has been an institutional one. They manage the reservoirs through the stocking of fish and the monitoring of

hunting. There have been no major conflicts between the DOW and the other participants in this stage. Basically there has been cooperation on the part of the DOW in the management of the reservoirs.
Outcomes Stage I
Outcomes are the results of the processes or interactions among the participants listed above. These outcomes will impact the components of the model in Stage II.
Irrigation Companies The outcome of the legal interaction between the irrigation companies took the form of lawsuits.
These suits were decided in district court, and in certain instances in the Colorado Supreme Court. The decisions passed on the lawsuits determined how the disputes were settled, and therefore the operation and maintenance of the hydrologic systems was impacted. These legal conflicts lead to changes in the context of Stage II.
The social disputes between the companies lead to animosity and distrust. This situation was not resolved and was carried over into Stage II.
Landowners The outcome of the social interactions of the landowners with each other and the recreational users was generally one of harmony and of recreation use of the reservoir in Stage I. There were occasionally, however, problems during

hunting season with trespassing on private property. This primarily cooperative attitude among the landowners changes in Stage II.
Irrigation Companies and Landowners The result of the conflict among these groups was animosity and distrust. In some cases a farmer's property or crop could have been damaged, so there may have been some economic loss. These problems in Stage I carried over into Stage II and worsened when Nee Gronda was again full in the mid-1980's.
Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) The stocking of fish and management of hunting by the DOW, has attracted people to the reservoirs. This involvement by the state in a successful way in this first stage, led to further involvement by the state in Stage II.

Stage II 1979 to 1987
This stage examines the period 1979 to 1987, since interest in developing Nee Gronda became organized. The emphasis is on the significant changes that have occurred as a result of the outcomes from Stage I, and as a result of factors external to the Nee Gronda situation. Table 6.2 outlines the Stage II components.
Context Stage II
Changes occurred to several of the contextual factors outlined in Stage I.
Hydrologic System The change in the hydrologic system of the last few years concerns the availability of surplus water for the reservoir. As noted in Stage I, the irrigation companies stopped diverting water to Nee Gronda in the 1950's. The reservoir remained dry until the mid-1980's. These were relatively wet years with above average precipitation. Water was diverted to Nee Gronda in the mid-1980's and it has been full ever since. In dry years though, there would not be water, leaving the reservoir victim to evaporative loss and eventually to being empty. The fact that Nee Gronda has been full in the last few years has certainly contributed to the interest in developing Nee Gronda for multiple-use purposes. A problem with the reservoir being over capacity, which it has at times, has been the killing of trees and vegetation. The vegetation surrounding Nee Gronda is a

Table 6.2
STAGE II Hydrologic System
1979-1987 Economic Base
Poli tica1 Organizations
MGV - Municipal PLN
Government CLN
CGV - County Government AMT
SGV - State FTL
Government SEC
SLG - State Legislature
Pro-Landowners Con-Landowners Amity Fort Lyon SECRA
AMT/FTL Legal Cooperation
- PLN/CLN Social
Conflict / Private Development
Social / Economic Conf1ict
Social / Political Conf1ict
* CCDD/A11 Pubic and
Private Parties -
> Legal Agreements
> Animosity /
> Animosity /
Economic Loss
> Animosity /
Public Critisisni
> Meetings /
Documents / Task Forces

unique feature.
The lawsuits between the irrigation companies, which were an outcome of Stage I, also affected the hydrologic system and the legal decrees between the companies. As was mentioned, the lawsuits generally involved the transporting of water through the canals, so the decisions granted on the lawsuits would not concern changes in the physical canal system, as much as in the quantities of water the irrigation companies were allowed to move.
Economic Base The most significant changes in this stage occurred in the economic context of Nee Gronda, due to national and regional economic problems. The decline in the agricultural economy of the 1980's has had major impacts on the farming communities surrounding Nee Gronda. After the Great Plains Reservoir System was built, Southeastern Colorado was a highly productive agricultural region for several decades. But the area has been negatively impacted by this economic downturn, as have many other regions of the nation. The family farms have not been able to compete in the world food market. As a result, farming has become unprofitable and many farmers are in debt. Many farmers have also experienced a sharp decline in their land values. People who have farmed all of their lives are now looking for other ways to pay their debts and make a living.
Many of these farmers are water owners in the irrigation companies in the area, including Amity and Fort Lyon. At one

time irrigation water was hard to find, but these irrigation companies now have their water for sale since farming is no longer profitable for them. This could be critical to the possible development of Nee Gronda since one option available to achieving permanent water storage in the reservoir is through purchasing the water rights of the irrigation companies.
Another economic factor has been the increasing urbanization of the Front Range of Colorado. This has increased the demand for water and therefore driven water prices up. Possibly, Front Range communities could be the only bidders for the irrigation companies' water.
Recreation The context of recreation changed in Stage II. This is primarily the result of factors external to the Nee Gronda setting. Recreation has long been a part of the use of Nee Gronda. The majority of the people who have used the reservoir in the last few years, since it has been full, have been from the local area. During the period prior to the 1950's, before water was diverted from Nee Gronda, people from Southeast Colorado and neighboring states came to use the reservoir. But since the reservoir has been dry, for some 30 years, these people are no longer attracted to the area.
An external factor which could help bring people back to Nee Gronda, if permanent water storage is achieved and a decision to develop is reached, is the increase in leisure time in the general population during the past several years. With higher

