Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 17

SUMMER 2013 LAND USE & ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Planning for Oil & Gas Drilling in Residential Areas:


A Case Study of Southlake, Texas
Maxwell, John P 7/11/2013

Introduction:
During the 83rd legislative session of the Texas House of Representatives, there were several bills which dealt with the regulation of the oil and gas industry. Many mainly had to do with trying to increase the rights of landowners when it comes to oil and gas drilling and development on the surface of their property. Under Texas property law, the mineral rights and surface rights are two distinct estates. The mineral rights are generally favored when it comes to the severance of those minerals from the earth. These conflicts between the two estates in Texas come to the forefront of a land-use dispute in the city of Southlake. This prosperous suburb of the DFW metroplex had a very combative discussion when it came to the development of shale gas through hydraulic fracturing. The conflict over urban drilling has played out throughout the North Texas area in the past five to six years as there was a huge push to develop the Barnett Shale.i The increasing deployment of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling meant much more lateral space could be covered with a smaller number of wells which could be spudded in a given place. The discovery of the Barnett Shale pushed the development of leases into more urban/suburban areas. There has not been much case law with respect to development of the mineral estate taking place within urban/suburban areas. Generally the Texas Supreme Court has ruled: that the owner of the mineral estate has the right to use so much of the surface estate as is reasonably necessary for exploration and development of the minerals, without compensation to the surface owner for such use.ii The accommodation doctrine states that the mineral owner must accommodate the existing use of the surface estate so the doctrine in the context of a suburban/urban environment becomes more complicated in the context of a residential area where use becomes more ambiguous from a surface/home owners point of view.iii

Landmen working for the oil & gas companies had usually dealt with mainly rural landowners/farmers who were not much impacted by one vertical drill that lasted a short time. This researcher spoke to one of the residents who signed a lease with a gas company and gave her experience with working with the landmen.iv She felt that the companies used the money and the threat of breaking a contract as a very real threat. These same landmen who had dealt with the rural ranchers and farmers who less concerned with the siting of the drilling rig as it was acres or miles away from their home, were now negotiating with college educated, informed, white-collar workers. With a new class of people to deal with, the companies started to have to answer for these new and unfamiliar industrial processes appearing in suburban backyards. The gas companies tried to use the same technique that has worked for many decades before: wave some money in the landowners face and they wont ask any questions. The person that I spoke with stated that the gas company pursued some of the more influential people in the area to turn them and get them on the side of the companies. This seemed to work well at first, but when you get into a place like Southlake, Texas money will not be the only consideration that people will factor into their decision over whether or not to support drilling. The Southlake resident that I interviewed was concerned over the uncertainty over this new process of hydraulic fracturing. She directly asked the gas company if they could guarantee that this process was safe and they could not. Since the oil and gas companies and their drilling contractors would not answer any tough questions about the processes at the hydraulic fracturing site there was a huge gap for misinformation and conjecture to spread. The focus of the paper will be a retrospective conflict assessment of the process for developing this ordinance. The first section will discuss the conflict and the process. The second section will examine the process which could have been used in a way to de-escalate the parties and
2

dial back the tension/personal attacks which occurred during the course of this process. This examination will allow the researcher to take the place of the mediator and attempt to make conclusions and give recommendations that could have improved the overall process. The normative judgments are taking from the class material which is cited herein.

Ordinance Dispute
From 2004 up until about 2007, wells were allowed to be drilled under a specific use permit (SUP). The application would go from the Planning and Zoning Commission to the full Council for a vote. This was in the years before hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling made it easier to access the hydrocarbon zones within shale formations.v The initial ordinance was passed in 2008 without as much public engagement as the ordinance. There were work session and discussion as the council amended the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Southlakes Master Comprehensive Plan, and Section 9.5, Article IV of the citys City Code. The ordinance at that time left several issues untouched with the main conflict of setbacks remaining unresolved. Approximately three years later in 2011, the council received well drilling permit applications from XTO and Chesapeake. First, applications came in, went to council and discussed what it meant for Southlake. Then the applications went to Planning and Zoning and then to council. The citizen that I spoke with was concerned that the council would use the cudgel of the signed leases to force people to accept that drilling would take place. The resident told me that her agreement stated that the company would have to follow the 2008 ordinance, but these new permits were asking for a variance for the setbacks in the initial ordinance. But before the final approval of the permit could be granted, the issue of drilling was beginning to become contentious and acrimonious, that the council would like to include public comment and get the input from people that would help with working through all of the information.
3

