Examining local truth regimes on flooding and river management in the Lower Missouri River Basin, USA

Examining local truth regimes on flooding and river management in the Lower Missouri River Basin, USA | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Examining local truth regimes on flooding and river management in the Lower Missouri River Basin, USA Angela J. Catalano, Damon M. Hall, Gerardo M. Gentil This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5278335/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 11 Jan, 2025 Read the published version in Environmental Management → Version 1 posted 11 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Riverine flooding is increasing in frequency and intensity, requiring river management agencies to consider new approaches to working with communities on flood mitigation planning. Communication and information sharing between agencies and communities is complex, and mistrust and misinformation arise quickly when communities perceive that they are excluded from planning. Subsequently, riverfront community members create narratives that can be examined as truth regimes — truths created and repeated that indicate how flooding and its causes are understood, represented, and discussed within their communities — to explain why flooding occurs in their area. To better understand community perceptions of river management related to repeated flooding, we employed a qualitative methodology of semi-structured interviews with 112 community members in 3 communities on the Missouri River, USA. Discourse analysis of the interviews revealed three dominant truth regimes that shape perceptions of river management in these communities: 1) upstream reservoir releases are driven by recreational aims, such as fishing and boating, instead of flood control; 2) endangered species management surpasses other uses; and 3) river navigation for commerce is no longer prioritized. For environmental managers, understanding the truths circulating within communities can help moderate mistrust of and frustration with governing bodies, guide project messaging to disarm false truth regimes, and improve the communication of science and policy. Flood risk management community engagement decision-making water resources stakeholder engagement misinformation Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction Over the past 30 years, flooding has constituted 47% of weather-related disasters globally, affecting over 2 billion people (Wahlstrom and Guha-Sapir 2015 ; IPCC 2023 ). With riverine flooding events across the globe projected to increase in frequency and intensity (McDermott 2022 ), nations are developing new approaches to mitigation and adaptation policies to address the increasing complexities of natural hazards (Ward et al. 2020 ; Ulibarri et al. 2022 ). Creating policies to prepare for and recover from natural hazards disasters like riverine flooding is challenging because of the unprecedented nature of extreme weather events and uncertainty of future flood severity (Merz et al. 2021 ; Kreibich et al. 2022 ; Klijn et al. 2022 ). River management policies require multi-level governance coordination between national and sub-national agencies and riverfront communities (Brondizio et al. 2009 ). Differences in infrastructure, local and regional economics, population density, and competing community priorities make policies difficult for environmental management agencies to execute and communicate at the local level (Consoer and Milman 2018 ; Henderson et al. 2020 ). Addressing these difficulties requires meaningful engagement with the communities affected by river management policies. In the face of confusing laws, prolonged bureaucratic timelines, technical jargon, and agency acronyms, affected communities experience high levels of stress agencies’ flood responses and threatened livelihoods by flooding (Griffin et al. 2008 ). Involving the public in the science–policy interface often showcases divisions among scientists, policy makers, and communities; these rifts are made worse when shared values and desired outcomes are not clearly defined (Colloff and Pittock 2019 ). As a result, people create narrative explanations for drivers of local flooding problems that allow them to reconcile and cope with this complexity (Seeger and Sellnow 2016 ). Conflicting interests in water resources management, such as agriculture, ecological restoration, and navigation, can destabilize policy approaches (Breen et al. 2018 ; Horton et al. 2019 ), resulting in siloing solutions based on specific interests, with less focus on the shared water issues at hand (Breen et al. 2018 ). Conflicting interests in shared resources management also lead to perceived vulnerabilities of the state’s ability to address climate change-related impacts, such as future floods (Miller et al. 2023 ). Community members who perceive themselves to be excluded from decision-making conversations may attempt to reclaim power by establishing locally created truths that reflect their experiences and make sense of disasters and agency responses. These assembled truths give a sense of agency—personal control—in contexts of grave uncertainty (Afifi et al. 2012 ; Seeger and Sellnow 2016 ), but they do not need to be verifiably true. The context for these truths provides insights into what communities believe is affecting them. These truths can be gathered and examined to support local flood mitigation planning and environmental management, as well as to identify misinformation within a community (Farrell et al. 2019 ). In this paper, we outline a qualitative research approach to gathering and analyzing local narratives surrounding river management and flooding. We apply a truth regimes framework derived from social theorist Michel Foucault (Foucault 1976 ) that examines how people craft narratives as a form of power and resistance. Using U.S. river management policies and interviews from 3 study sites on the Missouri River as examples, we demonstrate how understanding local truth regimes can inform flood risk reduction planning and management at scale. Truth regimes showcase complexities of applying national policies at local levels. We provide recommendations for attending to truth regimes to aid environmental managers in improving communication and community engagement and avoiding misinformation and trust degradation. 2. Complexities in river management and community responses to flooding Floods impact people in many ways. Damages to homes and personal belongings, the need to navigate complex disaster recovery policies, and the psychological toll of the cumulative experience all affect people’s overall well-being (Adger et al. 2022 ). This trauma is exacerbated by the ways that agencies engage impacted communities, including the timelines for engagement (Houston 2012 ). Interactions between agencies and communities primarily occur after a disaster, when residents are reeling from loss. Flood events can reveal un- or underinsured homes, inconsistent local compliance with national flood insurance programs, and frayed recovery (Richardson 2021 ; Bradt et al. 2021 ; Kousky and Netusil 2023 ), which makes interactions between residents, local recovery agencies, and national agencies fraught with anger and frustration over who is responsible for recovery and future mitigation. These complexities require comprehensive approaches to better evaluate the communication gaps between communities and the governmental agencies tasked with post-disaster recovery and mitigation planning (Birkholz et al. 2014 ). The governing agency for water resource management in the United States is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), which is a joint civilian–military engineering division. The USACE was granted authorization under The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 to protect the navigable waterways of the United States, which includes oversight of any alterations made in and along rivers. The USACE is the lead agency authorized to oversee regulations and permitting, so any proposed project in or interfering with waterways needs to be coordinated with and approved by the USACE. With the passage of environmental regulations such as The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 (P.L. 91–190), The Clean Water Act of 1972 (P.L. 92–500), and The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (P.L. 93–205), public engagement in the form of public meetings and public comment periods were deployed to better inform and interact with communities facing environmental threats. These acts call for increased public engagement between policy makers, scientists, and communities and have helped increase public environmental awareness (Gibbons 1999 ). Public participation, in turn, has become a best practice for environmental policy-making (Nabatchi and Leighninger 2015 ). Despite required public engagement for infrastructure studies, communities struggle to assert their experiences in policy spaces aimed at improving adaptation and environmental management (McEwen et al. 2017 ). Trust between flood-affected communities and governmental agencies can be difficult to establish and maintain (Sandman et al. 1993 ; Cox 2010 ; Engdahl and Lidskog 2014 ). In the United States, federal policy communication from federal agencies to the public most often happens in the form of public meetings (including in-person and virtual gatherings), but these meetings can limit meaningful public participation. Here, technical expertise is privileged (Mileti 1999 ; Fischer 2000 ). Agency experts present plans, and time at the end is reserved for questions and comments from the public. The structure of these public meetings limits how the public can participate meaningfully and may exacerbate anger or mistrust (McComas 2003 ). Little knowledge exchange can happen within this structure, leaving community members without much active input in contributing to the process or study (Arnstein 1969 ; Senecah 2004 ). 2.1 Truth regimes as a means to understanding local truths People craft narratives – stories that retell a series of events – to make sense of their experiences (Weick 1995 ; Van Den Broek 2001 ; Bruner 2004 ). These narratives are perceived as true for those crafting them and serve three primary functions. First, narratives contribute to placing blame. When faced with deep uncertainty following disasters, people employ heuristics to create narratives about who is to blame (Constantino and Weber 2021 ). Often, communities will look to scapegoats–people or organizations to blame that is often not the source of the problem–to exert their control over the uncertainty from the experience (Rothschild et al. 2012 ). Second, narratives serve as explanations for how and why disasters and their aftermaths occurred. Infrequent communication or unsatisfying answers from agencies lead communities to make sense of available information, along with their own experiences, to arrange known facts, events, and actions into these explanatory narratives. Third, local narratives serve identity functions by giving the local community a sense of agency in decision-making contexts and by aiding in processing of their personal experiences (Adams and Marshall 1996 ). With repetition and testing, salient narratives can develop into truth regimes. Historian and social theorist Michel Foucault ( 1976 ) articulated the concept of truth regimes to identify the role of power in the construction of knowledge (Foucault 1976 ). Groups, communities, academic disciplines, industry, and institutions create truth regimes that operate as dominant logics in society. The adoption and reinforcement of dominant narratives is a type of power. Foucault delineates power between the experts who generate knowledge and the lay people who receive it. Truth regimes are reinforced, redefined, and pervasive. Crucially, alternative views or narratives—particularly from non-experts or non-members—are actively relegated as inferior. For example, in flood risk management, the dominant truths are those accepted and disseminated by technical experts working for flood management agencies who are tasked with conducting technical work within the bounded logics of current science, legal authorization, and agency priorities and budgets. Truth regimes develop their power from the agreement on facts and values and the distinction from falsities (Fischer 2000 ; Latour 2004 ). To identify a truth regime, language is analyzed to identify dominant sociopolitical discourses (Sumares and Fidélis 2011 ; Langston et al. 2024 ). Discourse here means a system of thought made of widely circulated beliefs or logics that shape behaviors, professional practices, and institutional structures. Discourses are seen in words, images, common phrases, or other forms of communication. Discourses reveal how experiences and beliefs are framed to better understand how power and resistance take shape (Van Hulst et al. 2024 ). In flood risk management, the discourses of peer-reviewed science and codified law direct decision-making practices. Expanding Foucault’s definition of truth regimes, Weir ( 2008 ) incorporates cultural framing beyond scientific discourses to explore truth and non-truth via representation and presentation of the established truth and who is speaking this truth (Weir 2008 ). In Weir’s conceptualization of truth regimes, there can be multiple truths that are either stable or fighting for domination. This contestation highlights how truth regimes are continually redefined by subscribers and purveyors. It also broadens the concept to include how the non-scientific community creates and re-negotiates truth, sometimes in opposition to prevailing truth regimes established by experts. For example, in post-flood recovery, local communities will use social media platforms as a decentralized place to connect or reconnect to their community, share stories, and exchange information about the event itself, recovery efforts, technical information, among other functions (Houston et al. 2015 ). Online platforms have created readily accessible spaces for communities to create and disseminate truth regimes. We use Foucault and Weir’s concepts of truth regimes to analyze how communities establish local narratives to explain the causes of flooding, make sense of the USACE planning process and timelines, and interact with the technocratic approach in USACE’s river management policies. We focus our analysis on community or lay truth-making to examine how communities and agency technocrats negotiate power. For environmental management scholarship and practice, communities’ truth regimes on river management policies offer an empirical means for analyzing power struggles between agencies and local communities. By identifying local truth regimes, agencies and communities can develop an understanding of how blame, community-crafted narratives, and community self-affirmations play a role in community–agency dynamics during flood mitigation planning processes. This understanding can lead to strategies for improving communication and collaboration for more efficient flood mitigation planning. 