standards of living and more modern conveniences, people now have more time to pursue outdoor recreation activities. Water recreation has become a very popular sport in the summer months in Colorado. Because of the increase in leisure time and resulting demand for recreation, the existing water recreation areas in the state are becoming over crowded. Improved roads and less expensive gasoline prices have also increased this type of tourism. One way to help meet this increasing demand for recreation is to open new lakes and reservoirs in Colorado to water recreation. Many people believe Nee Gronda offers this recreational potential. They believe Nee Gronda has much to offer the region if developed and that it can aid in reducing crowding at other recreation areas in the state. Being only a three-to-four hour drive from major urban areas along the Front Range region, people believe Nee Gronda could capture some of the demand existing areas, and help the economy at the same time.
Political Organizations Political interest in Nee Gronda increased at both local and state levels in the second stage. This is principally due to the recreation from Stage I and the increasing demand for recreation by the population in general.
None of the local jurisdictions surrounding Nee Gronda were actively interested in its possible development until the first reservoir study was undertaken by CCDD in 1979 for the Kiowa County Commissioners. After this study was completed, interest

in developing Nee Gronda continued to build in Eads, Lamar, Kiowa and Prowers Counties.
Though efforts of a few key people in the area, the Southeast Colorado Recreation Association (SECRA) was formed. SECRA led efforts in seeking assistance in research, planning and community facilitation from CCDD, since its 1979 study. These efforts lead to the support and approval by local jurisdictions of a comprehensive, multi-phase study of the reservoir by CCDD, which is underway at this time.
The activities of the Division of Wildlife had been the only involvement by the state at the reservoirs. The state has become more involved as a result of the SECRA and local jurisdictions taking a lead in investigating development options. The state could be a key participant in reservoir development options and has to date been involved in answering technical, feasibility and funding questions. In addition, a gubernatorial task force has recently been created to encourage economic development in the region.
Structure Stage II
New participants and issues have developed in Stage II.
These involved either a change in issues for an existing participant or else the involvement of new parties to the interest in Nee Gronda development. These changes occurred because of outcomes from Stage I, such as the involvement by the DOW at the reservoirs in managing hunting, or because of external

factors, such as the increasing demand for recreation.
Public Stage II
Several new public parties are involved in this stage due to the increased political interest.
Municipal Government Local governments became more involved because of the increased interest in recreation and the potential for improving domestic water systems. Local jurisdictions with an interest in reservoir development are Eads, Lamar, Wiley and May Valley. The main interest of these communities is in improving their water quality. Eads, Wiley and May Valley suffer from poor tasting water. These towns hope that water could be stored and treated at Nee Gronda then piped to their communities.
Another interest of these jurisdictions is in economic development. If Nee Gronda were developed, these communities could benefit from increased tourism trade.
County Government The county governments of Kiowa and Prowers have taken an interest in Nee Gronda development primarily for economic reasons. This is because of the increased demand for recreation and the desire to diversify their economic bases. A developed reservoir would bring tourists to the area and aid these counties abilities to attract new business and industry to the region. Kiowa County, where the reservoir is located, would also need to monitor development around the reservoir to avoid

uncoordinated, disorderly growth.
State Government New state agencies have become involved in Stage II, in working with CCDD and the local governments on the feasibility studies for the reservoir.
The Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (DPR) is involved in investigating alternatives for developing Nee Gronda as a state recreation area. Its responsibility is in meeting the recreation needs of the state and in assessing new recreation sites. The DPR has stated that four to five million dollars could be available from the state for developing Nee Gronda as a state facility (Wiley 1987). This is conditional based on obtaining agreements for permanent water storage at the reservoir.
While the Division of Wildlife (DOW) has been involved at the Great Plains Reservoirs for many years, its part has increased with the interest in developing Nee Gronda. The DOW has been active in answering questions and supplying data on issues concerning the wildlife populations at the reservoir for the CCDD study.
The Department of Local Affairs (DLA) assisted in getting the Nee Gronda study approved, funded and underway in this second stage. Its mission is to help communities work through the state government bureaucracy in obtaining state economic development assistance. They are continuing to help explore financing and

feasibility options for reservoir development.
State Legislature The state representatives from this area of Colorado have taken an interest in Nee Gronda since the reservoir studies have been underway. Jim Rizzuto is the senator representing southeast Colorado and Elwood Gillis is the state representative. They have attended Nee Gronda community meetings and indicated that a void does exist for recreation in Southeastern Colorado (Weber and Johnson 1986). Their responsibility is to represent their constituency at the state level on issues such as Nee Gronda.
Governor Romer has also been suggested as a possible participant in decision-making for the reservoir. This was proposed at a community meeting because some citizens believe it will take his involvement to realize the development of Nee Gronda, if a decision to develop is reached. Since he is from Southeastern Colorado, some citizens believe he has a special responsibility in supporting this part of the state.
Center for Community Development and Design (CCDD) (Colorado Springs) The CCDD Denver center (now the Center for the Built Environment) became involved with Nee Gronda for the first time in 1979 when the Nee Gronda Reservoir Study was prepared (Blossom et al. 1979). This study concerned data collection, site analysis and development design concept options.
The CCDD in Colorado Springs became involved in 1985 when a

