The Role of Networks and Planning, in the Improvement of Impaired Waters in Urbanizing Counties within North Carolina

Kurt W. Smith

Environmental Management, Methodist University, Fayetteville, US.

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1101071                

Abstract

The state of North Carolina continues to grow at a rapid rate. The rise of negatively impacted streams, particularly within urbanizing counties, continues to expand. Considerable effort and public funding are spent through a variety of agencies that attempt to deal with the problem on a collaborative basis through management networks. A study using surveys, a plan quality rating tool and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) list of impaired (303d) streams was conducted to determine the strength of these networks, the quality of the plans they produce, and finally if those plans lead to improved water quality. Several areas, identified based on the data, suggest improvements in the functioning of networks and planning efforts directed toward water quality improvement.

Keywords

Management Networks, Sustainable Water Quality Improvement, Urbanizing Watersheds

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	McGinnis, M.V., Wooley, J. and Gamman, J. (1999) Bioregional Conflict Resolution: Rebuilding Community in Watershed Planning and Organizing. Environmental Management, 24, 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002679900210
[2]	(2014) Merriam-Webster.com. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
[3]	Bressers, H., O’Toole Jr., L.J., and Richardson, J. (1995) Networks as Models of Analysis: Water Policy in Comparative Perspective. In: Bressers, H., O’Toole, Jr., L.J. and Richardson, J., Eds., Networks for Water Policy: A Comparative Perspective, Frank Cass, London, 1-23.
[4]	Elazar, D. (1987) Exploring Federalism. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
[5]	Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, New York. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763
[6]	Wright, D.S. (1988) Understanding Intergovernmental Relations. 3rd Edition, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove.
[7]	Provan, K.G. and Milward, H.B. (2001) Do Networks Really Work? A Framework for Evaluating Public-Sector Organizational Networks. Public Administration Review, 61, 414-423.
[8]	Sabatier, P.A., Focht, W., Lubell, M., Trachtenberg, Z., Vedlitz, A. and Matlock, M. (2005) Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management. MIT Press, Cambridge.
[9]	Stowe, C.A., Borusk, M.E. and Stanley, D. (2001) Long-Term Changes in Watershed Nutrient Inputs and Riverine Exports in the Neuse River, North Carolina. Water Research, 35, 1489-1499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00402-4
[10]	Lawrance, R., Todd, R., Fail Jr., J., Hendrickson Jr., O., Leonard, R. and Asmussen, L. (1984) Riparian Forests as Nutrient Filters in Agricultural Watersheds. BioScience, 34, 374-377. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1309729
[11]	Endale, D.M., Schomberg, H.H. and Steiner, J. (2000) Long-Term Sediment Yield and Mitigation in a Small Southern Piedmont Watershed. International Journal of Sediment Research, 14, 60-68.
[12]	Borzel, T.A. (1998) Organizing Babylon—On the Different Conceptions of Policy Networks. Public Administration, 76, 253-273.
[13]	McGuire, M. (2006) Collaborative Public Management: Assessing What We Know and How We Know It. Public Administration Review, 66, 33-43.
[14]	Pressman, J. and Wildavsky, A. (1984) Implementation, the Oakland Project. University of California Press, Oakland.
[15]	Salancik, G. (1995) Wanted: A Good Network Theory of Organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 345-349. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393642
[16]	Hopkins, L.D. (2001) Urban Development: The Logic of Making Plans. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
[17]	Berke, P.R. and Conroy, M.M. (2000) Are We Planning for Sustainable Development? An Evaluation of 30 Comprehensive Plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66, 21-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360008976081