This contention resulted in the council instituting a three, then six and finally a nearly tenmonth moratorium on drilling within the city of Southlake.vi,vii,viii During the moratorium, the council directed Mr. Ken Baker head of the Southlake Planning and Development department and his staff to research and study how other communities were dealing with drilling in urban areas and engage with the public to address their concerns. The mechanism that the council used to work through this is the Planning and Zoning Task Force. The Task Force consisted of staff from the Planning Commission which went out to conduct interviews and collect information from other localities in the Barnett Shale and in North Texas whom was beginning to see drilling appear in urban and suburban areas. This data and other public testimony were collected in a series of Southlake Program for the Involvement of Neighborhoods (SPIN) meetings. The evaluation process took about one year to complete its study and helped to make the recommendations for the initial ordinance to the city council. Within this group of people, Mr. Baker indicated that the opinion seemed to be split down the middle between the people who wanted to allow drilling with Southlake and those who would like to outright ban it everywhere within the city limits. The amount of public input as well as the number of SPIN meetings was by far the biggest issue that the Planning and Zoning Commission has faced. This is not all that surprising given that the Planning commission regularly deals with issues that are contained in a specific area, where the development of the ordinance was going to effect the entirety of Southlake and created the criteria for which drilling must meet in order to be allowed to operate within the city. Mr. Baker was very clear in that this issue generated lots of passion on both sides and at times was difficult to get people to offer testimony in an objective and dispassionate manner. As far as the make-up of those people who were offering
4

testimony, Mr. Baker indicated that it was about 85% individual citizens who were making public comment and testimony for the ordinance. For the decision making process, the Planning and Zoning commission employed third-party experts to help the city complete the scientific and objective basis to offer up a permit regime within the city. The use of a petroleum engineer as well as an environmental scientist was key in creating an objective set of rules for which the operators of oil and gas wells would be subject to. These meetings went through several different setback scenarios for the ordinance to use for any approval of drilling permits within the city. The city planning department prepared maps [Appendix I] which showed these scenarios of different outcomes for the ordinance and what that setback radius would entail.ix The city attorney, Allen Taylor continued to apprise the council of the legal risk of adopting a large setback which could be construed as an effective ban of drilling and could open the city to lawsuits for regulatory takings. He especially outlined the 2011 decision of the 14th Court of Appeals in re City of Houston vs. Maguire Oil Company as a cautionary tale for setting arbitrary setback requirements and the way the courts will view a city's interference with the oil company's right to drill In this case the withdrawal of a previously granted well permit constituted a regulatory taking for which compensation was due under Tex. Const. art. I, 17 because the evidence showed that the cityintended to stop the oil company from drilling regardless of whether a permit had been issued and had no intention of allowing the oil company to drill.x The City Council and the staff in the Planning and Zoning Commission used the findings of Mr. Baker and his staff to responding to the publics concern for drilling in the Southlake area. The council had several meetings and work sessions before the final ordinance was passed on October 18th, 2011.xi [See Appendix II for ordinance summary and timeline] When
5

this ordinance was completed, the city council was unanimous in adopting the regulations and well permitting ordinance. The final ordinance, 880-B was passed with the 1,000 foot setback requirement while not directly dealing with the variance issue.xii The interested parties in hydraulic fracturing ordinance dispute completed the process with the passage of the ordinance, but the terminating of leases in Southlake, may have more to do with the drop in natural gas prices, rather than an crafted, enduring agreement which will stand up to pressure should the price of natural gas rise and drilling in Southlake is once again pursued vigorously. The main source for the information on the development of Ordinance 880-B was provided by Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Director of Planning and Development Services with the city of Southlake. As illustrated the chart diagram of the interested parties [Figure I] there are five main interest groups that are part of the discussion for this public policy dispute. Each group will have their positions outlined to help illustrate where the conflicts arise from. Ms. Harris, the Southlake resident who I spoke with was involved with the S.T.A.N.D. group. Positions Those who supported drilling did not want the government stopping them from getting all the money that was coming to them by way of royalties and lease payments. This is a classic case of big business trampling over the surface estate vs. overzealous government willfully blocking the use of constitutionally guaranteed property rights. This government ban could be interpreted as a taking which the government must compensate the owner of that property right for not allowing that right to be developed.xiii
I. Surface Estate this group is comprised of all those in Southlake who own their property a. This group position is that drilling should not occur in proximity to them without compensation or remedy from the operator. The group has a more general opposition to the development, but is less organized than the next group in that opposition.