multi-phase study of Nee Gronda was approved and funded by the DLA, the University of Colorado and counties and local jurisdictions in the reservoir area. Its responsibilities in this study include engineering hydrology studies, the legal aspects of development, financing and institutional options, domestic water supply and economic development. The first study was completed by the CCDD in 1986 addressing these concerns on a preliminary basis. The Center held two community meetings in 1985 and 1986 to set project goals. Two goals were reached through consensus by citizens. The first is to explore all the objectives and perspectives of all potential interests concerning Nee Gronda development for multiple-use purposes. The second goal is to develop an engineering hydrology model of the physical operation of the reservoir system.
The current phase involves investigating the various issue areas in more depth by a team of faculty and students from the University of Colorado campuses in Colorado Springs, Denver and Boulder. CCDD is also receiving assistance from DLA and other state agencies.
Private Stage II
Changes to issues or views of the private parties from Stage I are the main differences in this second stage.
Landowners The landowners experienced changes with the organization of interest concerning Nee Gronda development and

the filling of the reservoir in the mid-1980's. Of the landowners who do live at or near the reservoir, some still want to farm or ranch while others have undertaken the development of private recreational facilities on their properties. This means that in Stage II, the landowners can generally be divided by those who favor development of the reservoir, those who oppose it or those who are uncertain.
Of those property owners in favor of development, their main interest is in the private economic development potential of the reservoir. They see a reservoir with permanent water storage bringing people from all over Colorado and neighboring states to the area for recreational purposes. There could be financial gain from this attraction by building boat ramps, campgrounds, motels, cafes, and sporting goods stores.
The landowners opposed to the development of the reservoir feel this way because of potential disruption to their way of life. A few people have been farming and ranching at the reservoir for decades and would like to continue to do so. They clearly see suggestions of development of any kind as a possible disruption to this way of life. Since water has been in the reservoir in the last few years, certain landowners have already had problems with hunters and recreationists trespassing on their properties leaving trash, damaging fences and being noisy. These landowners are not receptive to suggestions of selling just their reservoir front property because of the problems mentioned. Some landowners have indicated the only way development could occur on

their property is if the state or private developers were to buy out their land, at their price. Leasing the land is another option that has been suggested.
Irrigation Companies The priorities and concerns of the shareholders in the irrigation companies have changed in the second stage. Both Amity and Fort Lyon shareholders have experienced significant shifts in farming in the early 1980's due to the decline in the agricultural economy, as was stated in the economic context section of Stage II. While these irrigation companies formerly needed all of their water for farming, now with the decline farming, they do not have the need for the same quantity of water. This led to the desire by some of the these irrigation company shareholders to sell their water. These shareholders' concerns are primarily monetary in attempting to stay ahead financially.
Southeast Colorado Recreation Association fSECRA) Another new participant in Stage II is SECRA. The group formed in 1984 and is made up of people in Southeastern Colorado with an interest in promoting recreation in their region. Their emphasis has been on developing Nee Gronda for recreation, but also for multiple-use purposes if possible. The efforts of the SECRA have been instrumental in initiating studies of the reservoir and increasing local and state government interest. They represent a strong force in favor of Nee Gronda development.

Processes Stage II
Increased interest in developing Nee Gronda has led to more activities among the participants in Stage II.
Irrigation Companies The irrigation companies' interaction changed from one of conflict to one of more cooperation, than it previously was. After years of legal disputes in the courts concerning the operation of their canal systems, in 1986 the companies reached agreements concerning most of the key issues being debated. The legal proceedings that were pending in the courts have been resolved or dropped. The companies are now working together in a more cooperative fashion, including a willingness to work towards arrangements for placing water in Nee Gronda.
This change in interaction is largely due to the decline in the farm economy and to fact that both irrigation companies have water for sell. It is to their advantage to work together to sell their water and to reach agreements about the development of Nee Gronda. In some respects, the interest in developing Nee Gronda has improved the relations between the companies.
Landowners Since the landowners are divided on the issue of whether Nee Gronda should be developed, their interaction has changed from less cooperation to more conflict. This is primarily a social conflict in differing values on the way of life they would prefer to maintain. Some landowners still want

to farm and ranch, while others see Nee Gronda as an opportunity for economic gain.
With the reservoir being full now, an new economic process is also involved, since one landowner has built a boat dock, campgrounds, recreational vehicle hookups and a store on his property. These facilities opened the summer of 1987 for potential year round use. Opening these facilities has heightened the animosity with those landowners who are opposed to development.
Irrigation Companies and Landowners While some problems have always existed between certain landowners and the irrigation companies, these conflicts have worsened since water has been in Nee Gronda for the last few years. One irrigation company did not inform a landowner when it was going to divert water to Nee Gronda. This caused flooding of newly planted seed on one property owner's land. Since the irrigation companies have been putting water in Nee Gronda, the main problems have been with the management practices of the companies.
Landowners opposed to development versus SECRA and local governments Conflict has arisen among the landowners opposed to Nee Gronda and those groups in favor of its development. Certain landowners believe that SECRA and some of the people from the towns surrounding Nee Gronda, are only concerned about their desires, whether it be recreation or domestic water, at the