2.2 The USACE and river management in the Missouri River Basin The Missouri River is the longest river in the United States. It is highly altered by channelization, reservoirs, and levees, which presents numerous challenges in both management and policy priorities, as well as in determining options for flood mitigation (Ferrell 1996 ). The USACE manages the river for its water supply, transportation, and national security values. With the interest in national electrification via hydropower and the protection of development from annual flooding, the USACE was authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78–534) with constructing, modifying, and maintaining a system of dams and levees along the Missouri River as part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program (hereafter Pick-Sloan). Following the passage of the Flood Control Act, federal and non-federal levee construction along the Missouri River took place from the 1950s through the 1980s, resulting in a patchwork system of federally and privately owned and maintained levees (Hall and Catalano 2023 ; Catalano et al. 2024 ; Hall et al. 2024 ). Additional alterations, including wing dikes to channelize the river, have changed the geomorphology and flow regimes of the Missouri River (Jacobson et al. 2015 ). Pick-Sloan mandates that the USACE follow the Water Control Master Manual (hereafter Master Manual) to maintain and operate water resources management for 8 purposes: hydropower, flood control, navigation, irrigation, water supply, water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife (USACE 2018 ). Overseeing the 8 purposes outlined in the Master Manual is a delicate balance for the USACE. Adding to these competing priorities, the Pallid Sturgeon ( Scaphirhynchus albus ) was listed in 1990 under the ESA as endangered in the Lower Missouri River Basin (LMRB), downstream from Yankton, South Dakota, to the confluence with the Mississippi River near St. Louis, Missouri. Following biological opinions from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000 , 2003 ), the USACE formed the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee (MRRIC) as authorized in Section 5018 of the 2007 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) (P.L. 110–114). This committee convened multiple interest groups to improve the USACE’s adaptive management approach and to bring in stakeholders to share their opinions and concerns with ESA management. MRRIC included stakeholder groups, tribes, and federal and state agencies that met quarterly from 2009 through 2019 to share data and provide recommendations to the USACE in an attempt to achieve consensus about how best to manage the river for everyone, including the Pallid Sturgeon. The convening and meeting process revealed the challenges of negotiating among stakeholder groups in a process that is ultimately governed by bureaucracy (Errington and Gewertz 2018 ). Ultimately, not everyone got what they wanted from these meetings, and the Pallid Sturgeon remains on the ESA list as of 2024. Following major flooding in 2011, landowners sued the USACE. Plaintiffs in Ideker Farms, Inc. et al. v. United States (2018) alleged that the USACE was aware of the flooding and prioritized ecological restoration over flood control (Idekar Farms, Inc., et al. 2018). In 2018, the trial court determined that the USACE was responsible for taking land without just compensation and, as such, had changed priorities outlined by the Master Manual. Appeals and civil lawsuits are ongoing as of 2024. This lawsuit has contributed to mistrust between Missouri River communities and the USACE Kansas City (KC) district. One year following the Ideker Farms ruling, the LMRB experienced devastating floods that again altered the way the USACE engaged with riverfront communities. Flooding began in the LMRB in March 2019 following record snowpack, rapidly rising temperatures, and extreme precipitation (NOAA 2019 ). Damages topped $ 1 billion, and over 14 million people across five midwestern states were affected by the flood (Smith 2020 ). In the aftermath of the 2019 floods, Missouri governor Michael L. Parson convened the Flood Recovery Advisory Working Group (FRAWG) to identify the state’s ongoing priorities for flood mitigation, assess the state of the levee system, and provide feedback on recommended levee infrastructure improvements and changes (FRAWG 2020 ). FRAWG’s subsequent report informed the state’s approach to working collaboratively with the USACE KC District. The WRDA of 2020 authorized the Lower Missouri River Basin Flood Risk and Resiliency Study (hereafter LoMo Study) to be conducted by the USACE KC District and completed by 2027. Given the extent of river miles that include levee constriction in the LMRB, studies recommended location-specific data to create comprehensive flood mitigation plans to incorporate ecological restoration and ecosystem services (Jacobson et al. 2015 , 2022 ). This study included updated system-wide river stage and flood frequency analyses, as well as site-specific spin-off studies or problem solving for repetitive-loss communities in Jefferson City, Brunswick, and Holt County, Missouri, to be completed concurrently as part of the LoMo Study (WRDA 2020 ). 2.3 How truth regimes influence flood resilience planning policy In the United States, there are two routes for how local truth regimes can influence flood resilience planning policy: the determination of the locally preferred option and the changing weight given to other social effects in large civil works development projects (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2013 ). First, in a planning study, USACE studies several structural and non-structural options to address problems like flooding. If a community can agree on a preferred option, then that locally preferred option must be considered in USACE’s detailed technical assessment along with other structural, non-structural, and nature-based options (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2013 ). In the case of the LMRB, the state of Missouri is the non-federal cost-share partner of the Missouri part of the LoMo Study and provides 50% of the funding. Second, in conducting feasibility studies for their projects, the USACE must conduct a benefit–cost ratio study concerning national, regional, and local costs that would arise from a proposed project. Recent shifts in non-monetizable social effects, like cultural costs or benefits of a project, open the door for local input to determine how flood mitigation projects would affect the local community. In designing flood mitigation study plans, agencies must determine how they want to approach community engagement to fulfill policy requirements that focus on the social effects of a proposed project. For the USACE, overcoming a negative public perception following the Ideker Farms ruling poses a distinctive obstacle to effective public engagement. 3. Methods To examine how truth regimes factor into community engagement in flood mitigation planning, we asked: How do local communities perceive federal river management policies? How do those perceptions shape local truth regimes about flooding? Funded by the state of Missouri, we employed a cultural inventory (Hall et al. 2021 ; Gilbertz and Hall 2022 ) of spin-off site community leaders’ experiences and opinions about flooding and flood mitigation options via conversational and confidential interviews (Young et al. 2018 ). Unlike a survey, interviews allow for more authentic engagement that gives participants more time and space to find the language that best captures their experiences (Harris 2017 ; Grace-McCaskey et al. 2021 ). We selected three sites that are part of the USACE KC District’s LoMo Study: Holt County, Jefferson City, and Brunswick, Missouri. Our three-person research team conducted and recorded semi-structured one-on-one or small group interviews with 112 participants ( n = 112) across the three study sites from December 2021 through March 2024. Participants were community members directly affected by flooding or those with a record of participating in flood management planning, such as local government officials and staff, levee and drainage board members, landowners and farmers located in the floodplain or floodways, business owners and industry staff whose business operations are within the floodplain or floodway, and industry members who service businesses within the floodplain or floodway (see Table 1 for the interest areas represented). We recruited participants via purposive then snowball sampling (Creswell and Poth 2016 ). We cross-referenced contacts with the USACE public meeting attendance lists to expand our recruitment. To refine our focus to the community members’ truth regimes, we did not interview USACE staff. The interview protocol contained broad questions to assess experiences and opinions about flooding and desired flood mitigation strategies and did not explicitly ask questions that explored truth regimes. Table 1 Interview participants’ interest areas for our 3 study sites. Interest Area Number of Participants Agriculture 35 Government 33 Industry 33 Resident 11 Total ( n ) 112 We used our research questions, the interview protocol, and truth regimes as articulated by Foucault ( 1976 ) and Weir ( 2008 ) to develop a deductive codebook to code and analyze the transcriptions of the 112 interviewees. Our team coded every interview individually using Lumivero’s NVivo Qualitative Analysis 14.0 software and conducted a discourse analysis of the transcribed interviews (Leech and Onwuegbuzie 2011 ). We listened to 5,198 minutes of interview audio and read 2,547 pages of transcribed interviews for coding. We used the NVivo software to organize, code, and analyze these data; no artificial intelligence was used in any part of this study or analysis. We analyzed and coded 89 interview transcripts that represent single and small group interview transcripts. We created a parent code—causes of flooding—to capture what interviewees stated to be causes of flooding in their community. After we completed the initial coding, we analyzed the causes-of-flooding code to determine which truth regimes emerged that specifically highlighted policy decisions and implementation. We created three child codes—reservoir releases, ESA priorities, and river navigation—that emerged from the parent causes-of-flooding code to further analyze how respondents discussed how river management policies affect their communities. 4. Findings Eighty-seven % of the interview transcripts ( n = 77) referenced the causes-of-flooding parent code. Our analysis found three local truth regimes—co-created explanations that perpetuate dominant narratives and diminish opposing viewpoints—all of which were related to river management and were stated by interviewees as contributors to local flooding in their communities (see Fig. 1 ). We categorized the three truth regimes into these thematic headings: reservoir releases prioritize recreation over flood control, “They just manage the river for the freaking fish,” and river navigation is no longer prioritized. Each section below focuses on an individual truth regime, but we note that respondents frequently referenced more than one truth regime in a single interview. Anonymous direct quotes with interest area and study site identifiers illustrate our findings. 4. Reservoir releases prioritize recreation over flood control The most prominent truth regime that locals used to explain flood severity concerned the USACE’s decision-making involved in upstream reservoir releases. Forty-six % of the coded interviews ( n = 41) referenced the USACE reservoir releases as a source of contention within their community. The resounding narrative was that the USACE maintains higher water levels at the Gavins Point Dam to facilitate high-quality boating and fishing in the upstream reservoirs. Interviewees reported being aware that the USACE is required to manage the river as outlined by the Master Manual, but they did not understand how the USACE made decisions. Many participants mentioned that the Master Manual is supposed to prioritize flood control in dam system management. In the face of the unknown decision calculus of this complicated document, respondents circulated truth regimes like “the only reason they're supposed to have them lakes [near dams] was for flood control. It wasn't supposed to be for recreation. The recreation people, they don't want to have a boat dock 10 foot out of the water” (Agriculture BR). Most interviewees shared feelings of anger and resentment that their communities face more damaging floods because of the gamble of the USACE holding back more water in the reservoirs. One interviewee shared, “So what if you have to stay home and roast a hot dog instead of going fishing one day? Look at everything that got ruined just so they keep the water level the way they wanted it up north” (Industry JC). Participants reported that they check the USACE’s Gavins Point Dam reservoir release and levels website frequently, with many stating that they check the website daily in spring and summer. One respondent stated, “I know all the levels. After the ’93 flood, I started living and breathing it. It’s just something I do all the time now” (Resident BR). The timing of reservoir releases forces residents to watch the website diligently. A participant in Holt County, the geographically closest site to the nearest reservoir, shared, “As they [USACE] regulated the Gavins Point Dam, we would be going, ‘Okay, what is the release? Today? This week?’ And all of [a] sudden, we’ve been out of the flood rains for weeks and it starts flooding again” (Agriculture HC). The volatility of water levels is a source of confusion for LMRB residents. These responses indicate community members do engage with federal agency data but may not have transparency on how those data are used in decision-making contexts. 