A group of summer home owners in the high mountains of Colorado faces an ongoing problem with their water well, which keeps testing as polluted, thus making it necessary for the residents to boil or buy their water. Recently some of the elected officials of the volunteer board authorized a road to be built so heavy equipment could reach the wellhead and the well could be dug out and rebuilt. The road was built through wetlands, which raised some federal legal problems, and through a pristine meadow cherished by some of the residents as a quiet, beautiful spot at the end of the property. The road goes through commonly owned property, skirting the edge of privately owned lots. Three factions have formed, and full-scale conflict has erupted, with letters, private conversations, procedural challenges, content arguments, relationship destruction, and face-saving struggles going on at a high level of intensity. Thirty-five or so families are involved. It is a long-standing group of friends and acquaintances who have considerable monetary and emotional investment in the property and dramatically different ecological, political, financial, and community values.

The "water first" group: This group consists primarily of engineers, scientists, builders, and practical people who are sick and tired of dealing with a half-solution to the water problem year after year. They want to get a new well, install purification systems if they are needed, and assess the membership for what is required. They rely on scientific studies of the water quality as a database. In their view, the road was simply a means to an important end. They are convinced that their mandate was clear: to provide potable water for the group. They can't understand the outrage of the second group. Many of this group have volunteered countless hours through the years for the practical maintenance of the roads, water system, fences, and governing system. This group is concerned with content goals and face saving. They argue that the content goals are the most important and that they did what they had to do (face saving).
The "road has to go" group: This group consists of a few older home owners and their adult children. The view of this group is that environmental concerns are primary. They will not tolerate compromise about the sensitive wetlands along the stream and feel outraged at the destruction of the most beautiful area of common property. They think the board acted without proper authorization by the membership and feel strongly that not only should the road never have been built but that it must be taken out and the area reclaimed. They prefer any solution, including boiling water for drinking, to the degradation of the environment. Many of this group will be second-generation home owners when they inherit the property from their parents. However, these group members have no vote in the association, since only property owners can vote. This group as a whole is concerned about appropriate process and has strongly held content goals.
The "we simply have to live with it" group: This group sees itself as the middle group between two extremes. Many of these people feel disappointed or angry about the gravel road and the fact that the water problem still is not solved. They want to support the elected board but don't like all the conflict and alienation in what used to be a very close and friendly group, which had potlucks, birthday celebrations, and outings together. Now that the road is in, they think it should be accepted and used to solve the water problem. This group is concerned with relationships and face saving for the board. They keep their private opinions, whatever they might be, to themselves. They look to the future.
Now that you have read "The Rainbow Development Water Problem," answer these problems:

Specify (1) competitive, (2) collaborative, and (3) transformative approaches to defining this problem.
How can concerns be addressed, relationships be enhanced, and solutions be found?
What communicative moves from each of the three groups would enhance rather than destroy the ongoing relationships?
If you were a negotiator for one of the groups, how might you approach the problem?