The operation of Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River affects several downstream resources and water uses including water supply for consumptive uses in Arizona, California, and Nevada, hydroelectric power production, endangered species of native fish, recreational angling for non-native fish, and recreational boating in the Grand Canyon. Decisions about the magnitude and timing of water releases through the dam involve trade-offs between these resources and uses. The numerous laws affecting dam operations create a hierarchy of legal priorities that should govern these decisions. At the top of the hierarchy are mandatory requirements for water storage and delivery and for conservation of endangered species. Other resources and water uses have lower legal priorities. The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program ("AMP") has substituted collaborative decision making among stakeholders for the hierarchy of priorities created by law. The AMP has thereby facilitated non-compliance with the Endangered Species Act by the Bureau of Reclamation, which operates the dam, and has effectively given hydroelectric power production and non-native fisheries higher priorities than they are legally entitled to. Adaptive management is consistent with the laws governing operation of Glen Canyon Dam, but collaborative decision making is not. Nor is collaborative decision making an essential, or even logical, component of adaptive management. As implemented in the case of Glen Canyon Dam, collaborative decision making has actually stifled adaptive management by making agreement among stakeholders a prerequisite to changes in the operation of the dam. This Article proposes a program for adaptive, but not collaborative, management of Glen Canyon Dam that would better conform to the law and would be more amenable to adaptation and experimentation than would the current, stakeholder-centered program.

This brief article, written for a symposium on "Collaboration and the Colorado River," evaluates the U.S. Department of the Interior's Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program ("AMP"). The AMP has been advanced as a pioneering collaborative and adaptive approach for both decreasing scientific uncertainty in support of regulatory decision-making and helping manage contentious resource disputes -- in this case, the increasingly thorny conflict over the Colorado River's finite natural resources. Though encouraging in some respects, the AMP serves as a valuable illustration of the flaws of existing regulatory processes purporting to incorporate collaboration and regulatory adaptation into the decision-making process. Born in the shadow of the law and improvised with too little thought as to its structure, the AMP demonstrates the need to attend to the design of the regulatory process and integrate mechanisms that compel systematic program evaluation and adaptation. As such, the AMP provides vital information on how future collaborative experiments might be modified to enhance their prospects of success.

With a focus on resources of the Colorado River ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam, the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program has included a variety of experimental policy tests, ranging from manipulation of water releases from the dam to removal of non-native fish within Grand Canyon National Park. None of these field-scale experiments has yet produced unambiguous results in terms of management prescriptions. But there has been adaptive learning, mostly from unanticipated or surprising resource responses relative to predictions from ecosystem modeling. Surprise learning opportunities may often be viewed with dismay by some stakeholders who might not be clear about the purpose of science and modeling in adaptive management. However, the experimental results from the Glen Canyon Dam program actually represent scientific successes in terms of revealing new opportunities for developing better river management policies. A new long-term experimental management planning process for Glen Canyon Dam operations, started in 2011 by the U.S. Department of the Interior, provides an opportunity to refocus management objectives, identify and evaluate key uncertainties about the influence of dam releases, and refine monitoring for learning over the next several decades. Adaptive learning since 1995 is critical input to this long-term planning effort. Embracing uncertainty and surprise outcomes revealed by monitoring and ecosystem modeling will likely continue the advancement of resource objectives below the dam, and may also promote efficient learning in other complex programs.

The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (AMP) has been identified as a model for natural resource management. We challenge that assertion, citing the lack of progress toward a long-term management plan for the dam, sustained extra-programmatic conflict, and a downriver ecology that is still in jeopardy, despite over ten years of meetings and an expensive research program. We have examined the primary and secondary sources available on the AMP’s design and operation in light of best practices identified in the literature on adaptive management and collaborative decision-making. We have identified six shortcomings: (1) an inadequate approach to identifying stakeholders; (2) a failure to provide clear goals and involve stakeholders in establishing the operating procedures that guide the collaborative process; (3) inappropriate use of professional neutrals and a failure to cultivate consensus; (4) a failure to establish and follow clear joint fact-finding procedures; (5) a failure to produce functional written agreements; and (6) a failure to manage the AMP adaptively and cultivate long-term problem-solving capacity.

Adaptive management can be an effective approach for addressing complex ecosystem-related processes like the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam, particularly in the face of substantial complexity, uncertainty, and political contentiousness. However, the Glen Canyon Dam AMP shows that a stated commitment to collaboration and adaptive management is insufficient. Effective management of natural resources can only be realized through careful attention to the collaborative design and implementation of appropriate problem-solving and adaptive-management procedures. It also requires the development of an appropriate organizational infrastructure that promotes stakeholder dialogue and agency learning. Though the experimental Glen Canyon Dam AMP is far from a success of collaborative adaptive management, the lessons from its shortcomings can foster more effective collaborative adaptive management in the future by Congress, federal agencies, and local and state authorities.

Disease burden is higher in the United States than in comparable countries. The Patient Self Determination Act of 1990 requires healthcare facilities to provide Advance Care Planning (ACP) information to all Medicare patients. The healthcare staffs’ (n=7) commitment to 3-days of ACP training increase ACP rates in the primary care setting. The Medicare Incentive Program is the platform for this initiative. This quantitative project used a valid and reliable pre and posttest design that consisted of 27 items on a Likert-scale. A 3.5-month chart audit (n=91) was conducted to assess the completion rate. Descriptive statistics was used to describe the demographic data.

The results of the two-tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test were significant based on an alpha value of 0.05, V = 0.00, z = -2.37, p = .018. There was a significant increase in the post-readiness to change average scores. A Mann Whitney test was used to analyze the statistically significant difference between the averages in two ACP types and electronic health record documentation (EHR). Staff did not always code (Mdn = 0.00) but they documented in the EHR (Mdn =1.00; 512.00, p = 0.003). ACP discussion was performed 63% of the time during Annual Wellness Visits (AWV), and there was a 49% increase in the EHR documentation. Trained staff are key stakeholders in guiding ACP conversations. They understand the barriers, impact, and consequences related to the lack of advance directives.

Maria is a United States citizen whose parents just recently obtained legal status in the US due to Maria having turned 21. Maria has been around the undocumented population her entire life due to a large part of her family being undocumented. She became very involved with the undocumented movement back in 2010 with the passing of SB1070 in Arizona. She states that the reason she became so involved at this time was because she realized how these anti-immigrant laws were affecting her family and her community. She has worked on many campaigns at the local level such as the recall of Russell Pierce, the Adios Arpaio Campaign among other things. She is set to graduate from ASU this May 2015 with a degree in Political Science and Transborder Studies, and hopes to study law one day. She currently works with Unite Here a labor union and continues to be involved with varies campaigns some being DACA/DAPA information sessions among other things

In her interview, Monica discusses her association with the Grassroots Leadership Organization and her involvement with DreamZone. She talks about why DreamZone is important and why she is politically inclined. She talks about DreamZone’s Clinton Global Initiative campaign and her involvement at the White House breakout sessions after DACA was signed. She has been involved in sit-ins and letter writing campaigns

Jonathan was born in a small farming town in Maryland. He talks about racism, segregation and the homophobic climate that prevailed in his hometown, and how that informed his activism and that of his parents. During middle school, he got involved in activism around queer youth of color. In the beginning, he was mostly involved in LGBT issues. Later, he also organized around economic injustice in peasant and working class communities.