4.2 “They just manage the river for the freaking fish” The second dominant narrative explaining the causes of flooding was that ESA priorities are considered more important than protecting riverfront communities from impending riverine flooding (34% of the interviews, n = 30). Many participants shared statements like “The people concerned about the Pallid Sturgeon. .. those kind of people are more concerned about wildlife than they are human life” (Government HC). Many interviewees shared an “us versus them” sentiment about the Pallid Sturgeon. As one participant put it, “You won't find any bigger conservation person than a farmer, but when they take away your livelihood, and that kind of turns your stomach a little bit” (Agriculture HC). Another participant stated that “The dinosaurs are gone, that fish needs to be gone. It's got no value for humans, does it? You can't say. I've got no problem with wildlife and stuff, but that's ridiculous” (Agriculture BR). These truth regimes place anger against the U.S. government’s recent (1970s) river management policy changes, which are viewed as prioritizing the welfare of wildlife over that of humans. Many participants stated they did not know how Pallid Sturgeon conservation ranked against flood control in the Master Manual, echoing their sentiments about flood releases. Noting that they experience more frequent extreme rainfall events, one participant stated, “Uncle Sam can't control the weather, but they can control what they do with the water after the weather. That's where they make everybody mad because it's not about people, it's about fish and birds when it comes to managing the Missouri River.” (Industry BR) Some of the respondents previously served on the MRRIC and shared feelings of disillusionment with the committee process and the focus on experts over people that live on the river. One participant reported that the USACE has new members and that “They're trying to go ahead and restore the Missouri River to make it more of a wide, shallow thing. The people that are in there now are the ones that haven't really had the experience. They're book smart and they don't really know how the scenarios change.” (Agriculture HC) Respondents reported varying levels of understanding how experiments to increase Pallid Sturgeon spawning were implemented. Most stated that they were aware that the Pallid Sturgeon was still listed as endangered and were frustrated by the continuing efforts to increase the population. These experiments, most notably notching wing dikes to encourage spawning, were noted as failures that contributed to bank erosion and increased flooding. One participant lamented the experimental process, stating that “bank stabilization is a huge part of flood control. And we had it at one time, and they turned and went down the other road. It didn’t fix the Pallid Sturgeon problem, but they caused a whole bunch of problems” (Agriculture JC). Many participants reported that they would prefer wildlife conservation efforts to end if that would decrease erosion and flooding. 4.3 River navigation is no longer prioritized Building upon the two truths above, many participants noted that managing the river for navigation, as outlined in the Master Manual, no longer appears to be as important in river management as it did prior to the ESA listing of the Pallid Sturgeon. Twenty-five % of the interviews ( n = 22) referenced bank stabilization and river navigation as causes of flooding. One participant reflected on the change in management: “It's so disheartening what the Corps has done. They built the river system to self-scour, to move that current to the center of the stream with the wing dikes. Then they notched them in the ‘90s to create the Pallid Sturgeon habitat.” (Agriculture JC) Other interviewees expressed similar frustrations with what they perceive to be a change in how the Master Manual is interpreted and implemented in the USACE’s day-to-day operations. Linking this change in management directly to flooding, a participant reported that “several of our floods we’ve had over the years, they [USACE] could control some of this flooding by just managing the infrastructure we already have.. .. I think that’s so important, but we don’t worry about barge navigation” (Agriculture JC). Some participants pointed to studies (although no specific studies were referenced in our interviews) that show Pallid Sturgeons are breeding above the Gavins Point Dam, which makes it difficult for them to understand why river navigation is deprioritized in their reaches of the river. According to one participant, “Those things can breed upstream in them lakes. They've already proved that. So they've had them breeding and they found that they do, up there. Let them do that up there. Leave our river down here alone for navigation” (Agriculture HC). Overall, interviewees pointed to how difficult it is to find consensus concerning how to manage the river. One participant shared that “it seems like the more we try and manage rivers, the more problems we cause” (Industry BR). All 3 truth regimes narrate stories about how the federal government has changed river management practices that overlook the health and well-being of their communities. A participant summed this sentiment up by saying, “No one gives a shit about what happens to us down here” (Industry JC). 5. Discussion Truth regimes created by communities to explain the causes for environmental management problems can create roadblocks for public engagement and buy-in around management decision-making and implementation. Uncovering truth regimes is not about identifying which are better or “truer” than others. Rather, the utility of truth regimes is that they reveal misalignments between community and managerial discourses. Once identified, truth regimes can serve as a starting point for environmental managers to determine how to improve communication among technocrats and the communities they serve (Fischer 2000 ). Through interviews with community members affected by flooding, we identified three truth regimes that helped these interviewees understand the causes of flooding within their contextualized experiences: timing of reservoir releases, ESA priorities around the Pallid Surgeon, and a lack of prioritization of river navigation. In our analysis, we found that the truth regimes communicated by community members affected by flooding in the LMRB served three primary functions: 1) to reclaim power through locally created narratives that reflect community members’ lived experiences; 2) to make sense of disastrous events in the absence of access to information; and 3) to reinforce and build upon each of the other truth regimes, thereby strengthening each other and unifying into a larger narrative. Based on each of these functions, we present recommendations for environmental managers. 5.1 Reclaiming power through local narratives First, for community members engaged in the LoMo Study, truth regimes act as a reclamation of power by providing their own locally created knowledge. This local knowledge aligns known facts, events, and actors into a uniform narrative that makes sense. These narratives are explained in natural language and local vernacular, which contrasts with the technical terms and explanations from those outside of the community, like technocrats and scientists (Fischer 2000 ). In our study, farmers whose land is on the Missouri River experience the tangible impacts of flooding, which they believe to be invaluable to understanding where flooding and subsequent damage occurs most often. When technocrats present hydrological models that do not reflect their personal experiences with flooding, farmers push back on these technical explanations and models as incomplete. Psychological and legal ownership of a place raises the stakes for community members, particularly when proposed changes threaten to undermine the social, cultural, and economic facets of the community (Matilainen et al. 2017 ). Part of the power gained from truth regimes is in organizing different people within a shared place. Truth regimes serve membership and identity functions. Adherents to the truth regime belong to a place and community. Developing truth regimes can act as a protective measure that delineates an us-versus-them paradigm, pitting the community against the agencies. To address truth regimes directly, we recommend environmental managers offer alternative communication options for community members to share their experiences and opinions in more private settings. To soften the us-versus-them dynamic between LMRB communities and the USACE, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources reviewed our findings and created in-person office hours before and after the USACE’s public meetings. These office hours allow residents to book in-person meetings to ask questions and voice their opinions one-on-one with Missouri agency staff members. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources acts not only as a locally focused resource for communities but also liaises with the USACE to share community responses to the study. This effort demonstrates to the community that the state agency, a federal cost-share partner, has a stake in this study and in the community’s perspectives as well. 5.2 Sensemaking Second, residents used their personal experiences, combined with available agency data, to create truth regimes as a sensemaking practice to understand why their communities flood (Weick 1995 ). For example, the statements we analyzed indicate that these truth regimes reflect a lack of understanding about how the USACE implements federal policies like the Master Manual and ESA management. In response to our findings reporting confusion and misinformation about reservoir releases, the USACE KC District included a brief overview of their reservoir management and decision-making protocol in their virtual LoMo Study quarterly public meeting in April 2024. Similarly, our truth regime findings demonstrate that restoring Pallid Sturgeon populations and stabilizing the riverbank are viewed as two competing interests that counteract one another. The Pallid Sturgeon recovery experiments administered by the USACE and the U.S. Geological Survey failed to provide adequate explanations of experimental design methods, and the community believes them to be degrading the riverbank and stabilization efforts. The black-box, unknown nature of the ESA and of the Master Manual perpetuates the truth regimes that characterize the USACE’s decision-making as haphazard or ill-intentioned. Identifying local truth regimes provides information for improving or changing communication efforts. Functionally, truth regimes point to information deficits within communities and a failure of administrators to understand local socio-cultural particularities needed to communicate within the social context. Transparency concerning how policies may restrict or limit flood mitigation options will be appreciated by riverfront communities and landowners (Lukensmeyer et al. 2011 ). Managers can take inventory of existing truth regimes via social science research, identify and understand the unknowns that local truth regimes explain, then incorporate explanatory communication in public meetings with communities to remove the mystery (Rowan 1992 ; Hall et al. 2014 ). 5.3 Reinforcing and building upon other truth regimes Third, individual truth regimes do not exist in a vacuum—they build upon one another and justify the larger narratives. For example, the three LMRB riverfront communities’ truth regimes evidence and reinforce the belief that they are overlooked in river management practices and that the priorities of USACE are misaligned with those of the community. Our findings demonstrate that the three truth regimes developed and circulated regionally within the over 800 river miles of the LMRB. All three truth regimes relate to one another, making each truth more powerful in its salience with other local narratives. The reinforcement and pervasiveness of these truth regimes reflect their unified use by community members, in this case, to demonstrate that they both engage with the USACE websites, tools, and public meeting information and have personal experiences that conflict with what they are being told. The standardized communication tools used by agencies fail to take into account the nuanced and unique narratives built by the truth regimes communities create, resulting in power struggles, mistrust, and ineffective public outreach by agencies (Gaillard 2023 ). Truth regimes are evidence that communities want to be involved in management decisions that affect them (Fekete et al. 2021 ). By using the available data to support their truth regimes, these community members demonstrate that they are willing to engage with agencies outside of scheduled public meetings, and this motivation illustrates that they can be vital partners in flood mitigation planning. Moreover, data alone do not move people, and locally created truth regimes reveal the need for context in data sharing as it relates to river management decisions. We recommend several approaches agencies can develop and integrate into their planning processes to help community members feel welcome and involved in decision-making in the context of complex narratives driven by interrelated truth regimes. First, agencies should develop clear and consistent communication of both science and policy implementation decision-making, which will discourage misinformation and avoid mistrust. Second, communities should be given space to share their knowledge and experiences in the flood mitigation planning process. Allowing this depth of participation moves public engagement beyond simply getting a community to buy in to proposed approaches and gives them agency in the decision-making process (Hall et al. 2016 ; Samaddar et al. 2021 ). Third, effort should be made to identify and understand local truth regimes. Directly speaking to these truth regimes and the larger narratives they support can increase the legitimacy of public participation and can be used to clarify discrepancies between agency and local knowledge. Communities want to be heard and considered in decision-making that directly affects them. Meaningful engagement—engaging directly in ways that best align with local communication preferences—between local residents and agencies encourages decentralizing power and supports more informed approaches to addressing community needs in national policies (Hassenforder et al. 2020 ; Tambal et al. 2024 ). As more agencies hope to engage with local communities effectively, residents likely benefit from being better informed about river management policies so they are more capable to meaningfully participate, increasing the likelihood of their preferences being heard and selected (Mees et al. 2016 ; Raikes et al. 2023 ). Additionally, agencies need to know if their current outreach and communication is perceived accurately to better address misinformation, disinformation, or perceived animosity (Cox 2010 ; Coleman and Stern 2018 ). Considering scale is vital to research design for collecting data prior to developing an engagement approach (Hall et al. 2012 ). Since federal policies look different at local scales, site-specific policy communication can be developed by investigating which truth regimes persist in a community or region. By listening to and documenting local truth regimes, agencies can identify core community values to craft or deliver information in ways that suit the community (Lewandowsky and Oberauer 2016 ). Tailored communication can be valuable for increasing local education, encouraging participation, and supporting acceptance of flood mitigation strategies (Enu et al. 2024 ). 