II.

Southlake Taxpayers Against Neighborhood Drilling (S.T.A.N.D.) collection of people with much stronger and specific opposition to any drilling within the city of Southlake a. The position of this group is stated simply: We oppose gas drilling and pipeline placement in close proximity to our neighborhoods, schools and businessesxiv b. Our mission is to work with community and government officials, and if necessary, use all available legal means to minimize the negative impact of drilling on the health, safety and property value of our family friendly community. c. In light of the increasing NEGATIVE FACTS regarding natural gas drilling - its impact on air, water, and food, that ultimately lead to physical health issues and loss of property values, the path is clearNo VARIANCES, stick to our ordinances!

III.

Mineral Estate this group which is more diffuse than the previous two, wants drilling to take place and it be allowed in order for their royalties to be paid a. Interests: to allow drilling to commence and allow for the royalty owners to be compensated for their constitutionally protected property right.

IV.

Southlake Citizens For Property Rights this group is analogous to the S.T.A.N.D. group but is in the pro-drilling camp.xv a. Interests: a group that represents and lobbies for the protection of the mineral estates property right b. This group sees property rights as something akin to breathing and taking the ability to develop that right is what they compare to stripping them of their liberty c. A quote on the cached version of their website is from Mark Levin and is stated as follows: "In a civil society private property and liberty are inseparable... The illegitimate denial or diminution of his private property enslaves him to another and denies him his liberty."xvi

V.

Industry (XTO & Chesapeake) a. Interests to develop leases and to sell the natural gas through the fracking process.

b. Chesapeake sent a very public letter to all of the 1,400 leaseholders in Southlake condemning the city council and stating that the new ordinance was too restrictive to allow any drilling to take placexvii

Due to the number of positions taken which have varying degrees of rhetoric and risk tolerance, this negotiation turned sour and pitted neighbor against neighbor throughout the city.xviii The citys role in this process should have been to seek outside assistance in mediation which would help de-escalate the process and help to focus on interests rather than the positions of the people.xix My recommendation would have been to use a mediator to help with getting the process started and move these groups off of positions and towards an interest-based bargaining technique.

Retrospective Diagnosis for Mediation


Although there were many issues that had to do with the debate of hydraulic fracturing within the city of Southlake, when focusing directly on the conflict between the mineral rights and surface rights was primarily manifested in the setbacks. Setbacks became one of the main concerns of the citizens. Instituting a policy of a greater setback distance could effectively ban the development of the mineral estate. The muddles process for establishing when variances could be granted became the two points as to where the positions of each group ran up against each other. The mediation process could help illuminate the interests of each side and help to set a consensus derived distance for the setback number. Negotiating around the setback number would be a great place to address the interests of both sides. The interests of those who are surface rights holder is boiled down to public safety. The concept of public safety had to do with minimization of risk of accidents. The interests of the mineral estate are to exercise their constitutional right to their property. Using Roger Fisher and William Urys Getting to Yes is a practice that is designed to allow for outcomes which are win-win for the parties involved in the dispute. Fisher and Ury have four foundation principles which are overarching themes within a principled negotiation. The four major points are: (1) separate the people from the problem, (2) focus on interests, not
8

positions, (3) generating a wide variety of possibilities before deciding what to do (4) insist that the result be based on some objective standard. Within these frameworks there are considerations to take into account since this specific case deals with a public policy dispute in the context of land-use. Within the Fisher/Ury maxims, there are other guidelines which will come into the formulation for a solution and will also play an important role in the mediators job. Fishers dedication to the process is something the mediator should take into account and use the idea of the product is the processxx The first step that the negotiator could take is to organize the groups separately and see where the problems exist and where the exact issue is located. The first step to start a consensus negotiation process around the conflict around setbacks and variances of the siting of hydraulically fractured wells within Southlake would have been to use the three frameworks illustrated by Poitras & Bowen. Separately the groups should have an (1) appropriate definition of the problem. Secondly, the mediator should design the process for an (2) effective structure of negotiation between the different parties. Lastly, the mediator should explore the (3) motivations of the stakeholder participation within the boundaries of the mediation process to find the areas where an enduring agreement can be constructed.xxi Defining the problem is a key to the process. Without framing it in a way that is satisfactory to all parties, the groups may be unable to continue working in a way that allows for a productive outcome. Poitras and Bowen state that A definition of a problem that begins with what or how is more likely to lead to the development of a wider range of solutions.xxii The mediator should recognize that these different collections of people may not have a previous history of working together. This could lead to a lack of initial trust and expose the differential knowledge and experience, value clashesand frequent uncertainty about the
9

