Role #3: Ben Cartwright


Part 1: Introduction

You grew up in the Slippery Creek neighborhood of the town of Silver Cliff. (See map of area.) Your dad was a miner at Silver Cliff Mining Company. He worked there until 1971 when the mine closed because of a bad fire. (See news article.) After the mine closed, your father was unable to find steady work and your family struggled. You decided that you wanted to do something to help not only your family, but the rest of Slippery Creek as well. Although you grew up fairly poor, you were always a good student. When you left Slippery Creek, you studied economics at the university in Vermillion. Now, you work for the Silver County Chamber of Commerce. You have not forgotten about Slippery Creek though. The neighborhood is still in an economic slump. You have devoted many Chamber of Commerce meetings to trying to find a solution for Silver Cliff's economic problems. Your new strategy is to market Silver Cliff as a tourist hot spot. Silver Cliff's location makes it ideal for the new trend in adventure travel. People can come here to kayak, raft, hike, backpack, rock climb, and mountain bike. You hope that a boom in tourism could solve Silver Creek's economic woes. However, some new developments could throw a wrench in your plans.

Fifteen years ago, toxic tailings left over from Silver Cliff's mining days apparently leached into Slippery Creek. A man named José Martinez found four dead fish in the creek, prompting an investigation. Researchers discovered that both the creek and Trout Lake were contaminated with lead and acid. (See news article.) In 1998, it was discovered that heavy metals from the creek had also seeped into the ground water contaminating Slippery Creek's drinking water. The Colorado Health Department has delayed addressing the problem. Three months ago, they sent out a letter to everyone in Slippery Creek advising them that their well water had almost reached toxic levels of lead. They recommended that Slippery Creek residents not drink from their wells and use bottled water instead. However, few Slippery Creek residents can afford to buy bottled water. (See public hearing.)

Megan Lee Jones, an out-spoken former water resource manager for Silver County has formed the Slippery Toxics Action Committee (STAC) to advocate for the Slippery Creek residents. She has been trying to convince the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to declare Slippery Creek a Superfund site. If this happens, the EPA would come in and clean up the contaminated water and soil around Slippery Creek. They would use either their own funds or possibly require Jake Millhouse, the mayor of Silver Cliff, to foot some of the bill since his family was responsible for the contamination in the first place.

The last time you talked to her, Megan seemed confident that the EPA would be able to declare Slippery Creek a Superfund site. (See memo.) However, she was a little hazy on how exactly the EPA would clean up the hazardous waste. She mentioned that it might be a long, difficult process. You are concerned. You are almost certain that having Slippery Creek declared a Superfund site will completely destroy tourism in this area. (See public hearing.)

Things to think about: (Note: Not all of the answers to the questions are given in the story. You will need to fill in details using your background knowledge of similar circumstances and your imagination. Also, please be aware that we did not have enough money when we built this to write different stories depending on how you answer. So if you are the principal, for example, you may say that you want to mediate, but then read on to find out that the principal did not choose to mediate. Please don't think we are ignoring you or that the principal or the story is "stupid." We had to make people do some "stupid" things, or else there would not have been a conflict for you to puzzle over. Stick with it, and decide what you should do at each step along the way, even if some of the "turns" could have been avoided, had we "listened to you in the first place." You will get feedback on your answers when you turn this in to your instructor.)

1. Who are the parties involved in the conflict so far? (List them in the box below.) (Click here for more information on parties.)

2. What do you think their interests might be? (List them to the right of their names, below.)(Click here for information on "interests.")

List parties here:List their interests here:







3. What are your interests?


4. What, if anything, do you think you should do to address this situation?


Part 2: Investigation

Megan Lee Jones wins a grant from the EPA to bring in experts to see if the illnesses in Slippery Creek can be connected to the contaminated water. Experts conducted a similar study several months ago with St. Mary's Hospital in Vermillion. That study (news article) showed that "eighty percent of those tested who have been feeling sick in the last year had 50 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood or higher, which is very high." Megan hopes that the EPA study will confirm these results. The experts do a thorough investigation, but they're unable to find a conclusive correlation between the high levels of lead in the water and the illnesses Slippery Creek residents have been complaining about. However, the level of toxins has been steadily rising over the past 15 years, to the point where it's close to violating standards. It is now so high that Megan thinks she can get the EPA to declare Slippery Creek a Superfund site.