6. Conclusion Using data from semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with riverfront community members, we analyzed how local truth regimes identify power struggles over knowledge about river management between flood risk management agencies and the communities affected. Our findings reveal that without consistent and purposeful engagement with local communities about river management implementation, agencies risk losing trust and potentially increasing misinformation when re-evaluating flood risk reduction approaches. By identifying local truth regimes and developing communication strategies that speak directly to community-crafted narratives, environmental managers may gain trust and avoid misinformation. Our work provides an actionable framework to understand how community members challenge agency-driven information campaigns and craft their own truth regimes. Listening to community members and developing data-driven communication can improve river management policy implementation and public participation for planning. Declarations Acknowledgements The authors thank the people of Holt County, Brunswick, and Jefferson City who shared their experiences and opinions with us. The authors thanks Robert B. Jacobson and Brooke A. Cassell for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Authors and Affiliations Marine and Environmental Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA Angela J. Catalano & Damon M. Hall School of Public Policy & Urban Affairs, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA Gerardo M. Gentil & Damon M. Hall Author Contributions AJC conducted the analysis, wrote the initial draft, and edited all drafts. DMH conceptualized the research design, secured funding, and edited and commented on all drafts. All authors contributed to interview data collection. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Funding This work was supported by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Center projects #1021674 and 10011989; US Environmental Protection Agency EPA-ORD-OSAPE-CDS-2023-09, #EM840651-01; USDA Agriculture Research Service, Hydraulic Engineering Unit “Missouri River Basin water resource management: Challenges to sustaining competitive agriculture: Improving resiliency to extreme weather in the Missouri River Basin States” MU0068192; National Institute of Food and Agriculture NIFA, McIntire Stennis Program 1021674; Missouri Water Center-University of Missouri; The Coastal Sustainability Institute-Northeastern University. Conflict of Interest The authors declare they do not have any known competing interests that would influence the work reported in this study. Ethical Approval This study received institutional review board approval from the University of Missouri (#344114 and #377850) and Northeastern University (#24-01-42). Data Availability The data that support the findings in this study are restricted due to confidentiality agreements and are not available publicly. References Adams GR, Marshall SK (1996) A developmental social psychology of identity: understanding the person-in-context. J Adolesc 19:429–442. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.1996.0041 Adger WN, Barnett J, Heath S, Jarillo S (2022) Climate change affects multiple dimensions of well-being through impacts, information and policy responses. Nat Hum Behav 6:1465–1473. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01467-8 Afifi WA, Felix ED, Afifi TD (2012) The impact of uncertainty and communal coping on mental health following natural disasters. Anxiety Stress Coping 25:329–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2011.603048 Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35:216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 Birkholz S, Muro M, Jeffrey P, Smith HM (2014) Rethinking the relationship between flood risk perception and flood management. Sci Total Environ 478:12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.01.061 Bradt JT, Kousky C, Wing OEJ (2021) Voluntary purchases and adverse selection in the market for flood insurance. J Environ Econ Manag 110:102515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102515 Breen S-PW, Loring PA, Baulch H (2018) When a water problem is more than a water problem: fragmentation, framing and the case of agricultural wetland drainage. Front Environ Sci 6:129. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00129 Brondizio ES, Ostrom E, Young OR (2009) Connectivity and the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: the role of social capital. Annu Rev Environ Resour 34:253–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.020708.100707 Bruner J (2004) Life as narrative. Soc Res Int Q 71:691–710. https://doi.org/10.1353/sor.2004.0045 Catalano AJ, Gentil GM, Hall DM (2024) Flood resiliency engagement in repetitive-loss Missouri River communities: Brunswick, MO, USA. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18661.00482/1 Coleman K, Stern MJ (2018) Exploring the functions of different forms of trust in collaborative natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 31:21–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1364452 Colloff MJ, Pittock J (2019) Why we disagree about the Murray–Darling Basin Plan: water reform, environmental knowledge and the science-policy decision context. Australas J Water Resour 23:88–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2019.1664878 Consoer M, Milman A (2018) Opportunities, constraints, and choices for flood mitigation in rural areas: perspectives of municipalities in Massachusetts. J Flood Risk Manag 11:141–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12302 Constantino SM, Weber EU (2021) Decision-making under the deep uncertainty of climate change: the psychological and political agency of narratives. Curr Opin Psychol 42:151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.11.001 Cox JR (2010) Beyond frames: recovering the strategic in climate communication. Environ Commun 4:122–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030903516555 Creswell JW, Poth CN (2016) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications Engdahl E, Lidskog R (2014) Risk, communication and trust: towards an emotional understanding of trust. Public Underst Sci 23:703–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512460953 Enu KB, Zingraff-Hamed A, Boafo YA, et al (2024) Citizens’ acceptability and preferred nature-based solutions for mitigating hydro-meteorological risks in Ghana. J Environ Manage 352:120089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120089 Errington F, Gewertz D (2018) Managing an endangered species: palliative care for the Pallid Sturgeon. Am Ethnol 45:186–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.12631 Farrell J, McConnell K, Brulle R (2019) Evidence-based strategies to combat scientific misinformation. Nat Clim Change 9:191–195. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0368-6 Fekete A, Aslam AB, De Brito MM, et al (2021) Increasing flood risk awareness and warning readiness by participation – But who understands what under ‘participation’? Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 57:102157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102157 Ferrell J (1996) Soundings – 100 years of the Missouri River navigation project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha Fischer F (2000) Citizens and experts in the risk society. In: Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Duke University Press Foucault M (1976) The archaeology of knowledge. Harper & Row, New York FRAWG (2020) Flood Recovery Advisory Working Group Final Report for Governor Michael L. Parson. Missouri Department of Nature Resources Gaillard JC (2023) The invention of disaster: power and knowledge in discourses on hazard and vulnerability. Routledge Gibbons M (1999) Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 402:C81–C84. https://doi.org/10.1038/35011576 Gilbertz SJ, Hall DM (2022) Bringing sustainability to the ground level: competing demands in the Yellowstone River Valley, First edition. Business Expert Press, New York, New York Grace-McCaskey CA, Pearce SC, Harris L, et al (2021) Finding voices in the floods of Freedom Hill: innovating solutions in Princeville, North Carolina. J Environ Stud Sci 11:341–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-021-00701-5 Griffin RJ, Zheng Yang, Ter Huurne E, et al (2008) After the flood: anger, attribution, and the seeking of information. Sci Commun 29:285–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007312309 Hall DM, Catalano AJ (2023) Piloting a Flood Resiliency Engagement Process in Repetitive-Loss Missouri River Communities: Holt County, MO, USA. 36 Hall DM, Catalano AJ, Gentil GM (2024) Flood Resiliency Engagement in Repetitive-Loss Missouri River Communities: Jefferson City, MO, USA. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12379.75048 Hall DM, Gilbertz SJ, Anderson MB, Ward LC (2016) Beyond “buy-in”: designing citizen participation in water planning as research. J Clean Prod 133:725–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.170 Hall DM, Gilbertz SJ, Horton CC, Peterson TR (2012) Culture as a means to contextualize policy. J Environ Stud Sci 2:222–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0077-9 Hall DM, Kidd KR, Emerson MR, Gilbertz SJ (2021) Comparative analysis of Yellowstone River cultural inventory 2006–2018. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29438.72001 Hall DM, Lazarus ED, Swannack TM (2014) Strategies for communicating systems models. Environ Model Softw 55:70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.01.007 Harris DM (2017) Telling the story of climate change: geologic imagination, praxis, and policy. Energy Res Soc Sci 31:179–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.027 Hassenforder E, Barreteau O, Daniell KA, et al (2020) The effects of public participation on multi-level water governance, lessons from Uganda. Environ Manage 66:770–784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01348-8 Henderson F, Steiner A, Farmer J, Whittam G (2020) Challenges of community engagement in a rural area: the impact of flood protection and policy. J Rural Stud 73:225–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.11.004 Horton CC, Gilbertz SJ, Hall DM, Peterson TR (2019) Negotiating the democratic paradox: approaches drawn From governance efforts on Yellowstone River. Front Commun 4:25. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00025 Houston JB (2012) Public disaster mental/behavioral health communication: intervention across disaster phases. J Emerg Manag 10:283–292. https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.2012.0106 Houston JB, Hawthorne J, Perreault MF, et al (2015) Social media and disasters: a functional framework for social media use in disaster planning, response, and research. Disasters 39:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12092 Idekar Farms, Inc., et al. (2018) Ideker Farms, Inc., et al. v. United States of America, Case No. 1:14-cv-00183-LJB IPCC (2023) Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press Jacobson RB, Bouska KL, Bulliner EA, et al (2022) Geomorphic controls on floodplain connectivity, ecosystem services, and sensitivity to climate change: an example from the Lower Missouri River. Water Resour Res 58:e2021WR031204. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR031204 Jacobson RB, Lindner G, Bitner C (2015) The role of floodplain restoration in mitigating flood risk, Lower Missouri River, USA. In: Hudson PF, Middelkoop H (eds) Geomorphic Approaches to Integrated Floodplain Management of Lowland Fluvial Systems in North America and Europe. Springer New York, New York, NY, pp 203–243 Klijn F, Lang M, Bakonyi P (2022) Integrated flood risk management: novel approaches for an uncertain future. Water Secur 17:100125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2022.100125 Kousky C, Netusil NR (2023) Flood insurance literacy and flood risk knowledge: Evidence from Portland, Oregon. Risk Manag Insur Rev 26:175–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/rmir.12242 Kreibich H, Van Loon AF, Schröter K, et al (2022) The challenge of unprecedented floods and droughts in risk management. Nature 608:80–86. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04917-5 Langston JD, Ros-Tonen MAF, Reed J (2024) Making landscapes negotiable: Q-methodology as a boundary-spanning and empowering diagnostic. Environ Manage 74:4–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-024-02004-1 Latour B (2004) Politics of nature. Harvard University Press Leech NL, Onwuegbuzie AJ (2011) Beyond constant comparison qualitative data analysis: using NVivo. Sch Psychol Q 26:70–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022711 Lewandowsky S, Oberauer K (2016) Motivated rejection of science. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 25:217–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416654436 Lukensmeyer C, Goldman J, Stern D (2011) Assessing public participation in an open government era: a review of federal agency plans. IBM Center for the Business of Government, Washington, D.C. Matilainen A, Pohja-Mykrä M, Lähdesmäki M, Kurki S (2017) “I feel it is mine!” – Psychological ownership in relation to natural resources. J Environ Psychol 51:31–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.03.002 McComas KA (2003) Public meetings and risk amplification: a longitudinal study. Risk Anal 23: McDermott TKJ (2022) Global exposure to flood risk and poverty. Nat Commun 13:3529. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30725-6 McEwen L, Garde-Hansen J, Holmes A, et al (2017) Sustainable flood memories, lay knowledges and the development of community resilience to future flood risk. Trans Inst Br Geogr 42:14–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12149 Mees H, Crabbé A, Alexander M, et al (2016) Coproducing flood risk management through citizen involvement: insights from cross-country comparison in Europe. Ecol Soc 21:. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08500-210307 Merz B, Blöschl G, Vorogushyn S, et al (2021) Causes, impacts and patterns of disastrous river floods. Nat Rev Earth Environ 2:592–609. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00195-3 Mileti D (1999) Disasters by design: a reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Joseph Henry Press Miller ZJ, O’Brien C, Canfield C, Sullivan L (2023) Show-me resilience: assessing and reconciling rural leaders’ perceptions of climate resilience in Missouri. Environ Manage. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01836-7 Nabatchi T, Leighninger M (2015) Good or bad? Charming or tedious? Understanding public participation. In: Public participation for 21st century democracy. Jossey-Bass, New Jersey, pp 13–44 NOAA (2019) Extreme Wetness of 2019 - Missouri River Basin Raikes J, Henstra D, Thistlethwaite J (2023) Public attitudes toward policy instruments for flood risk management. Environ Manage 72:1050–1060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01848-3 Richardson JJ (2021) The national flood insurance program as an incentive to employ multiple regulatory approaches to manage floodplains: lessons learned from Pennsylvania, Vermont and West Virginia. Environ Sci Policy 115:8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.09.024 Rothschild ZK, Landau MJ, Sullivan D, Keefer LA (2012) A dual-motive model of scapegoating: displacing blame to reduce guilt or increase control. J Pers Soc Psychol 102:1148–1163. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027413 Rowan KE (1992) Strategies for enhancing comprehension of science. In: When science meets the public. pp 131–143 Samaddar S, Oteng-Ababio M, Dayour F, et al (2021) Successful community participation in climate change adaptation programs: on whose terms? Environ Manage 67:747–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01421-2 Sandman PM, Miller PM, Johnson BB, Weinstein ND (1993) Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments. Risk Anal 13:585–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01321.x Seeger M, Sellnow TL (2016) Narratives of crisis: telling stories of ruin and renewal. Stanford University Press Senecah SL (2004) The trinity of voice: the role of practical theory in planning and evaluating the effectiveness of environmental participatory processes. In: Communication and public participation in environmental decision making. pp 13–33 Smith AB (2020) U.S. Billion-dollar Weather and Climate Disasters, 1980 - present (NCEI Accession 0209268) Sumares D, Fidélis T (2011) Natura 2000 and the narrative nature of nature: a case for critical discourse analysis. J Integr Environ Sci 8:53–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2011.556649 Tambal SARMA, Elsawahli HMH, Ibrahim EIE, Lumbroso D (2024) Increasing urban flood resilience through public participation: a case study of Tuti Island in Khartoum, Sudan. J Flood Risk Manag e12966. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12966 Ulibarri N, Ajibade I, Galappaththi EK, et al (2022) A global assessment of policy tools to support climate adaptation. Clim Policy 22:77–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2021.2002251 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2013) Principles and Requirements for Federal Investments in Water Resources U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2003) Amendment to the 2000 Biological opinion on the operation of the Missouri River main stem reservoir system, operation and maintenance of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project, and operation of the Kansas River reservoir system U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2000) Biological opinion on the operation of the Missouri River main stem reservoir system, operation and maintenance of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project, and operation of the Kansas River reservoir system USACE (2018) Missouri river mainstem reservoir system: master water control manual Van Den Broek PW (2001) Narrative Comprehension, Psychology of. In: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier, pp 10281–10284 Van Hulst M, Metze T, Dewulf A, et al (2024) Discourse, framing and narrative: three ways of doing critical, interpretive policy analysis. Crit Policy Stud 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2024.2326936 Wahlstrom M, Guha-Sapir D (2015) The Human Cost of Weather-Related Disasters 1995–2015. UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) Ward PJ, De Ruiter MC, Mård J, et al (2020) The need to integrate flood and drought disaster risk reduction strategies. Water Secur 11:100070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2020.100070 Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks Weir L (2008) The concept of truth regime. Can J Sociol 33:367–389 WRDA (2020) The Water Resources Development Act of 2020 Young JC, Rose DC, Mumby HS, et al (2018) A methodological guide to using and reporting on interviews in conservation science research. Methods Ecol Evol 9:10–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12828 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 11 Jan, 2025 Read the published version in Environmental Management → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 22 Nov, 2024 Reviews received at journal 22 Nov, 2024 Reviews received at journal 12 Nov, 2024 Reviews received at journal 05 Nov, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 22 Oct, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 22 Oct, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 21 Oct, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 21 Oct, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 18 Oct, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 16 Oct, 2024 First submitted to journal 16 Oct, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5278335","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":369610580,"identity":"f35fbc0c-acc9-4d53-907b-4a0ff8ca9cf3","order_by":0,"name":"Angela J. Catalano","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northeastern University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Angela","middleName":"J.","lastName":"Catalano","suffix":""},{"id":369610581,"identity":"a58fe03c-b875-4f2c-901f-0f71f17a4fc5","order_by":1,"name":"Damon M. Hall","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northeastern University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Damon","middleName":"M.","lastName":"Hall","suffix":""},{"id":369610582,"identity":"b034e8fb-3743-4b98-a0b8-725fbfc66e5b","order_by":2,"name":"Gerardo M. Gentil","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northeastern University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gerardo","middleName":"M.","lastName":"Gentil","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-10-16 20:53:06","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5278335/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5278335/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02110-8","type":"published","date":"2025-01-11T15:57:57+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":67786925,"identity":"4678af4a-545d-4046-8289-eaabd3fde722","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-29 17:08:39","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":11544,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSankey diagram of the coding flow from parent to child codes with counts. Note: interviewees in a transcript often referenced more than one truth regime.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5278335/v1/9c334363c130dc5c64bf0557.png"},{"id":73694254,"identity":"2e3e4382-862e-435c-9ac6-622af95660ad","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-13 16:12:52","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":815791,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5278335/v1/5f52cc00-4adb-4120-a9aa-83fcdcf2ac6f.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Examining local truth regimes on flooding and river management in the Lower Missouri River Basin, USA","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eOver the past 30 years, flooding has constituted 47% of weather-related disasters globally, affecting over 2\u0026nbsp;billion people (Wahlstrom and Guha-Sapir \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; IPCC \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). With riverine flooding events across the globe projected to increase in frequency and intensity (McDermott \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), nations are developing new approaches to mitigation and adaptation policies to address the increasing complexities of natural hazards (Ward et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Ulibarri et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Creating policies to prepare for and recover from natural hazards disasters like riverine flooding is challenging because of the unprecedented nature of extreme weather events and uncertainty of future flood severity (Merz et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Kreibich et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Klijn et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). River management policies require multi-level governance coordination between national and sub-national agencies and riverfront communities (Brondizio et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Differences in infrastructure, local and regional economics, population density, and competing community priorities make policies difficult for environmental management agencies to execute and communicate at the local level (Consoer and Milman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Henderson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Addressing these difficulties requires meaningful engagement with the communities affected by river management policies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the face of confusing laws, prolonged bureaucratic timelines, technical jargon, and agency acronyms, affected communities experience high levels of stress agencies\u0026rsquo; flood responses and threatened livelihoods by flooding (Griffin et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Involving the public in the science\u0026ndash;policy interface often showcases divisions among scientists, policy makers, and communities; these rifts are made worse when shared values and desired outcomes are not clearly defined (Colloff and Pittock \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). As a result, people create narrative explanations for drivers of local flooding problems that allow them to reconcile and cope with this complexity (Seeger and Sellnow \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Conflicting interests in water resources management, such as agriculture, ecological restoration, and navigation, can destabilize policy approaches (Breen et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Horton et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), resulting in siloing solutions based on specific interests, with less focus on the shared water issues at hand (Breen et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Conflicting interests in shared resources management also lead to perceived vulnerabilities of the state\u0026rsquo;s ability to address climate change-related impacts, such as future floods (Miller et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity members who perceive themselves to be excluded from decision-making conversations may attempt to reclaim power by establishing locally created truths that reflect their experiences and make sense of disasters and agency responses. These assembled truths give a sense of agency\u0026mdash;personal control\u0026mdash;in contexts of grave uncertainty (Afifi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Seeger and Sellnow \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), but they do not need to be verifiably true. The context for these truths provides insights into what communities believe is affecting them. These truths can be gathered and examined to support local flood mitigation planning and environmental management, as well as to identify misinformation within a community (Farrell et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this paper, we outline a qualitative research approach to gathering and analyzing local narratives surrounding river management and flooding. We apply a truth regimes framework derived from social theorist Michel Foucault (Foucault \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e) that examines how people craft narratives as a form of power and resistance. Using U.S. river management policies and interviews from 3 study sites on the Missouri River as examples, we demonstrate how understanding local truth regimes can inform flood risk reduction planning and management at scale. Truth regimes showcase complexities of applying national policies at local levels. We provide recommendations for attending to truth regimes to aid environmental managers in improving communication and community engagement and avoiding misinformation and trust degradation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Complexities in river management and community responses to flooding","content":"\u003cp\u003eFloods impact people in many ways. Damages to homes and personal belongings, the need to navigate complex disaster recovery policies, and the psychological toll of the cumulative experience all affect people\u0026rsquo;s overall well-being (Adger et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). This trauma is exacerbated by the ways that agencies engage impacted communities, including the timelines for engagement (Houston \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Interactions between agencies and communities primarily occur after a disaster, when residents are reeling from loss. Flood events can reveal un- or underinsured homes, inconsistent local compliance with national flood insurance programs, and frayed recovery (Richardson \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Bradt et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Kousky and Netusil \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), which makes interactions between residents, local recovery agencies, and national agencies fraught with anger and frustration over who is responsible for recovery and future mitigation. These complexities require comprehensive approaches to better evaluate the communication gaps between communities and the governmental agencies tasked with post-disaster recovery and mitigation planning (Birkholz et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe governing agency for water resource management in the United States is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), which is a joint civilian\u0026ndash;military engineering division. The USACE was granted authorization under The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 to protect