viability of the proposed outcomes.xxiii The frame is a lens that can provide the groups with an approach to the process. The mediator could frame this issue in a way that provided a common ground to speak from. A frame in the case of Southlake could reference something about the future of the community. With a focus on the community rather than each other, the conflict could be dialed down and a new paradigm of active recognition in the other party may be established. Allowing the groups to view people as other humans rather than abstract ideas is very important for the group to begin its process of breaking down the areas of difference. Framing is one method to recognize and define the problem. If the parties cannot come together via this format, another option would be to pursue a conflict assessment. One mechanism for the definition of the problem is to conduct a conflict assessment. This assessment is especially important when it comes to land use and in the context of an ordinance that deals specifically with the siting of drilling rigs. A conflict assessment will gather information through interview, analyze the interview results, design a joint problemsolving process and share the assessment with the interviewees.xxiv The conflict assessment is a time-intensive way to go about solving problems as many dozen people may have to be interviewed. However, this step is critical in the successful outcome of a land-use issue like the drilling ordinance in Southlake. Each step of the conflict assessment may continually help to flesh out the finalized ideas for the management of drilling. The conflict assessment will interview the stakeholders across a number of differences including: relationships, values, data conflicts, and structural conflicts.xxv The conflict assessment will help the Southlake community with determining the exact areas where the groups do not agree. When working on a conflict assessment, the parties may engage in disagreements over what specific references mean. The issues could get very contentious, yet the parties may be actually talking about totally different things. When there seems to be an impasse building, one card that the
10

mediator could play is to take the group on a walk in the woods where the parties can be pushed out of their myopic view of the issues and gain a new perspective. One way that the Southlake group could have benefitted from the idea of a walk in the woods would be to have the group tour several different rigs in the Barnett shale. The rigs, if at all possible, can each be toured in such a way that the group can catch the entire process from the initial site inspection to the final capping of the well. The parties would then get an idea of the noise, smell, and general disturbance of what the drilling is actually like at each step in the process. The groups would then be on equal footing as to actually physically watching drilling taking place. The walk in the woods helps the parties to realize each sides legitimacy and can show opponents of each side that fears and concerns are given concrete probabilities and risk assessments rather than being at a conference table with a heated discussion over abstract concepts. All of these techniques are aimed at separating the people from the problem and allow for the groups to transcend a fixed pie mindset and aim for a larger pie for everyone. The next step of structuring the negotiation will build off the information and relationships that were secured in the definition phase of consensus building. All those involved should be continually pushed to create value for everyone. Before this value process is completed, the groups would have already met internally to discuss their Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). The BATNA will be the rational alternatives to the groups which will construct a formula for each interest group to avoid irrational escalation of commitments which can push positions forward and not keep interests at the foreground of the mediation. Keeping the point where the group will walk-away (BATNA) with the leaders of the groups will help to avoid sunk costs and trying win at all costs rather than getting a solution which would satisfy the interests of the groups.xxvi The group has now enlarged the pie and has used the information of the interests of the different groups. The BATNA can be hashed out among
11

the groups on the sides of the issue before the actual negotiation takes place. Since this is a large multi-party discussion, meetings will likely look similar to the number of meetings that actually took place in figure Z process of the city council, but it will be a more multilateral process without the city council issuing recommendations or information that has not been vetted through the process of the groups. The SPIN meetings become more important in this format rather than council work sessions being the primary brainstorming sessions. The negotiation should lead to an agreement that has built in adaptive management or contingency agreements which helps to alleviate some of the risk tolerance issues that the groups likely feel. Contingency agreements along the lines of the science and the risks to safety would allow each side to claim value from the negotiation. The surface owners could have assurances from the operators that the monitoring of air/water/land will be on-going. This good neighbor agreement illustrated by Susskind would have a detailed monitoring and shutdown provision beyond those required by law.xxvii XTO and Chesapeake could have even trained the surface owners in Southlake to take measurements so there is no disagreement over the bias of the scientific measuring. The contingency parts of the negotiation can have an adaptive-management mechanism built into the agreement. Due to the level of uncertainty that often exists in management of natural resources an agreement that includes the best scientific evidence available at the time [will] result in minimization and mitigation of impacts xxviii The ability of the surface-rights holders to get a contingency agreement could be the missing piece to ensure that the process is active and the oil and gas operators are not bad actors and jeopardize the health and safety of the Southlake community.