However, this plan meets with massive protest. The town is almost evenly split between those for Megan's plan and those against. Those for it are essentially the members of STAC and are afraid that the health risks are too great to leave the contamination alone.

Those against, including you, are afraid of what Superfund status will do to tourism and your quality of life. Slippery Creek is a poor town and you believe that advertising that the area is "toxic" will block economic redevelopment and severely decrease property values. You also argue that the experts' tests proved inconclusive. In addition, you really wonder whether the EPA will be able to clean up the hazardous materials without stirring them up and contaminating the environment further. Lastly, you are sympathetic with the mayor, who is afraid he will be held responsible for the funding the project, which he is vehemently saying is unfair. Fortunately, given the level of controversy, the Silver County government is unsure how to proceed and so does nothing.

The town becomes polarized. People start putting angry bumper stickers on their cars. Public hearings break down into shouting matches and are completely unproductive.

After one noisy but unproductive meeting, Rachel LeBaron, the president of the Trout Lake Homeowners Association, a group of wealthy, well-organized homeowners who vacation on Trout Lake, approaches you and asks if you'd like to get a cup of coffee with her. Lucy Lucky, a member of the Silver County Historic Society and Tourism Board, also comes along. As the three of you are sitting together talking, the conversation drifts inevitably to the possibility of the Superfund designation. You are all very worried about that, although for different reasons. Rachel is concerned the property values around Trout Lake will go down. Lucy has been working with you on promoting tourism in the area. However, unlike you, she is not so much worried about the economy as she is about preserving the historical character of Silver Cliff. You're not really sure if you entirely agree with Rachel or Lucy. However, all three of you agree on one thing, Megan had no right to ask the EPA to come in against so many peoples' wishes.

"Is there anything we can do about this?" Lucy asks.

"Well, actually there is," you begin.

"We could sue," Rachel finishes.

"Exactly," you say. "I've waited to bring up that possibility because it's quite possible that it will create more problems than it will solve. But, we can definitely use it as a backup plan."

Rachel and Lucy nod their heads. You all respect and like Megan, but she is putting your hard work at risk.

Questions:

1. How do other interest groups frame the conflict differently from you? (See Framing and Factual Disputes.)






2. Do you see any areas of common ground between you and other groups? (See Common Ground.)






3. Can you think of any ways to reverse the polarization between the various interest groups in Slippery Creek? (See Polarization.)


Part 3: Opportunity for Intervention

The next week, you get a phone call from a man named Pascal Raffia. He is a university professor in Vermillion, but he used to be a mediator specializing in environmental conflicts. He says he may be able to help. You agree to meet with him on Thursday. You invite Rachel to come along.

You and Rachel meet Pascal for lunch at the Silver Cliff Diner. You both explain your reasons for opposing the EPA coming into Slippery Creek. Pascal tells you he would like to facilitate a consensus building process which would bring everyone involved in the conflict together to discuss possible solutions. Pascal says that the goal of the process is to find a course of action that everyone can live with.

Questions:

1. Do you think an outside third party would be useful in this case? (See Intervention Options.)


2. What kind of intervention would be most useful? (See Intervention Options, Neutral Fact Finding, Facilitation, Mediation, Arbitration, Hybrid Processes, and Adjudication.)


3. Do you think mediation or consensus building is a good idea? Why or why not? (See Peaceful Change Strategies and Mediation for advice.)






4. What are the benefits?


5. What are the costs?


6. What alternatives do you have if you don't mediate? (Click here for advice.)






7. What are the advantages and disadvantages of your alternatives? (Click here for advice.)


8. Fill out the following chart:

Option:Benefits:Costs:Balance?
1.
y or n
2.
y or n
3.
y or n
4.
y or n
5.
y or n
6.
y or n


9. If a mediator does get involved in this conflict, what do you think would be useful for him to do? See Mediator, Consensus Building, and Policy Dialogue. Also consider the essays in Mediation Strategies.


Part 4: Meeting with Pascal

You go with Rachel and Lucy to meet with Pascal. Pascal tells you about the kind of work that he does and what he has been able to do for other people in similar situations. Then he asks you some questions (please answer):

1. If we do decide to mediate this conflict, would you want to participate? (Why or why not?)


2. If you do want to participate, what would be your goals for the mediation? (Click here for advice.)


3. What are your interests at this point?


4. Who do you think should be involved in this mediation? (See stakeholder representatives and convening processes for advice.)