expense of the property owners who want to retain a rural way of life. These landowners feel that the groups in favor of the Nee Gronda development, particularly if it takes the form of a full state recreation area, are trying to force their ideas with little regards for the values of the people who own and farm the land. One landowner suggested in an editorial written to the Kiowas County Press that state recreation areas be developed in Eads, Lamar and Wiley, so that the city people would not need to drive so far and so that they too could experience the problems associated with discourteous recreationists on their properties (See Appendix B for a copy of the editorial.) This type of social conflict has lead to animosity and distrust, and suspicion of the motives of people wanting to use the reservoir.
Center for Community Development and Design fCCDD) (Colorado Springs) Through the involvement of the CCDD, a community development process has been undertaken in an attempt to reach consensus on the possible development of Nee Gronda in Stage II. Most of the participants involved have attended community meetings facilitated by the CCDD. They have indicated at least some degree of interest in wanting to work together to reach agreement on policy options. Landowners for and against development, the irrigation companies, SECRA, and municipal, county and state governments have all attended community meetings. Cooperative political and social processes now appear to be emerging among these groups. While conflict does still

exist in some cases between certain parties, these parties have shown a tentative willingness to take part in the community development process.
Outcomes Stage II
The results of the processes and interactions among the structural members of the conflict will be explained in this section. Since these outcomes of Stage II represent the current status of Nee Gronda issues, they will be major factors in observations concerning the future in Stage III.
Irrigation Companies Since the legal process between these companies has turned to one of cooperation, the result has been agreements concerning water rights and canal disputes. While there will undoubtably still be points of contention between the companies, they are now making the effort to settle disputes out of court. This is critical to Nee Gronda since they control the water and storage rights to the reservoir. Without the cooperation of the irrigation companies, between each other and with the other key participants, possibly no agreement will be reached on how to store water in Nee Gronda.
Landowners Since the landowners have become divided over the development of the reservoir, their interaction has been more conflictual. The outcome of this social conflict concerning values and ways of life, has been animosity and misunderstanding.

An economic outcome has also occurred with the building of the recreation facilities by one landowner. For landowners opposed to development of Nee Gronda, another outcome has been recreationists trespassing on their properties. This conflict among the landowners could present obstacles to future decisionmaking.
Irrigation Companies and Landowners One result of the conflict between the landowners and the irrigation companies has been economic loss for certain landowners. One landowner lost a field of newly planted seed and some pasture land from flooding when a irrigation company diverted water to the reservoir without the landowner being notified.
Both the irrigation companies and the landowners realize they are key participants in decisions concerning Nee Gronda. Their cooperation is necessary on any kind of agreements being considered. If the landowners could obtain the price they want for their land, and the irrigation companies could sell their water, both could stand to benefit from development of the reservoir.
Landowners opposed to development versus SECRA and Local Governments The outcome of the interaction among these groups has again been animosity and suspicion. There has also been public criticism by the landowners of the recreation group and towns in favor of development, through such things as editorials

in local papers. This type of interaction does not help improve the communication and understanding among the groups or their willingness to cooperate.
Center for Community Development and Design (CCDD) (Colorado Springs) The outcomes of the community development process initiated through the CCDD studies have included community meetings, documents and the formation of task forces. Consensus has been reached at the meetings on key study goals, including who the key participants should be in decision-making and the primary areas to be studied. Goals formulated by citizens at an October community meeting included exploring issues significant to deciding whether Nee Gronda can serve as a major resource for Southeast Colorado in providing a) improved agricultural water storage b) improved recreation opportunities c) improved economic development opportunities and d) improved domestic water. The citizen group will develop proposals that encourage achievement of the goals stated above, for the benefit of all participants. The group also intends to inform all interestedparties of issues and proposals as they are developed. The facilitation and direction by the CCDD is aimed at helping the citizens of the area arrive at their own decisions concerning Nee Gronda development. These outcomes to date, it is hoped will generate more cooperation among the key participants and incentive to reach further consensus.

Stage III 1987 into Future
Stage III predicts what factors could be crucial to future decision-making. The comments are based on consideration of the first two stages of the model and on factors external to the model itself. Stage III components are listed in Table 6.3.
The goal of future decision-making for Nee Gronda is to determine whether and how the reservoir should be developed. Realistically, the conflict could follow many different courses in terms of how it might be acted out and managed in the future. The course of action outlined in Stage III in this paper represents basically the ideal scenario, where CCDD manages the conflict receiving cooperation from all necessary participants. This is generally the course that has been followed up to Stage III, with the CCDD outcomes of community meetings and citizen task forces from Stage II. This cooperation in Stage III would then lead to a future outcome of a consensus on the potential development of Nee Gronda. It is possible though, not all participants will be willing to cooperate or not all issues can be addressed and resolved in the future. This could lead to different courses of action on how the conflict would be managed.
Context Stage III
The key circumstances or facts surrounding Nee Gronda, crucial to decision-making will be discussed below. These could be determining factors shaping the future of Nee Gronda.