the navigable waterways of the United States, which includes oversight of any alterations made in and along rivers. The USACE is the lead agency authorized to oversee regulations and permitting, so any proposed project in or interfering with waterways needs to be coordinated with and approved by the USACE. With the passage of environmental regulations such as The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 (P.L. 91\u0026ndash;190), The Clean Water Act of 1972 (P.L. 92\u0026ndash;500), and The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (P.L. 93\u0026ndash;205), public engagement in the form of public meetings and public comment periods were deployed to better inform and interact with communities facing environmental threats. These acts call for increased public engagement between policy makers, scientists, and communities and have helped increase public environmental awareness (Gibbons \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). Public participation, in turn, has become a best practice for environmental policy-making (Nabatchi and Leighninger \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite required public engagement for infrastructure studies, communities struggle to assert their experiences in policy spaces aimed at improving adaptation and environmental management (McEwen et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Trust between flood-affected communities and governmental agencies can be difficult to establish and maintain (Sandman et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Cox \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Engdahl and Lidskog \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). In the United States, federal policy communication from federal agencies to the public most often happens in the form of public meetings (including in-person and virtual gatherings), but these meetings can limit meaningful public participation. Here, technical expertise is privileged (Mileti \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Fischer \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Agency experts present plans, and time at the end is reserved for questions and comments from the public. The structure of these public meetings limits how the public can participate meaningfully and may exacerbate anger or mistrust (McComas \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Little knowledge exchange can happen within this structure, leaving community members without much active input in contributing to the process or study (Arnstein \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1969\u003c/span\u003e; Senecah \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Truth regimes as a means to understanding local truths\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePeople craft narratives \u0026ndash; stories that retell a series of events \u0026ndash; to make sense of their experiences (Weick \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; Van Den Broek \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Bruner \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). These narratives are perceived as true for those crafting them and serve three primary functions. First, narratives contribute to placing blame. When faced with deep uncertainty following disasters, people employ heuristics to create narratives about who is to blame (Constantino and Weber \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Often, communities will look to scapegoats\u0026ndash;people or organizations to blame that is often not the source of the problem\u0026ndash;to exert their control over the uncertainty from the experience (Rothschild et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Second, narratives serve as explanations for how and why disasters and their aftermaths occurred. Infrequent communication or unsatisfying answers from agencies lead communities to make sense of available information, along with their own experiences, to arrange known facts, events, and actions into these explanatory narratives. Third, local narratives serve identity functions by giving the local community a sense of agency in decision-making contexts and by aiding in processing of their personal experiences (Adams and Marshall \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). With repetition and testing, salient narratives can develop into truth regimes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHistorian and social theorist Michel Foucault (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e) articulated the concept of truth regimes to identify the role of power in the construction of knowledge (Foucault \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e). Groups, communities, academic disciplines, industry, and institutions create truth regimes that operate as dominant logics in society. The adoption and reinforcement of dominant narratives is a type of power. Foucault delineates power between the experts who generate knowledge and the lay people who receive it. Truth regimes are reinforced, redefined, and pervasive. Crucially, alternative views or narratives\u0026mdash;particularly from non-experts or non-members\u0026mdash;are actively relegated as inferior. For example, in flood risk management, the dominant truths are those accepted and disseminated by technical experts working for flood management agencies who are tasked with conducting technical work within the bounded logics of current science, legal authorization, and agency priorities and budgets. Truth regimes develop their power from the agreement on facts and values and the distinction from falsities (Fischer \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Latour \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo identify a truth regime, language is analyzed to identify dominant sociopolitical discourses (Sumares and Fid\u0026eacute;lis \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Langston et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Discourse here means a system of thought made of widely circulated beliefs or logics that shape behaviors, professional practices, and institutional structures. Discourses are seen in words, images, common phrases, or other forms of communication. Discourses reveal how experiences and beliefs are framed to better understand how power and resistance take shape (Van Hulst et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In flood risk management, the discourses of peer-reviewed science and codified law direct decision-making practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpanding Foucault\u0026rsquo;s definition of truth regimes, Weir (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) incorporates cultural framing beyond scientific discourses to explore truth and non-truth via representation and presentation of the established truth and who is speaking this truth (Weir \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). In Weir\u0026rsquo;s conceptualization of truth regimes, there can be multiple truths that are either stable or fighting for domination. This contestation highlights how truth regimes are continually redefined by subscribers and purveyors. It also broadens the concept to include how the non-scientific community creates and re-negotiates truth, sometimes in opposition to prevailing truth regimes established by experts. For example, in post-flood recovery, local communities will use social media platforms as a decentralized place to connect or reconnect to their community, share stories, and exchange information about the event itself, recovery efforts, technical information, among other functions (Houston et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Online platforms have created readily accessible spaces for communities to create and disseminate truth regimes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe use Foucault and Weir\u0026rsquo;s concepts of truth regimes to analyze how communities establish local narratives to explain the causes of flooding, make sense of the USACE planning process and timelines, and interact with the technocratic approach in USACE\u0026rsquo;s river management policies. We focus our analysis on community or lay truth-making to examine how communities and agency technocrats negotiate power. For environmental management scholarship and practice, communities\u0026rsquo; truth regimes on river management policies offer an empirical means for analyzing power struggles between agencies and local communities. By identifying local truth regimes, agencies and communities can develop an understanding of how blame, community-crafted narratives, and community self-affirmations play a role in community\u0026ndash;agency dynamics during flood mitigation planning processes. This understanding can lead to strategies for improving communication and collaboration for more efficient flood mitigation planning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 The USACE and river management in the Missouri River Basin\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Missouri River is the longest river in the United States. It is highly altered by channelization, reservoirs, and levees, which presents numerous challenges in both management and policy priorities, as well as in determining options for flood mitigation (Ferrell \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). The USACE manages the river for its water supply, transportation, and national security values. With the interest in national electrification via hydropower and the protection of development from annual flooding, the USACE was authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78\u0026ndash;534) with constructing, modifying, and maintaining a system of dams and levees along the Missouri River as part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program (hereafter Pick-Sloan). Following the passage of the Flood Control Act, federal and non-federal levee construction along the Missouri River took place from the 1950s through the 1980s, resulting in a patchwork system of federally and privately owned and maintained levees (Hall and Catalano \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Catalano et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Hall et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Additional alterations, including wing dikes to channelize the river, have changed the geomorphology and flow regimes of the Missouri River (Jacobson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Pick-Sloan mandates that the USACE follow the Water Control Master Manual (hereafter Master Manual) to maintain and operate water resources management for 8 purposes: hydropower, flood control, navigation, irrigation, water supply, water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife (USACE \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverseeing the 8 purposes outlined in the Master Manual is a delicate balance for the USACE. Adding to these competing priorities, the Pallid Sturgeon (\u003cem\u003eScaphirhynchus albus\u003c/em\u003e) was listed in 1990 under the ESA as endangered in the Lower Missouri River Basin (LMRB), downstream from Yankton, South Dakota, to the confluence with the Mississippi River near St. Louis, Missouri. Following biological opinions from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), the USACE formed the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee (MRRIC) as authorized in Section 5018 of the 2007 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) (P.L. 110\u0026ndash;114). This committee convened multiple interest groups to improve the USACE\u0026rsquo;s adaptive management approach and to bring in stakeholders to share their opinions and concerns with ESA management. MRRIC included stakeholder groups, tribes, and federal and state agencies that met quarterly from 2009 through 2019 to share data and provide recommendations to the USACE in an attempt to achieve consensus about how best to manage the river for everyone, including the Pallid Sturgeon. The convening and meeting process revealed the challenges of negotiating among stakeholder groups in a process that is ultimately governed by bureaucracy (Errington and Gewertz \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Ultimately, not everyone got what they wanted from these meetings, and the Pallid Sturgeon remains on the ESA list as of 2024.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing major flooding in 2011, landowners sued the USACE. Plaintiffs in \u003cem\u003eIdeker Farms, Inc. et al. v. United States\u003c/em\u003e (2018) alleged that the USACE was aware of the flooding and prioritized ecological restoration over flood control (Idekar Farms, Inc., et al. 2018). In 2018, the trial court determined that the USACE was responsible for taking land without just compensation and, as such, had changed priorities outlined by the Master Manual. Appeals and civil lawsuits are ongoing as of 2024. This lawsuit has contributed to mistrust between Missouri River communities and the USACE Kansas City (KC) district.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne year following the \u003cem\u003eIdeker Farms\u003c/em\u003e ruling, the LMRB experienced devastating floods that again altered the way the USACE engaged with riverfront communities. Flooding began in the LMRB in March 2019 following record snowpack, rapidly rising temperatures, and extreme precipitation (NOAA \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Damages topped \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e1\u0026nbsp;billion, and over 14\u0026nbsp;million people across five midwestern states were affected by the flood (Smith \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In the aftermath of the 2019 floods, Missouri governor Michael L. Parson convened the Flood Recovery Advisory Working Group (FRAWG) to identify the state\u0026rsquo;s ongoing priorities for flood mitigation, assess the state of the levee system, and provide feedback on recommended levee infrastructure improvements and changes (FRAWG \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). FRAWG\u0026rsquo;s subsequent report informed the state\u0026rsquo;s approach to working collaboratively with the USACE KC District.