5. Are there any people who should NOT be involved in the mediation? Why not?


After talking to Pascal for several hours, both you and Rachel agree to participate in the process. Pascal tells you he has already spoken to Megan, several other members of STAC and to Mayor Millhouse. They have all agreed to participate too.

Part 5: Capacity Building

Pascal meets with you and a number of your colleagues a few days later to find out about your thoughts and expectations for the process. You explain that your primary concern is economic. The area has been struggling economically for a long time, and tourism clearly seems to be the best way out of the downward spiral Silver Cliff has taken since the mine closed. If the area is declared a Superfund site, tourism would cease and property values would plummet. And it would probably be all for nothing, as none of the experts have shown that there are real health risks in Silver Cliff, just a bunch of whining, paranoid people.

Pascal seems sympathetic to your concerns and suggests (you think, anyway), that the consensus building process would be a way to "defuse" the threats the whiners are making. He seemed to think that they just wanted to be listened to, and if they listened to their concerns, then they would likely back off. "It also would be an opportunity to get STAC to listen to your concerns," Pascal added. You did admit to Pascal that you were a bit worried about the process, however. "I know STAC thinks we have "all the power" because we are rich, but Megan seems to have the EPA on her side. The EPA is way more powerful than we are, and they could completely do us in," you explain. "That may be true," Pascal replied, "but consensus building operates by consensus, meaning everyone has to agree. You don't need to agree to anything that doesn't meet your needs." Pascal goes on to explain that he has already met members of STAC and the other environmental groups to help them prepare for the process. He asks you if any of you would be interested in doing the same thing.

Rachel looks surprised.

"So, you've been giving them strategy ideas? That doesn't seem quite fair."

Pascal responds, "Actually I was just helping them to think through their positions and interests. It's actually better for everyone if you all have a clear idea of where you stand before the process starts. The reason I didn't come to all of you until now is because I felt that you already had a good idea of what your interests were and what your BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) is. I might be able to help you frame those ideas in a way that would help the other side hear you better, though.

Questions:

1. What are your interests now?


2. What is your BATNA?


3. Can you think of a way to frame your interests so they will be more acceptable to the other side?


4. What should you avoid saying because it will "set off the other side?"


Part 6: The First Meeting

After a few weeks, Pascal calls you and tells you the first meeting will be a week from Tuesday at the City Council chambers. Over twenty people are there, including Mayor Millhouse, Rachel, Lucy, an EPA representative, and members of STAC--the Slippery Toxics Action Committee--the group of paranoid whiners that started this problem in the first place. Pascal introduces himself (much the way he did when you met with him individually), and explains again what consensus building is and how it works. He then asks each of you to briefly introduce yourselves, but he asks that you hold your full introduction until later. After quick introductions are made, Pascal suggests that you work together to set some groundrules.

1. What groundrules would you suggest? (Click here for advice.)


You agree on things like speaking respectfully, listening attentively, and keeping the mediation proceedings confidential. Pascal then asks each person to explain their views of the conflict and what they would like to get out of the mediation.

2. What are you going to say?


Pascal asks the Slippery Toxics Action Committee to speak first. Megan starts. She stands up and says:

"STAC is concerned about the health of Slippery Creek residents. In the past three years, cancer rates have spiked by 10 percent. Birth defects have spiked by slightly less than 20 percent. The possibility of sub-clinical effects, such as decreased intelligence and increased hyperactivity is even more concerning. I am sure that no one in this room would be willing to submit their children to the possibility of a slow poisoning over the years," She pauses.

"However, we are also very concerned about the economy in this town and we hope to be able to find a solution that will have as little impact on tourism and other economic activities as possible. So, I'd like to work with everyone here to figure out a solution to clean up the water and the land, do so in a way that doesn't hurt the economy."
Megan sits down. Pascal then asks you to introduce yourself further and discuss your views of the problem. You say:
"The town of Silver Cliff is facing an economic crisis. I know most of you believe that we will make it out of this recession as we have made it out of hard times in the past, but the truth is it will be a miracle if we do. Our only hope right now is encouraging as much tourism as we can and I firmly believe that having Trout Lake declared a Superfund site will smash any hope of that. I drink well water, the same as the rest of you. Every expert we have spoken to has said the levels of toxins in the water are below the amount we would need to be concerned about. Are we really willing to sacrifice any chance we have of an economic recovery at the altar of playing it safe?"