Table 6.3
STAGE III Hydrologic System MGV - Municipal Government PLN
FUTURE Water Law CGV - County CLN
Recreation Government AMT
Economic SGV - State Government FTL
Political SLG - State Legislature SEC
SECWCD Southeast
Colorado Water Conservancy District
Pro-Landownera Con-Landowners Amxty Fort Lyon SECRA
* Cooperation with CCDD among all parties in STAGE III
(Ideal Process)
> Consensus
concerning th Development o Nee Gronda
(Ideal Outcome)


Hydrologic System The hydrologic system of the Great Plains Reservoirs will remain a limiting factor in decisions concerning how to transport water to Nee Gronda. While the physical canal system itself could be modified, that is unlikely at this point, given the high cost that would be involved. The legal agreements reached between the companies as an outcome of Stage II, could require changes in the operation or management of the system, but not most likely in the physical design. These legal agreements and more cooperative attitude between the irrigation companies could be crucial in future decision-making. A better understanding of the hydrology system is possible through a computer model being devised by the CCDD research team. This will aid in understanding the limitations and opportunities present in the system.
Part of the hydrology system is of course the water supply. Question needing to be addressed are how much water is needed and where to get water for storage in Nee Gronda. If the above-average precipitation of the mid-1980's continued, that would not be a concern since surplus water would be available for storage in Nee Gronda. But there are no guarantees that precipitation will be high in the future.
Another option for water storage is for water to be stored in Nee Gronda, rather than John Martin Reservoir or the other Great Plains Reservoirs. For this to occur, most likely changes would need to be made to the outlet system at Nee Gronda, making some of the dead storage volume of the reservoir accessible for

irrigation releases. Permanent storage in Nee Gronda could also involve agreements with the SECWCD under their Winter Storage Program.
Water Law Legal issues surround the attempts to obtain water for Nee Gronda. A consideration is the fact that water must be bought, under the Colorado Prior Appropriation Doctrine. Agreements over water sales are complex and time consuming. Many legal issues will need to be addressed if water is bought for Nee Gronda.
The legal agreements reached by the irrigation companies could help smooth the way for future legal proceedings concerning Nee Gronda.
Recreation The demand for recreation will continue to be a driving force for development of Nee Gronda. The demand for water recreation in Colorado will not decline and most likely will increase. This makes the development of Nee Gronda a state concern, as well as a strong local issue. Questions need to be answered about the type of recreation in demand, user numbers and wildlife refuge considerations.
Recreational activity at Nee Gronda is already being encouraged as a result of the recreation facilities built by one landowner. This landowner hopes to attract people from the Front Range region, as well as neighboring states. Certain landowners believe the private development potential of Nee Gronda for

recreation is quite high.
Economic Base The economic circumstances of Southeastern Colorado will continue to be a factor in Nee Gronda development. While agriculture will most likely always be a part of this area of Colorado, the reality of today's economy requires diversification. Finding alternate uses for irrigation company water, could help the area financially. Nee Gronda may offer some economic development potential for the region.
Another economic consideration of Nee Gronda is the large sum of money (possibly as much as 30 million dollars) that could be needed to purchase water. It could be difficult for this region to gather the amount of money needed. Financial options are being investigated now by CCDD. While several options appear possible at this time, there are no guarantees in today's financially troubled economy.
Political Organizations Government assistance and involvement will continue to be necessary for decision-making at Nee Gronda. In Stage II municipal, county and state governments became involved through the CCDD studies. Options for development should be supported by the local governments. The local jurisdictions are resources for achieving possible Nee Gronda development. Since the Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation indicated that a state recreation area is a possibility at Nee Gronda, the state will undoubtably continue

its involvement. Whether a state recreation facility is the chosen alternative, the state will most likely need to be involved in developing a project of this size. Several state agencies could potentially be involved in Nee Gronda development decisions.
Structure Stage III
Participants key to Nee Gronda decision-making are listed below. These are the parties that have a stake or interest in how Nee Gronda is developed.
Public Stage III
Municipal Government The primary concerns of the municipalities around Nee Gronda are domestic water supply and economic development opportunities. Nee Gronda offers the possibility of developing a new water system to serve these towns.
As a developed reservoir, Nee Gronda could attract many recreationists to the area. The communities in the area could benefit economically through the development of services which cater to tourists. These towns might also be resources of funding for purchasing water.
County Government The main issue for the county governments is in monitoring the development plans for the reservoir to be certain they are positive additions to the area. The counties want to be certain that quality development occurs at the

reservoir as an attraction for jobs and industry to the region. The counties could benefit from economic development just as the local jurisdictions could.
State Government The key agencies at the state level with some responsibility at Nee Gronda are the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, the Division of Wildlife and the Department of Local Affairs. Their responsibilities were described in Stage II. These agencies are continuing work with the CCDD research team and the local governments.
State Legislature The state legislature could play an important part in efforts to obtain funding for water at Nee Gronda. Many local citizens believe the state representatives from the area need to realize the importance of a developed Nee Gronda to Southeastern Colorado, and that they should represent this at the state government level.
Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy District fSECWCD) The SECWCD could be involved in decision-making if the possibility of storing water in Nee Gronda rather that other reservoirs is investigated. This concerns the Winter Storage Program conducted by the SECWCD.
Center for Community Development and Design (CCDD) CColorado Springs) The concern of CCDD is to carry out research,