12

The groups in the Southlake dispute were bogged down in a war of attrition over interests for several years even after the initials ordinance was passed in 2008. Taking a higher-level view of this dispute, it is easy to see that this entire discussion should have been organized into a more formal discussion mechanism. As Roger Fisher stated: the product is the processxxix and the city council should have initiated a mediation process which would have allowed the groups to separate the people from the problemxxx and move toward a solution to the conflict. Under this process, the SPIN meetings would have been a perfect time to build this process with all the people who were involved. Southlake could have hired a neutral convertor to begin a mediation process which could have involved the following process. Since these stakeholders involved a community of people that had to interact after this dispute was completed, it was important to assess the conflict and attempt to build a consensus process. Through the process, the different stages of the negotiation has engaged stakeholder which has satisfied the last consensus process building guideline, but the group must use the Fisher/Ury principle of setting an objective standard for the process. This objective standard, similar to what was completed for the city by a petroleum engineer and environmental analyst and was presented at the 10/4/2011 Council working session cab help to sell the principals in the dispute to be able to sell the agreement to their groups via an impartial expert.xxxi This standard is a proxy for neutral validation of the negotiation and will help to make the agreement enduring and a yes-able settlement for all interested people. Lastly, putting all the information together and writing up the agreement should be a write-up that works through the interests of each party systematically. The agreement on setbacks and when to allow variances will address the interests of both groups through a solution which touches on safety and economic development. For safety, this is where the contingency agreements come into place. Companies will not just wave money in front of someone but will continuously
13

monitor air/water/land pollution to employ best practices in the field and allow for the environmental groups to check on the operators and enforce the agreement. From the economic development perspective, companies will have to find sites that are acceptable to the public and allow for the drill pads to have horizontal bores to reach trapped gas so the rigs do not have to dot the landscape. Have mineral interests and companies pool the resources so everyone can be compensated even if the wells are located in an area that benefits one mineral owner. The companies are developing the leases, compensating the mineral estate, and promoting economic development must acknowledge the concerns of the other groups that will inevitably creep up. In any kind of industrial process, it is essential the companies show good faith to concerned citizens and environmental groups that they constantly strive to prevent any ecological, property or noise trespasses and will not cut corners to degrade the trust relationship.xxxii The agreement must work past positional arguments and it is vital the mediation align interests in a way that solves the variance and setback solution without crafting an ordinance that creates a taking or forces the community to be exposed to a public health and safety risk. Creating the built-in aspect of contingency and adaptive-management will allow the groups to continually update probabilities of an accident and be able to show empirically the costs and benefits which can be told to council to be able to adjust the rules according to what the monitoring and scientific data is showing.

Conclusion
After all is said and done, the process for getting all the information and completing the ordinance may have been all for naught as most drilling in the Barnett shale ceased regardless of ordinances/regulations, but mainly because the price of gas plummeted from ~$9.0 MMBTU in 2008 to ~$3.0 MMBTU in 2012.xxxiii The ordinance process achieved what one group wanted in terms of stopping drilling, but the industry may have used the regulation as
14

an excuse instead of the economics of drilling. In a poll taking shortly after the ordinance was passed, 41% said it was too restrictive, 35% it was not restrictive enough, 18% said it was fair and 6% had no opinion.xxxiv The drilling may have stopped for now, but that is most likely all attributed to the economics of the Barnett. If natural gas goes back to $8/MMBTU, the industry and the mineral estate will likely push much harder than they did in the face of an extreme shift in prices. Though this is a counterfactual argument, it is likely this ordinance may not be enduring if there is a rise in prices. If the process would have followed a mediation process which worked through all of the issues and led to a solution that both camps were satisfied with, it would be much more certain that any change in the underlying fundamental economics of the Barnett Shale would allow for Southlake to be well positioned to deal with this land-use management conflict rather than relying on a wobbly position-based ordinance.

