ABSTRACT
Citizen Advisory Groups (CAGs) have been considered means for resolving conflicts, integrating interested parties, and expanding value considerations in Title II River Basin Commission Comprehensive Level Βplanning studies. This chapter focuses on to question the capacities of CAGs to integrate citizen advisors and planners into the planning process. Though the structure of CAG recruitment processes vary among the four Level Βstudies surveyed, their results are remarkably similar—an informal, closed recruitment process. Once decisions by the CAG are reached, planners prefer that the elected CAG representatives attend the planning sessions to present a "common CAG position." Using CAGs as a technique for insuring public participation in Level Βplans has its pitfalls. Designing an elaborate CAG system can emphasize democratic form over substantive participation. CAGs could be organized differently to minimize formalistic separations which reduce possibilities for interaction and citizen's perceptions of involvement in planning.