education and services as requested by the citizens of the region. Their role is to facilitate and coordinate the research on and discussion of the key issues. CCDD wants to ensure that participating citizens have ultimate control over the process and projects involved in reaching consensus on Nee Gronda development. The purpose is to involve a broad spectrum of local people and interests in a democratic decision-making process.
Private Stage III
Landowners The issues of the landowners concern their individual desires for the future of their properties and their financial situations. A critical factor in decision-making concerns the land use arrangements made in the area surrounding the reservoir. While private development could occur rather than a state recreation area, private development by individual landowners, could create many problems for those landowners who desire to keep their land for farming or ranching. A state recreation area could also create problems in the process of purchasing the land. All options need to be considered, such as leasing or easement arrangements. Ideally, the interests of all landowners need to be represented in the decision-making process.
Irrigation Companies At this time, the primary interest of the irrigation companies is in selling their water. Nee Gronda, they believe, represents a significant possibility for achieving this goal. The operation and maintenance of the irrigation systems is

also a concern since some people are still farming.
Since the irrigation companies own the rights to the reservoir, they are key participants in decision-making. While buying water from these companies is the most discussed option, other possibilities are being analyzed. Whether the companies will consider other options and offers to buy their water, depends, at least partly, on the quality of the decision-making process.
Southeast Colorado Recreation Association fSECRA) Improving recreational opportunities in Southeastern Colorado is the goal of the SECRA. They have played a significant role in efforts to develop Nee Gronda. This role is continuing by assisting the CCDD study in recreation research, particularly through the citizen group task forces.
Processes Stage III
Certain actions are necessary by the participants, for consensus on potential Nee Gronda development to be achieved. Critical actions are outlined below. As was mentioned, the processes outlined are ideal ones representing the actions necessary to investigating options and achieving consensus in the most cooperative way possible.
Center for Community Development and Design fCCDD) (Colorado Springs) The CCDD needs to continue to provide technical

assistance and to facilitate the interaction among the various parties with interest in Nee Gronda development. The outcomes of the CCDD actions in Stage II, such as the community meetings and the citizens task forces, have provided the groundwork for further cooperative processes. The groups outlined above must work together to reach a consensus regarding facts about the reservoir system and policies to guide its operation. For the project to proceed, cooperation and commitment are necessary requirements of community members. The CCDD role is to guide citizens as they develop and implement alternatives and solutions.
Irrigation Companies The irrigation companies need to continue their cooperative behavior with each other, as well as with the other Nee Gronda groups. This cooperation is necessary since the irrigation companies own the water and storage rights to Nee Gronda. Discussions should continue concerning the options available for storing and funding water for the reservoir. Considering the current difficult economic times for agriculture, the irrigation companies must be realistic in their expectations concerning the sale of their water. Consideration also needs to be given to the physical irrigation system itself to determine if it might be modified in a beneficial way. An engineering hydrology task force, composed of area residents and members of the CCDD research team, is investigating the operations and alternate options to this system now.

Landowners The landowners must take part in the community development process to assure their interests are addressed. The division of the landowners in Stage II and the resulting outcomes, could present a major obstacle to the ideal cooperative process. Many citizens believe it is important for the landowners to realize that Nee Gronda could be an important asset for Southeastern Colorado, with many benefits for the region. While certain landowners deserve to maintain their way of life, this desire should not prevent them from considering various alternatives to development. Discussions need to continue with the landowners for successful policy decisions to be made. Unfortunately, resentment and animosity have formed over the Nee Gronda issue, which takes time to overcome.
State Government The state agencies involved to date need to maintain their technical assistance on Nee Gronda studies. The feasibility of development options may ultimately lie with the state. Many citizens believe the possibility of a state recreation area at Nee Gronda is a good opportunity for Southeastern Colorado. However, decision to develop a state facility needs to come from involvement with the citizens in the region.
State Legislature The involvement of the legislature primarily concerns obtaining funds for purchasing water and for the

development of a recreation area. With the large sum of money possibly needed to purchase the irrigation companies' water, state assistance will most likely be required. Elwood Gillis, the senator representing Southeastern Colorado, is currently a member of the State Joint Budget Committee. This could be helpful in efforts to obtain funding at the state level. The state representatives of the area need to be aware of the citizens desires and the planning options being considered. A financial/institutional task force of local citizens has been established to study financing options.
Local Government The local governments also need to stay involved in the decision-making process. They can be valuable resources in achieving project goals. Since the reservoir falls within Kiowa County, it would be instrumental in the approval of any possible development plans. If the reservoir were developed, the possibility of domestic water supply offers an important benefit to the area, as does the economic development potential. These jurisdictions need to assist in the investigation of possible funding sources for domestic water supply systems and to develop economic development strategies.
Southeast Colorado Recreation Association (SECRA) The SECRA has been a leader in the efforts to achieve development of Nee Gronda. They will undoubtably remain active in the community development process, in efforts to develop a multiple-use

reservoir. They will also need to investigate questions concerning the type and amount of recreation desired at Nee Gronda. There is a recreation task force, made up of local citizens studying recreation questions at this time.
Outcomes Stage III
The outcome of future processes should be consensus regarding the potential development of Nee Gronda as a multiple-use reservoir. This outcome represents the desires of local citizens, and the function and purpose of CCDD as requested by the citizens. If a consensus cannot be reached by the participants concerning these decisions, then possibly a developed multiple-use reservoir will not be realized.
Development of the reservoir to meet a wide range of needs within the region, represents a challenge to the citizens of the area and to CCDD which is facilitating the project.
Whether and how these decisions are answered requires that a number of complex and interrelated political, technical, institutional, social and economic problems be addressed (Weber and Johnson 1986). For the project to proceed, cooperation of all the groups who have some interest in Nee Gronda must be involved in answering questions and in decision-making. While this is a formidable challenge, a development policy reached through consensus could benefit all people of the region.
The complete Conflict Ecology Model is presented in Table
6.4 with all three stages of the Nee Gronda development issue.

