In order to effectively enforce legalized marijuana in Colorado, the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division has a software system to track the process from marijuana harvest to retail sales—the Metrc system (Marijuana Enforcement Tracking Reporting Compliance) which is also used in Alaska and Oregon. CDR Associates, as part of the Rebound Solutions team, facilitated meetings among state government employees and users of the system including cultivators, manufacturers, retail stores and third-party vendors. The user group provides recommendations on how to enhance the software, and the State Licensing Authority and Marijuana Enforcement Division make all decisions on what upgrades to make. In order to prioritize enhancements, the group identified criteria and developed a list of priorities for 3-month intervals. They also discussed principles for data integrity. Meetings provide an opportunity for the software developer, Franwell, to share updates and respond to questions, and refine next steps for updates. For more information, contact Laura Sneeringer or visit the Marijuana Enforcement Division or Metrc websites.
“We, who participated in the mediation process, had an experience that none of us anticipated. While we believed that we could form a ‘legal’ agreement, we gave little thought to personal relationships. We started out as adversaries with firm positions, people who did not know one another, and began by treating each other as stereotypes. However, during the process we began to learn about, know and value one another as people of integrity and good faith. In the end we formed relationships based on mutual respect, understanding and appreciation. In short, we became friends. This was not a goal, it was a gift. It was a lesson for life for all of us and is of much greater value than any legal settlement could ever be.”
Lorraine and Michael for the community organization
Joy and David for the chemical company
In 1995 a toxic chemical (sodium chloride) was spilled at an off-loading terminal in a low-income community where a mix of industrial and residential use has created a number of challenges for residents of the neighborhoods. The EPA agreed to a settlement with the responsible chemical company. Neighborhood residents in the community where the spill occurred had organized meetings with city and State representatives to discuss this settlement. This resulted in a recommendation to request a mechanism for contacting residents in the future, should another evacuation be necessary.
Although the EPA settled, the company was still responsible under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRKA) to provide information about the spill to the affected residents in the community. This information was not provided, as required by the law and, two years after the spill, residents felt forced to sue the company. However, residents were open to a settlement discussion, believing that communication and negotiation could possibly result in a satisfactory solution for all. The company, which had positive experience with mediation in the past, was also interested in pursuing a mediated agreement. After meeting in two one-day sessions, the parties reached agreement on all the issues, and the community organization that had filed suit agreed to have the suit dismissed with prejudice.
The affected community of 2200 homes was split in half during the 1960’s by the construction of two highways. Over the past two decades, heavy industry has moved into the neighborhood. 61% of homes are owner occupied, many with two or three generations living in the community. They are well organized and, due to the existence of many environmental hazards, have developed experience in working constructively (where ever possible), with companies who emit pollution into the environment.
In 1987 the community formed an Environmental Justice organization. That organization has since grown statewide with over 500 members. It was members of this organization that undertook the mediation with the chemical company. The chemical company, itself, had also been seeking ways for developing better relationships with people in the communities where they are based.
Keys to Success
There were three primary factors that helped this process to succeed. First was the mediators’ determination, as a result of the pre-mediation interviews, that a fundamental issue was the development of relationship among the real parties to the dispute. To that end, the logistics were arranged in such a way that the parties were near one another, across the table. The mediators then structured the initial stages of the process to focus on personal communication among the parties, with little input from the mediators OR the attorneys. By focusing on this fundamental, developmental theme, the parties began to build relationships, which sustained the process when it moved into more difficult negotiation on the practical, financial resolution of the conflict.
Second was the “slower is sometimes faster” principle, something CDR references often in our work. The parties were asked to slow down, in spite of the urge to present (and respond to) monetary demands, we postponed settlement discussions until there had been an opportunity to understand how each group had experienced the spill and resulting perceptions of one another. These frank discussions helped to humanize the situation and build mutual appreciation, creating a foundation for a productive negotiation on the settlement itself.
The third factor involved the roles played by the attorneys and the parties in the actual negotiations. The parties took the lead in discussions, with their attorneys present to provide legal guidance. This allowed direct, unfiltered expression of perspectives and concerns. This was especially valuable because the direct conversations enabled the parties to build on the developing relationship, making tangible proposals and offers based on the real interests expressed by both sides.
Managing scarce western water resources increasingly requires an understanding of the multiple interests facing any watershed and ways in which they interact, overlap, and compete. CDR Associates reflects on inter-jurisdictional stakeholder based efforts in western watersheds.
Water managers and policy makers balance pressures ranging from ensuring a safe and reliable water supply for municipal and agricultural users, to maintaining a healthy river system, to protecting against flood danger and damage, to ensuring economic development and recreational opportunities. These interests often overlap – e.g., a healthy river system can help protect against flooding; a reliable water supply can help ensure flows to create or maintain a healthy river. For water-scarce western communities, however, with the increasing threats of climate change and reduced water supply, these demands are often seen as inherently competing for funding, public attention, priority status, and political support. This challenge is compounded by the siloes created in local government to manage different water-related programs and priorities.
Having facilitated several inter-jurisdictional, stakeholder-based efforts to create watershed-wide master plans for the State after the 2013 Colorado floods, CDR is working with municipalities to internally align their priorities and approaches to managing rivers. For cities juggling numerous river-related objectives (e.g., water supply, a healthy river, flood protection), this means building internal understanding about the nuanced ways in which their interests relate to and impact one another. For a utility department, this may mean a better understanding of what ecologists mean by ‘river health’ and how water supply projects or water management to meet multiple interests. For environmental scientists, this may mean a better understanding of the risks and threats that utility or storm water departments manage, including engineering projects that could be impacted by the timing or politics of river health projects.
As CDR’s work has shown, a forward-thinking, cross-sector approach to managing western water – particularly in this era of water scarcity and the unpredictability of climate change – requires building communication, trust and understanding across disciplines and interest groups; designing and developing mechanisms for collaboration, including effective facilitation; and leadership that promotes and supports this silo-busting approach.