The examples found at the beginning of this book are, to our minds, neither instances of a lack of societal commitment to saving the environment nor evidence of unreasonable demands for highly reliable services. If they were that, the obvious answer would then be to bite the bullet and take either the environment or the services more seriously. In our view, the examples really express the hard paradox of having to improve the environment while ensuring reliable services at the same time. Beyond specific examples, the strongest expressions of the paradox being taken seriously in terms of the budgets and stakes involved are those large-scale adaptive management initiatives proposed and undertaken in regions where they seem most difficult to implement; that is, where the reliable provision of services is a priority. Just what “reliability” is for the kinds of organizations we study is detailed in chapter 4. Here, we take a closer look at our case studies to see how the issues are articulated empirically. The paradox is even enshrined in law. The mandate of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, for example, is to “protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development, operation, and management of [power generation] facilities while assuring the Pacific Northwest an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable water supply.” But how to do this? Or, as one ecologist, Lance Gunderson (1999b, p. 27), phrased the paradox, “So how does one assess the unpredictable in order to manage the unmanageable?” The answer usually given by ecologists and others is to “undertake adaptive management” (chapter 2). The decision maker learns by experimenting with the system or its elements, systematically and step-by-step, in order to develop greater insight into what is known and not known for managing ecosystem functions and services. Learning more on the ground about the system to be managed is imperative, especially given imprecisely defined terms such as “restore,” “enhance,” and “reliable.” As the senior biologist planner at the Northwest Power Planning Council told us, the last clause of the Power Act “AERPS” (adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power supply) “never has been quantified, so it is not very clear what it actually means.” He is not alone.