Others stand and speak. Some, like you, are concerned about tourism. Lucy Lucky is concerned about preserving the history and character of the region. The environmental groups SANE and Pure Nature are concerned about the environment too, but they are even more extreme than STAC is. They are focusing more on preserving the environment than the people living in it. The residents of Trout Lake, however, agree with you. They say they don't want the "Superfund Noose" hanging around their necks, or a long dredging project driving down property values in their community. The last person to stand and speak is Jake Millhouse. He explains:

"I first ran for mayor of Silver Cliff because this town is my home, and I truly want to promote the well-being of all its citizens. Today we are following in the footsteps of Vermillion. We strive to improve the quality of life, economics, education, and infrastructure of this city. I believe that we can find a solution that benefits everyone here."
"I hope you are right," you think.

Pascal smiles at everyone.

"Great. We'll adjourn for tonight and meet again next week. Same time. Same place. Your homework for this week is to consider what everyone said tonight and start thinking about possible approaches that would meet everyone's needs."

Other Questions:

1. Do you see any areas of common ground? (Click here for ideas on commonalities.)


2. What do you think you need to do to be most effective at the negotiating table? (For suggestions, read capacity building and some of the essays in negotiation strategies.)






Part 7: Fact Finding

At the next meeting, it becomes clear that part of the reason everyone perceives the problem differently is that they are basing their assumptions on different facts. Although many experts have already come out to study the site, their findings have not been conclusive. There are still too many unanswered questions about whether the contamination is serious and what the best way to address the contamination would be.

Questions:

1. If there were another fact-finding process, what questions would you like to see addressed? (See factual disputes.)


2. How might these factual discrepancies be dealt with? (For advice, read some of the essays in the fact-finding section of Beyond Intractability.)


Pascal does suggest that the group undertakes a new fact-finding process that will be designed in a way that everyone will trust the results. But that will require more funding. Pascal, Megan, and you agree to go talk to the EPA and the city. The EPA agrees to partially fund another panel of experts. The county and city governments also agree to chip in some money and, with some help from Pascal, you also get some private grants. Then you meet with the other stakeholder groups and together agree on whom to select to participate in the fact-finding process. You choose six people who include university professors, doctors and scientists. All but two of them have worked on similar projects before. Everyone agrees that this is a trustworthy group, and they will respect the findings.

The experts essentially hold a science court. They listen to testimonials from the EPA and various townspeople. They read the various reports that have already been produced. They take new measurements of their own. Then, they retreat to discuss what they have learned. About a month later, they call a meeting to present their recommendations. They say they believe the contamination has caused some people to be sicker than they otherwise might have been. There also may be some sub-clinical effects of the contamination, or in other words, negative effects that wouldn't send someone to the hospital, but are still concerning. One example of sub-clinical effects might be the high incidence of learning disabilities in your community. However, the panel stresses the uncertainty of all of these findings. The water and soil contamination just can't be conclusively connected to significant health problems in the Slippery Creek community. But, since the possibility is there, and people are afraid and distrustful, they tentatively recommend a clean up, nevertheless.

Pascal calls a meeting with the fact finding team and everyone else who has been involved in the mediation process. The team presents their findings and answers questions. They then leave. People are civil, but clearly not happy. Pascal said that he had hoped to discuss next steps, but that the question and answer period went too long and it was getting late. He suggested people meet again in a week, and everyone concurred.

More Questions:

1. What do you think of the fact finders' recommendations?


2. How do you think the other groups will react?


3. What, if anything, do you think you should do now?


Part 8: Escalation

The results of the fact-finding process still leave a lot of uncertainty. After the meeting, you see Lucy and Rachel and head over to talk with them. "Well, that just proved what we knew all along," Rachel says. "Time and again we have brought in experts to evaluate the situation here and time again, the experts have said that there isn't anything to worry about."

As Rachel is talking you realize that Maria Sanchez, one of the members of STAC, has overheard her. She looks angry, but bites her tongue and walks off quickly. You feel embarrassed and wish Rachel wouldn't talk so loudly.

You turn back to Rachel and say, "I agree, again and again experts have said that there just isn't enough contamination to conclusively prove anything. But, I don't think STAC sees it that way. And, in a way, I see where they're coming from. No one wants to knowingly put his or her children at risk. Still, if the EPA comes in, it would spell economic disaster for this region. STAC just isn't looking at the big picture."

A few days later, Megan's lobbying finally pays off. The EPA announces that they will consider Slippery Creek for Superfund status. They plan to fund the clean up by charging Jake Millhouse for as much as he can pay and then using federal funds for the rest.