Table to.4
STAGE I Hydrologic System Water Law DOW Department of Wildlife LAN -
iaao-iS79 Recreation Soil / Vegetation / Wildlife Demographic / Social Systems Economic Base Political Organizations SECWCD Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy District AMT -FTL -
STAGE II Hydrologic System MGV Municipal Government PLN -
1979-1987 Economic Base CGV County Government CLN -
Recreation SGV State r Government AMT -
Political Organizations SLG State Legislature FTL -
STAGE III Hydrologic System FUTURE Water Law Recreation Economic Base
MGV - Municipal Government PLN
CGV - County Government CLN
5GV - State Government AMT
SLG - State Legls1ature FTL
Political Organizations
Private Landowner Amity Fort Lyon
AMT/FTL Legal Conf1let
LAN Social
* Social Conflict
DOW Political Cooperation
Pro-Landowners Con-Landowners Amity Fort Lyon SECRA
AMT/FTL Legal j-
* PLN/CLN Social !-
Conflict / Private.2 Development
* (AMT-FTL)/CLN - j-
Soclal / Economic Conf1i ct
Social / Political Conf1ict
* CCDD/A11 Pubic and Private Parties -Cooperation
Pro-Landowners Con-Landowners Amity Fort Lyon
Cooperation with CCDD among all parties in STAGE III
(Ideal Process)
> Lawsuits /
> Recreation /
> Animosity
> Wildlife /
> Legal Agreements
> Animosity /
> Animosity /
Economic Loss
> Animosity /
Public Critislara
> Meetings / Documents / Task Forces
> Consensus
concerning the Development of Nee Gronda
(Ideal Outcome)

The purpose of the model was to systematically outline the components of the Nee Gronda conflict. It was also to observe how the conflict evolved and changed over time. This was expected to lead to a greater understanding of the issues critical to possible development options for Nee Gronda and to decision-making.
The ways the Conflict Ecology Model specifically gave insight into the Nee Gronda issue are briefly outlined below.
The framework of the model offered a way to track the Nee Gronda issues, such as the irrigation companies interactions, in an organized way. It allowed consideration of external factors that impact the issue, such as changes in the economy of agriculture. The time staged approach allowed insight into how the irrigation companies' relationship changed with time and how the changes in their interaction impacted other elements of the conflict. An example would be the legal agreements reached by the irrigation companies and how these led to more options and possibilities for developing Nee Gronda. The model organized these types of information in a way that clarified the critical issues, such as obtaining cooperation from the irrigation companies. Designing a database of the model on a personal computer could be a useful

way to store and retrieve the information.
The model also offered insight into the interrelatedness of the participants and the issues surrounding Nee Gronda. Reaching consensus on the development of a recreation area at the reservoir involves the consideration of many issues and the participation of many people. For acceptable policy decisions to be made leading to a successful development plan, the interests and concerns of most the participants must be realized.
Overall, the model appeared to adequately outline the elements of the conflict. The time element and four components offered practical boundaries for a complex situation. The four components of the model context, structure, process and outcomes were useful in placing information into workable, systematic categories. The components allowed flexibility thereby covering all aspects of the conflict well. When working across each stage through the components, it became evident how one event can lead to other events, change the circumstances and then lead to new outcomes. This is the systematic, dynamic nature of the model.
The time stages were a useful and important part of the model. They helped break down issues and events, allowing a clear picture of the whole conflict. The time stages took into account external factors to the conflict and aided in understanding the impact those factors had. They showed how the issues changed over time. Through the time stages, the interrelatedness of the issues and activities became clear.

The model did offer a useful, workable framework for outlining the conflict. It did help clarify issues and put somewhat confusing parts of the conflict, such as interactions among the parties, in a more understandable perspective. The model was good conceptually and descriptively in offering insight into the many issues of the Nee Gronda conflict.
Drawbacks to the model were problems encountered in collecting and organizing the information. Collecting data was time consuming, with one contact or set of information leading to another. Many of the issues and relationships were of such a nature that they could be examined in great detail. Knowing where to define the limits of data collection and the study was difficult, and should be determined at the outset of the study.
Since the data gathered at interviews and meetings was qualitative in nature, organizing it could be confusing. The key for organization was the model itself. The questions ask were structured according to the model components. Therefore, the data collected all connected back to the model. It was helpful to think of the data in terms of the broad model categories. The depth of data collection and the application of the model itself, would primarily be dictated by the policy issue being studied.
While the model would be most useful in analyzing broad planning policies, involving many issues and parties, by its nature, it could be applied to most any type of conflict. The conceptual and descriptive elements of the model could be useful in many conflictual situations. While there are methods