Works Cited Endnotes


Hargrove, Brantley. "Fear and Fracking in Southlake." Dallas Observer. N.p., 24 Nov. 2011. Web. 21 June 2013. Maxwell, Billie Ann Texas Tug of War: A Survey of Urban Drilling and the Issues an Operator Will Face, Texas Journal of Oil, Gas, and Energy Law, 4 June 2009. Web. 30 June 2013. iii McFarland, John. "Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog." Web log post. OIL AND GAS LAWYER BLOG. GRAVES DOUGHERTY HEARON & MOODY, 11 Feb. 2013. Web. 5 July 2013. iv Harris, Diane "Southlake Resident/ Lease Signer." Telephone interview. 8 July 2013. v Baker, Ken "City of Southlake, Texas - Senior Director of Planning and Development Services." Telephone interview. 24 June 2013. vi AP. "Southlake Halts Gas Drilling For 6 Months." DFW CBS. CBS, 20 Jan. 2011. Web. 25 June 2013. vii The City of Southlake. "City Adopts Gas Drilling Moratorium." MySouthlakeNews.com. N.p., 19 Jan. 2011. Web. 25 June 2013. viii Slade, Rachel. "Southlake Council Extends Gas Drilling Moratorium." Community Impact Newspaper. N.p., 22 June 2011. Web. 25 June 2013. ix Sakelaris, Nicholas. "Southlake Approves 1,000-foot Buffer from Gas Wells to Homes Read Ft. Worth StarTelegram, 19 Oct. 2011. Web. 25 June 2013. x 342 S.W.3d 726; 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 3306. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2013/07/04. xi United States. City Council. City of Southlake, Texas. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Article IV - Oil and Gas Well Drilling and Production Ordinance (Ordinance 880- B). N.p.: n.p., n.d. City of Southlake Website. 19 Oct. 2011. Web. 26 June 2013. xii Ibid xiii Southlake City Council Work Session Date: 10/18/2011 xiv "Key Facts." STAND - Southlake Taxpayers Against Neighborhood Drilling. N.p., 2011. Web. 1 July 2013. xv Reuters. "Southlake Citizens For Property Rights Holding Petition Drive Meetings." Reuters. N.p., 23 Apr. 2012. Web. 1 July 2013. xvi "Southlake Citizen's for Property Rights." Southlake CPR. N.p., 2012. Web. 1 July 2013.
i ii

15

Platts. "Officials in Texas Town Defend Ordinance in Wake of Chesapeake Withdrawal." Platts. McGraw Hill Financial, 28 Nov. 2011. Web. 29 June 2013. xviii Hargrove, Brantley Op. Cit. xix Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving in. New York, NY: Penguin, 1991. Print. xx Ury, William. "What Roger Fisher Got Profoundly Right: Five Enduring Lessons for Negotiators." Negotiation Journal 29.2 (2013): 159-69. Print. xxi Poitras, Jean, and Robert E Bowen. "A Framework for Understanding Consensus-Building Initiation." Negotiation Journal 18.3 (2002): 211-32. Print. xxii Ibid xxiii Gray, Barbara. "Strong Opposition: Frame-Based Resistance to Collaboration." Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 14.3 (2004): 166-76. Print. xxiv Hoben, M., et al. Conducting Conflict Assessments in the Land Use Context: A Manual. Consensus Building Institute and the Land Use Law Center, Pace University School of Law, 2000. Print. xxv CDR Associates. CONFLICT ANALYSIS AND STATEGY EXERCISE. Publication. N.p.: n.p., 2003. Print.
xvii xxvi Bazerman, Max H. "Do You Know When to Walk Away?" Negotiation: A Newsletter from Harvard Business School Publishing and the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School (2004): n. pag. Print. xxvii Susskind, Lawrence. "Dont Like Surprises? Hedge Your Bets with Contingent Agreements." Negotiation: A Newsletter from Harvard Business School Publishing and the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School (2005): n. pag. Print. xxviii United States. Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program. Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program Habitat Conservation Plan. By RECON Environmental, Inc., Hicks & Company, Zara Environmental LLC, and BIO-WEST. N.p.: n.p., 2012. Print. xxix Ury, Op. Cit. xxx Fisher and Ury, Op. Cit. xxxi Sebenius, James K. "Level Two Negotiations: Helping the Other Side Meet Its Behind-the-Table Challenges." Negotiation Journal 29.1 (2013): 7-21. Print. xxxii Maxwell, Op. Cit. xxxiii Natural Gas Spot and Futures Prices (NYMEX), EIA.gov, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_fut_s1_a.htm xxxiv "Council Approves New Ordinance." Community Impact [Grapevine/Colleyville/Southlake] Jan.-Feb. 2012, 1st ed., sec. 11: 3. Print.

16