You are furious. You thought that Megan would put her plans to get the EPA involved on hold for the duration of the consensus building process. Now it's obvious that Megan was only participating in the process to provide herself with a way out if the EPA didn't come through for them.

After considerable discussion, Rachel and Jake Millhouse decide to contact a lawyer to see if they can sue the EPA if the EPA declares the area a Superfund site (or even considers doing so). Although you are angry with Megan too, you try to talk them out of it. You're still not convinced that suing will really get you what you want. But they refuse to back down, and because you can't really think of another solution, you don't push the issue.

For several months, the consensus-building process breaks down into fighting over whether or not the lawsuit will go ahead. In retaliation for the threatened lawsuit, the members of STAC decide to stage protests. They construct coffins and place them around Trout Lake. They organize marches through town waving banners and chanting. The protests shock you. You have truly tried to see things from STAC's point of view, but they seem to be too arrogant to realize that there is another point of view besides their own.

Questions:

1. Can you think of anything to do that might de-escalate this situation?






2. Do you want to continue with the mediation process or give up on it? Why or why not?


3. What, if anything, do you think Pascal can and should do to deal with the situation now?


Part 9: Stalemate and Opportunity for Agreement

The arguing drags on into summer. By this time, Silver Cliff has gotten some extremely bad publicity about the contamination and the usual steady flow of tourists is barely a trickle. At the same time, nothing has been done about the water contamination. Everybody is losing. It is clear that you have reached a stalemate.

You decide to do some mediation of your own. You convince Megan to postpone the EPA intervention if Jake and Rachel postpone their lawsuit. Both sides agree. Pascal Raffia agrees to restart the consensus process. This time, you hope, you might be able to do something useful.

Questions:

1. Do you think that all the stakeholders in this conflict have equal power? Does this matter?


2. What are your goals and options at this point? (See goal setting and option identification.)


3. Can you think of a solution to this conflict that could meet everyone's needs?


Part 10: Consensus Building Resumed

One week later, Pascal begins the consensus-building process again. Everyone gathers in a large conference room in the public library. Pascal thanks everyone for coming and suggests that they need to make a decision. The process has dragged on a long time with stops and starts. The group needs to decide, he says, whether they really want to work together to come up with a collaborative agreement, or whether they don't. If they don't, that is okay with him, but he doesn't want to do this on-again, off-again routine. "Let's either commit to this process seriously, or drop it for good," he says. After some short speeches, everyone agrees that they want to commit to it seriously. Pascal then reviews the ground rules that the group came up with months ago, and reviews where he thinks issues stand. He does this by listing all the issues he thinks are resolved and then listing the ones that the group still needs to work on. He suggests that they divide up into teams, each team being assigned to develop options for one of the outstanding problems.

The small groups meet for almost two months. At first things are tense, with no one accepting other people's ideas. But after spending so much time bickering and getting nowhere, everyone seems to care more about getting down to business than trying to prove who is right.

You have been working with Maria Sanchez (of STAC) and about ten others, researching what solutions other towns with similar problems have found. Other groups are in charge of other aspects of the project. One group is searching for another source of drinking water for Slippery Creek. Another group is researching possible ways to clean up the contaminated soil and water. They are evaluating each possibility to see how much it would cost, how long it will take, what the negative effects would be, and whether it will be worth the time and expense. A final group is looking into possible funding sources for the cleanup.

You don't know Maria very well, but the two of you get along well together. You are impressed when she finds a project that the citizens of Leadville, Colorado put together to deal with the toxic metals in their area. When you tell the rest of the group what Maria has found, everyone is excited. They want to adapt the plan to Slippery Creek.

After months of work, you have developed a preliminary plan. You want to create a bike path that goes around Trout Lake connecting to the rest of Silver Creek and, for very intrepid bikers, to the town of Vermillion. You hope that the path will be a draw for tourism. You will also be able to use the path to pave over the rest of the tailings piles to stop them from sliding into the soil and water. Moreover, the path will highlight and preserve historical features in the Silver Cliff area, which pleases Lucy Lucky.

The other groups have been successful as well. The water group believes the residents of Slippery Creek will be able to use water from the city source instead of their individual wells, which will hopefully limit the residents' contact with heavy metals and decrease the health problems they've been suffering lately. They have had to haggle for months with the city over this. At first, Mayor Millhouse said there wasn't enough water to accommodate the residents of Slippery Creek. However, when it came out that he was planning to use Silver Cliff water for new developments outside of the city, he admitted, embarrassed, that some of that water could be diverted into Slippery Creek.