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe WRDA of 2020 authorized the Lower Missouri River Basin Flood Risk and Resiliency Study (hereafter LoMo Study) to be conducted by the USACE KC District and completed by 2027. Given the extent of river miles that include levee constriction in the LMRB, studies recommended location-specific data to create comprehensive flood mitigation plans to incorporate ecological restoration and ecosystem services (Jacobson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). This study included updated system-wide river stage and flood frequency analyses, as well as site-specific spin-off studies or problem solving for repetitive-loss communities in Jefferson City, Brunswick, and Holt County, Missouri, to be completed concurrently as part of the LoMo Study (WRDA \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 How truth regimes influence flood resilience planning policy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the United States, there are two routes for how local truth regimes can influence flood resilience planning policy: the determination of the locally preferred option and the changing weight given to other social effects in large civil works development projects (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, in a planning study, USACE studies several structural and non-structural options to address problems like flooding. If a community can agree on a preferred option, then that locally preferred option must be considered in USACE\u0026rsquo;s detailed technical assessment along with other structural, non-structural, and nature-based options (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). In the case of the LMRB, the state of Missouri is the non-federal cost-share partner of the Missouri part of the LoMo Study and provides 50% of the funding.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, in conducting feasibility studies for their projects, the USACE must conduct a benefit\u0026ndash;cost ratio study concerning national, regional, and local costs that would arise from a proposed project. Recent shifts in non-monetizable social effects, like cultural costs or benefits of a project, open the door for local input to determine how flood mitigation projects would affect the local community. In designing flood mitigation study plans, agencies must determine how they want to approach community engagement to fulfill policy requirements that focus on the social effects of a proposed project. For the USACE, overcoming a negative public perception following the Ideker Farms ruling poses a distinctive obstacle to effective public engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo examine how truth regimes factor into community engagement in flood mitigation planning, we asked: How do local communities perceive federal river management policies? How do those perceptions shape local truth regimes about flooding?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFunded by the state of Missouri, we employed a cultural inventory (Hall et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Gilbertz and Hall \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) of spin-off site community leaders\u0026rsquo; experiences and opinions about flooding and flood mitigation options via conversational and confidential interviews (Young et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike a survey, interviews allow for more authentic engagement that gives participants more time and space to find the language that best captures their experiences (Harris \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Grace-McCaskey et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe selected three sites that are part of the USACE KC District\u0026rsquo;s LoMo Study: Holt County, Jefferson City, and Brunswick, Missouri. Our three-person research team conducted and recorded semi-structured one-on-one or small group interviews with 112 participants (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;112) across the three study sites from December 2021 through March 2024. Participants were community members directly affected by flooding or those with a record of participating in flood management planning, such as local government officials and staff, levee and drainage board members, landowners and farmers located in the floodplain or floodways, business owners and industry staff whose business operations are within the floodplain or floodway, and industry members who service businesses within the floodplain or floodway (see Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e for the interest areas represented). We recruited participants via purposive then snowball sampling (Creswell and Poth \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). We cross-referenced contacts with the USACE public meeting attendance lists to expand our recruitment. To refine our focus to the community members\u0026rsquo; truth regimes, we did not interview USACE staff. The interview protocol contained broad questions to assess experiences and opinions about flooding and desired flood mitigation strategies and did not explicitly ask questions that explored truth regimes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview participants\u0026rsquo; interest areas for our 3 study sites.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterest Area\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of Participants\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgriculture\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGovernment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndustry\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResident\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e112\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe used our research questions, the interview protocol, and truth regimes as articulated by Foucault (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e) and Weir (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) to develop a deductive codebook to code and analyze the transcriptions of the 112 interviewees. Our team coded every interview individually using Lumivero\u0026rsquo;s NVivo Qualitative Analysis 14.0 software and conducted a discourse analysis of the transcribed interviews (Leech and Onwuegbuzie \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). We listened to 5,198 minutes of interview audio and read 2,547 pages of transcribed interviews for coding. We used the NVivo software to organize, code, and analyze these data; no artificial intelligence was used in any part of this study or analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe analyzed and coded 89 interview transcripts that represent single and small group interview transcripts. We created a parent code\u0026mdash;causes of flooding\u0026mdash;to capture what interviewees stated to be causes of flooding in their community. After we completed the initial coding, we analyzed the causes-of-flooding code to determine which truth regimes emerged that specifically highlighted policy decisions and implementation. We created three child codes\u0026mdash;reservoir releases, ESA priorities, and river navigation\u0026mdash;that emerged from the parent causes-of-flooding code to further analyze how respondents discussed how river management policies affect their communities.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Findings","content":"\u003cp\u003eEighty-seven % of the interview transcripts (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;77) referenced the causes-of-flooding parent code. Our analysis found three local truth regimes\u0026mdash;co-created explanations that perpetuate dominant narratives and diminish opposing viewpoints\u0026mdash;all of which were related to river management and were stated by interviewees as contributors to local flooding in their communities (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe categorized the three truth regimes into these thematic headings: reservoir releases prioritize recreation over flood control, \u0026ldquo;They just manage the river for the freaking fish,\u0026rdquo; and river navigation is no longer prioritized. Each section below focuses on an individual truth regime, but we note that respondents frequently referenced more than one truth regime in a single interview. Anonymous direct quotes with interest area and study site identifiers illustrate our findings.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Reservoir releases prioritize recreation over flood control","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe most prominent truth regime that locals used to explain flood severity concerned the USACE\u0026rsquo;s decision-making involved in upstream reservoir releases. Forty-six % of the coded interviews (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;41) referenced the USACE reservoir releases as a source of contention within their community. The resounding narrative was that the USACE maintains higher water levels at the Gavins Point Dam to facilitate high-quality boating and fishing in the upstream reservoirs. Interviewees reported being aware that the USACE is required to manage the river as outlined by the Master Manual, but they did not understand how the USACE made decisions. Many participants mentioned that the Master Manual is supposed to prioritize flood control in dam system management. In the face of the unknown decision calculus of this complicated document, respondents circulated truth regimes like \u0026ldquo;the only reason they're supposed to have them lakes [near dams] was for flood control. It wasn't supposed to be for recreation. The recreation people, they don't want to have a boat dock 10 foot out of the water\u0026rdquo; (Agriculture BR).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMost interviewees shared feelings of anger and resentment that their communities face more damaging floods because of the gamble of the USACE holding back more water in the reservoirs. One interviewee shared, \u0026ldquo;So what if you have to stay home and roast a hot dog instead of going fishing one day? Look at everything that got ruined just so they keep the water level the way they wanted it up north\u0026rdquo; (Industry JC).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants reported that they check the USACE\u0026rsquo;s Gavins Point Dam reservoir release and levels website frequently, with many stating that they check the website daily in spring and summer. One respondent stated, \u0026ldquo;I know all the levels. After the \u0026rsquo;93 flood, I started living and breathing it. It\u0026rsquo;s just something I do all the time now\u0026rdquo; (Resident BR). The timing of reservoir releases forces residents to watch the website diligently. A participant in Holt County, the geographically closest site to the nearest reservoir, shared, \u0026ldquo;As they [USACE] regulated the Gavins Point Dam, we would be going, \u0026lsquo;Okay, what is the release? Today? This week?\u0026rsquo; And all of [a] sudden, we\u0026rsquo;ve been out of the flood rains for weeks and it starts flooding again\u0026rdquo; (Agriculture HC). The volatility of water levels is a source of confusion for LMRB residents. These responses indicate community members do engage with federal agency data but may not have transparency on how those data are used in decision-making contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 \u0026ldquo;They just manage the river for the freaking fish\u0026rdquo;\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second dominant narrative explaining the causes of flooding was that ESA priorities are considered more important than protecting riverfront communities from impending riverine flooding (34% of the interviews, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;30). Many participants shared statements like \u0026ldquo;The people concerned about the Pallid Sturgeon. .. those kind of people are more concerned about wildlife than they are human life\u0026rdquo; (Government HC). Many interviewees shared an \u0026ldquo;us versus them\u0026rdquo; sentiment about the Pallid Sturgeon. As one participant put it, \u0026ldquo;You won't find any bigger conservation person than a farmer, but when they take away your livelihood, and that kind of turns your stomach a little bit\u0026rdquo; (Agriculture HC). Another participant stated that \u0026ldquo;The dinosaurs are gone, that fish needs to be gone. It's got no value for humans, does it? You can't say. I've got no problem with wildlife and stuff, but that's ridiculous\u0026rdquo; (Agriculture BR). These truth regimes place anger against the U.S. government\u0026rsquo;s recent (1970s) river management policy changes, which are viewed as prioritizing the welfare of wildlife over that of humans.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMany participants stated they did not know how Pallid Sturgeon conservation ranked against flood control in the Master Manual, echoing their sentiments about flood releases. Noting that they experience more frequent extreme rainfall events, one participant stated,\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Uncle Sam can't control the weather, but they can control what they do with the water after the weather. That's where they make everybody mad because it's not about people, it's about fish and birds when it comes to managing the Missouri River.\u0026rdquo; (Industry BR)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome of the respondents previously served on the MRRIC and shared feelings of disillusionment with the committee process and the focus on experts over people that live on the river. One participant reported that the USACE has new members and that\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;They're trying to go ahead and restore the Missouri River to make it more of a wide, shallow thing. The people that are in there now are the ones that haven't really had the experience. They're book smart and they don't really know how the scenarios change.\u0026rdquo; (Agriculture HC)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRespondents reported varying levels of understanding how experiments to increase Pallid Sturgeon spawning were implemented. Most stated that they were aware that the Pallid Sturgeon was still listed as endangered and were frustrated by the continuing efforts to increase the population. These experiments, most notably notching wing dikes to encourage spawning, were noted as failures that contributed to bank erosion and increased flooding. One participant lamented the experimental process, stating that \u0026ldquo;bank stabilization is a huge part of flood control. And we had it at one time, and they turned and went down the other road. It didn\u0026rsquo;t fix the Pallid Sturgeon problem, but they caused a whole bunch of problems\u0026rdquo; (Agriculture JC). Many participants reported that they would prefer wildlife conservation efforts to end if that would decrease erosion and flooding.