available to planners today for analyzing parts of planning policy, not many methods are available that allow a holistic view of a policy issue, that this model allows.
The Conflict Ecology Model offers a systematic yet dynamic framework planners can use to address conflicts that often occur in planning. The basis for the model is the often inherent conflictual nature of planning that Minnery (1985) discusses in his book in Chapter II. Minnery provides the theoretical foundation for addressing conflict in planning. The Conflict Ecology Model offers a practical guideline planners can use in assessing conflictual situations.
The model and the discussion in this paper also built on Catanese1s (1974) suggestion of planners as "managers of change." The model could add to planners' skills and knowledge in conflict management. Both Catanese and Minnery discuss the need for planning methods that address conflict. The Conflict Ecology Model offers such a method.
With its basis in open systems theory, the model also builds on Easton's and Laswell's (Anderson 1975) public policy analysis theories. The model incorporates time dimensions and consideration of external factors that are lacking in the public policy theories. Since it is an open systems model, it reduces the problems often associated with closed system theory. In other words, it emphasizes the close relationship between a system and its environment. A systems application such as this, allows insight into the complex and interrelated nature of

planning and allows planning to be modeled in a more understandable way.
With a declining resource base and the increasing demands being placed on it by various societal groups, conflicts in planning will undoubtably become more prevalent in the future. Unfortunately, planning methods that do not address conflict in the policy analysis stages, will lead to heightened conflict when physical plans are drawn and implemented. Policy planning methods that address conflict could lead to less disruption in social and political systems, and to the most equitable uses of natural resources.

Anderson, James E. 1975. Public Policy-Making. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Arreguy, John. Letter to the Editor "Nee Gronda." Kiowa County Press October 30, 1987. Vol. 100, No. 44.
Arreguy, John. Personal interview. 18 September 1987.
Arreguy, J. C. Personal interview. 18 September 1987.
Betz, Fred. Personal interview. 18 September 1987.
Blossom, H. Duane, Fran Bloss, Don Brandes, Jan Burton, Janet M. Caniglia, Shirley Furman-Clark, Paul Hellmund, Bruce Hendee, William Hoffman, Elsie McKinnon, Gary Miles, Gerry Musset, and Jean Runyon. 1979. Nee Gronda Reservoir Study. Center for Community Development and Design of the University of Colorado at Denver (UCD) and the Landscape Architecture Program (UCD) for the Kiowa County Commissioners.
Bowman, Jack. Personal interview. 17 September 1987.
Bozeman, Barry. 1986. "The Credibility of Policy Analysis: Between Method and Use." Policy Studies Journal.
14, 4:519-39.
Bracken, Ian. 1981. Urban Planning Methods: Research and Policy Analysis. London: Methuen.
Catanese, Anthony James. 1974. Planners and Local Politics. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Christenson, James A. and Jerry W. Robinson, Jr. 1980. Community Development in Amercia. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press.
Cook, James B. Community Development Theory. Department of Community Development, College of Public and Community Services, University of Missouri Columbia.
Forester, John. 1987. "Planning in the Face of Conflict: Negotiation and Mediation Strategies in Local Land Use Regulation." Journal of the American Planning Association.
53, 3: 303-314.
Frank, Paul. Personal interview. 18 September 1987.
Hasser, Joe. Personal interview. 18 September 1987.

Hughes, James and Lawrence Mann. "Systems and Planning Theory." Journal of the American Institute of Planners. September 1969.
Katz, Daniel, and Robert L. Kahn. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations 2ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Kell, Barbara. 1987. Nee Gronda Reservoir Development Plan Phase II: Legal Concepts and Alternatives for Obtaining Water Rights. University of Colorado Law School, Report for the Southeast Colorado Recreation Association.
Krone, Robert M. 1980. Systems Analysis and Policy Sciences: Theory and Practice. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Lamar Centennial History Committee. 1986. Lamar Colorado 1986 -Its First Hundred Years. Shawnee Mission, Kansas: Kes-Print, Inc.
Lamar Chamber of Commerce. 1986. Community Profile. Lamar, Colorado.
Lamar Chamber of Commerce. 1987. Lamar Colorado Lifestyles. Grand Island, Nebraska: Lifestyles Publisher Division.
Lansford, Henry. 1983. The Metropolitan Water Roundtable: An Interim Case Study in Environmental Conflict Management. Boulder, Colorado: Accord Associates.
Littrell, Donald W. The Theory and Practice of Community
Development A Guide for Practioners. Department of Regional and Community Affairs, University of Missouri Columbia.
Matz, Jerome L. 1977. Interviewing: Principles, Technigues. and Applications. Department of Sociology, St. Mary's University, San Antonio, Texas.
Minnery, John R. 1985. Conflict Management in Urban Planning. England: Gower Publishing Company.
Moore, Christopher W. 1986. Negotiating, Bargaining and Conflict Management. Prepared for Huntsville Division of the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers. Gonzaga University, Spokane Washingtion.
Morse, C. Wesley. 1984. Environmental Consultation. New York: Praeger Publishers.
McLoughlin, J. Brian. 1969. Urban and Regional Planning: A Systems Approach. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Nee Gronda Reservoir Community Meeting. 19 October 1987. Eads, Colorado.