Finally, the clean-up group has investigated possible processes and concluded that it will be nearly impossible to clean the contaminated ground water and so it will be best to stop using the wells and rely on city water instead. As far as the contamination in Trout Lake is concerned, dredging such a large lake would be a long, noisy project, which would have questionable success. However, they believe that dredging only the most contaminated part of the lake would increase the lake's safety considerably and be a fairly fast process. Furthermore, if you start the project in the late fall, you should be able to avoid interfering with tourism.

Question:

Do you think this solution is likely to satisfy everyone? Do you see any unsolved problems? Explain.


Part 11: The Hitch

The only group unable to find a satisfying solution is the funding group. The EPA is interested in the consensus building process and is willing to support your solutions, however, they say they are leaning towards holding Jake Millhouse responsible for the clean up because it is his family's mine that caused these problems. While a certain part of you would be pleased to see Jake Millhouse be forced to pay, you know that even though he is fairly wealthy, funding this huge project would leave him bankrupt. So this is sure to make him fight the cleanup all the way. Plus, even though he has dealt with this whole problem very badly, you realize that the contamination really isn't his fault. (See news article.)

The funding discussion has been extremely controversial. Thus, Pascal saved it for last. Everyone is nervous. Without the funding, this plan will fall flat. Everyone agrees to help. At your next meeting several weeks later, you all bring your funding leads. It seems almost miraculous, but with a combination of private grants and government funds, it seems you will almost be able to cover the cost. Then Maria says,

"Mayor Millhouse, since you own some of the land that we would like to use to build the bike trail, why don't you donate it to the city? That would almost cover our funding shortfall."

Jake Millhouse stands up and says "No way! I paid a good price for that land. I don't see why I should be forced to take the brunt of this while all the rest of you get exactly what you want."

You take a deep breath. Maria goes on:

"Now that's not quite true, Jake. Everyone here has had to compromise. However, if this still sounds unfair to you, you should think it through. If this consensus building process falls through, we can just go back to the EPA and ask for Superfund status and they're going to ask you to foot as much of the bill as you are able to. Not only that, but may I remind you that we are all your constituents and you depend on us for your job. So it may be in your best interest to compromise here."

Jake turns red and stomps out. Pascal calls a recess and quickly walks out as well, trying to catch Jake.

Questions to Consider:

1. Do you think Maria should have targeted Mayor Millhouse in this way?


2. Was there a better way to do it, that might have been more effective?


3. What do you think Pascal should say to Mayor Millhouse if he catches him?


4. Is there anything you could have done to de-escalate the situation before the mayor walked out? Now?


Part 12: Waiting on the Mayor

Pascal returns awhile later and reports that the mayor is not going to come back, at least not for today. He asks the others what they want to do. Rachel LeBaron, the president of the Trout Lake Homeowners Association, suggests that they adjourn for the day and she talk to Mayor Millhouse during the week. She thinks she can calm him down and get him to agree to that plan. You think you might be able to help out, too. Everyone agrees, and the meeting is adjourned.

At the next meeting, Jake agrees to the deal. Not only that, but several other residents of the Trout Lake community who own property volunteer to donate their land as well. The plan is going forward.

Questions:

1. Do you think the solution the consensus building team has come to is a fair one?


2. If not, how could it be improved?


Conclusions

Two years later, the project is well under way. You are still feeling hopeful about it. After living for more than a decade with constant worry, it feels very good to know that the problem has been addressed. Furthermore, Silver Creek's improved image and the bike path have drawn more tourists. Your husband has a new job as a manager at the new expanded grocery store that opened to accommodate all the visitors. Probably, the most important thing you got out of the process was the relationships you built with other citizens of Silver Cliff and Vermillion. You feel that because of your work on the water contamination issue, your opinion is now respected in the community. The town has forgotten the old animosities and the angry stickers are chipped and faded on people's bumpers. Although, if you had had it your way, you would have wanted to dredge the entire lake just to make sure that there were no toxins poisoning the children who swim in it, you believe that the solution you came to was the best for all involved. All in all, you are pleased with the process.

Also available: The Interactive Environmental Framing Simulation

Copyright © 2006 Conflict Research Consortium,
University of Colorado

Please send comments and questions to