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 River navigation is no longer prioritized\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding upon the two truths above, many participants noted that managing the river for navigation, as outlined in the Master Manual, no longer appears to be as important in river management as it did prior to the ESA listing of the Pallid Sturgeon. Twenty-five % of the interviews (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;22) referenced bank stabilization and river navigation as causes of flooding. One participant reflected on the change in management:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;It's so disheartening what the Corps has done. They built the river system to self-scour, to move that current to the center of the stream with the wing dikes. Then they notched them in the \u0026lsquo;90s to create the Pallid Sturgeon habitat.\u0026rdquo; (Agriculture JC)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOther interviewees expressed similar frustrations with what they perceive to be a change in how the Master Manual is interpreted and implemented in the USACE\u0026rsquo;s day-to-day operations. Linking this change in management directly to flooding, a participant reported that \u0026ldquo;several of our floods we\u0026rsquo;ve had over the years, they [USACE] could control some of this flooding by just managing the infrastructure we already have.. .. I think that\u0026rsquo;s so important, but we don\u0026rsquo;t worry about barge navigation\u0026rdquo; (Agriculture JC).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome participants pointed to studies (although no specific studies were referenced in our interviews) that show Pallid Sturgeons are breeding above the Gavins Point Dam, which makes it difficult for them to understand why river navigation is deprioritized in their reaches of the river. According to one participant, \u0026ldquo;Those things can breed upstream in them lakes. They've already proved that. So they've had them breeding and they found that they do, up there. Let them do that up there. Leave our river down here alone for navigation\u0026rdquo; (Agriculture HC).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, interviewees pointed to how difficult it is to find consensus concerning how to manage the river. One participant shared that \u0026ldquo;it seems like the more we try and manage rivers, the more problems we cause\u0026rdquo; (Industry BR).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll 3 truth regimes narrate stories about how the federal government has changed river management practices that overlook the health and well-being of their communities. A participant summed this sentiment up by saying, \u0026ldquo;No one gives a shit about what happens to us down here\u0026rdquo; (Industry JC).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eTruth regimes created by communities to explain the causes for environmental management problems can create roadblocks for public engagement and buy-in around management decision-making and implementation. Uncovering truth regimes is not about identifying which are better or \u0026ldquo;truer\u0026rdquo; than others. Rather, the utility of truth regimes is that they reveal misalignments between community and managerial discourses. Once identified, truth regimes can serve as a starting point for environmental managers to determine how to improve communication among technocrats and the communities they serve (Fischer \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Through interviews with community members affected by flooding, we identified three truth regimes that helped these interviewees understand the causes of flooding within their contextualized experiences: timing of reservoir releases, ESA priorities around the Pallid Surgeon, and a lack of prioritization of river navigation. In our analysis, we found that the truth regimes communicated by community members affected by flooding in the LMRB served three primary functions: 1) to reclaim power through locally created narratives that reflect community members\u0026rsquo; lived experiences; 2) to make sense of disastrous events in the absence of access to information; and 3) to reinforce and build upon each of the other truth regimes, thereby strengthening each other and unifying into a larger narrative. Based on each of these functions, we present recommendations for environmental managers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Reclaiming power through local narratives\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, for community members engaged in the LoMo Study, truth regimes act as a reclamation of power by providing their own locally created knowledge. This local knowledge aligns known facts, events, and actors into a uniform narrative that makes sense. These narratives are explained in natural language and local vernacular, which contrasts with the technical terms and explanations from those outside of the community, like technocrats and scientists (Fischer \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). In our study, farmers whose land is on the Missouri River experience the tangible impacts of flooding, which they believe to be invaluable to understanding where flooding and subsequent damage occurs most often. When technocrats present hydrological models that do not reflect their personal experiences with flooding, farmers push back on these technical explanations and models as incomplete. Psychological and legal ownership of a place raises the stakes for community members, particularly when proposed changes threaten to undermine the social, cultural, and economic facets of the community (Matilainen et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePart of the power gained from truth regimes is in organizing different people within a shared place. Truth regimes serve membership and identity functions. Adherents to the truth regime belong to a place and community. Developing truth regimes can act as a protective measure that delineates an us-versus-them paradigm, pitting the community against the agencies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address truth regimes directly, we recommend environmental managers offer alternative communication options for community members to share their experiences and opinions in more private settings. To soften the us-versus-them dynamic between LMRB communities and the USACE, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources reviewed our findings and created in-person office hours before and after the USACE\u0026rsquo;s public meetings. These office hours allow residents to book in-person meetings to ask questions and voice their opinions one-on-one with Missouri agency staff members. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources acts not only as a locally focused resource for communities but also liaises with the USACE to share community responses to the study. This effort demonstrates to the community that the state agency, a federal cost-share partner, has a stake in this study and in the community\u0026rsquo;s perspectives as well.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Sensemaking\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, residents used their personal experiences, combined with available agency data, to create truth regimes as a sensemaking practice to understand why their communities flood (Weick \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). For example, the statements we analyzed indicate that these truth regimes reflect a lack of understanding about how the USACE implements federal policies like the Master Manual and ESA management. In response to our findings reporting confusion and misinformation about reservoir releases, the USACE KC District included a brief overview of their reservoir management and decision-making protocol in their virtual LoMo Study quarterly public meeting in April 2024.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, our truth regime findings demonstrate that restoring Pallid Sturgeon populations and stabilizing the riverbank are viewed as two competing interests that counteract one another. The Pallid Sturgeon recovery experiments administered by the USACE and the U.S. Geological Survey failed to provide adequate explanations of experimental design methods, and the community believes them to be degrading the riverbank and stabilization efforts. The black-box, unknown nature of the ESA and of the Master Manual perpetuates the truth regimes that characterize the USACE\u0026rsquo;s decision-making as haphazard or ill-intentioned. Identifying local truth regimes provides information for improving or changing communication efforts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFunctionally, truth regimes point to information deficits within communities and a failure of administrators to understand local socio-cultural particularities needed to communicate within the social context. Transparency concerning how policies may restrict or limit flood mitigation options will be appreciated by riverfront communities and landowners (Lukensmeyer et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Managers can take inventory of existing truth regimes via social science research, identify and understand the unknowns that local truth regimes explain, then incorporate explanatory communication in public meetings with communities to remove the mystery (Rowan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e; Hall et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Reinforcing and building upon other truth regimes\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, individual truth regimes do not exist in a vacuum\u0026mdash;they build upon one another and justify the larger narratives. For example, the three LMRB riverfront communities\u0026rsquo; truth regimes evidence and reinforce the belief that they are overlooked in river management practices and that the priorities of USACE are misaligned with those of the community. Our findings demonstrate that the three truth regimes developed and circulated regionally within the over 800 river miles of the LMRB. All three truth regimes relate to one another, making each truth more powerful in its salience with other local narratives. The reinforcement and pervasiveness of these truth regimes reflect their unified use by community members, in this case, to demonstrate that they both engage with the USACE websites, tools, and public meeting information and have personal experiences that conflict with what they are being told. The standardized communication tools used by agencies fail to take into account the nuanced and unique narratives built by the truth regimes communities create, resulting in power struggles, mistrust, and ineffective public outreach by agencies (Gaillard \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTruth regimes are evidence that communities want to be involved in management decisions that affect them (Fekete et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). By using the available data to support their truth regimes, these community members demonstrate that they are willing to engage with agencies outside of scheduled public meetings, and this motivation illustrates that they can be vital partners in flood mitigation planning. Moreover, data alone do not move people, and locally created truth regimes reveal the need for context in data sharing as it relates to river management decisions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe recommend several approaches agencies can develop and integrate into their planning processes to help community members feel welcome and involved in decision-making in the context of complex narratives driven by interrelated truth regimes. First, agencies should develop clear and consistent communication of \u003cem\u003eboth\u003c/em\u003e science and policy implementation decision-making, which will discourage misinformation and avoid mistrust. Second, communities should be given space to share their knowledge and experiences in the flood mitigation planning process. Allowing this depth of participation moves public engagement beyond simply getting a community to buy in to proposed approaches and gives them agency in the decision-making process (Hall et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Samaddar et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Third, effort should be made to identify and understand local truth regimes. Directly speaking to these truth regimes and the larger narratives they support can increase the legitimacy of public participation and can be used to clarify discrepancies between agency and local knowledge. Communities want to be heard and considered in decision-making that directly affects them. Meaningful engagement\u0026mdash;engaging directly in ways that best align with local communication preferences\u0026mdash;between local residents and agencies encourages decentralizing power and supports more informed approaches to addressing community needs in national policies (Hassenforder et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Tambal et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs more agencies hope to engage with local communities effectively, residents likely benefit from being better informed about river management policies so they are more capable to meaningfully participate, increasing the likelihood of their preferences being heard and selected (Mees et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Raikes et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, agencies need to know if their current outreach and communication is perceived accurately to better address misinformation, disinformation, or perceived animosity (Cox \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Coleman and Stern \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Considering scale is vital to research design for collecting data prior to developing an engagement approach (Hall et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Since federal policies look different at local scales, site-specific policy communication can be developed by investigating which truth regimes persist in a community or region. By listening to and documenting local truth regimes, agencies can identify core community values to craft or deliver information in ways that suit the community (Lewandowsky and Oberauer \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Tailored communication can be valuable for increasing local education, encouraging participation, and supporting acceptance of flood mitigation strategies (Enu et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eUsing data from semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with riverfront community members, we analyzed how local truth regimes identify power struggles over knowledge about river management between flood risk management agencies and the communities affected. Our findings reveal that without consistent and purposeful engagement with local communities about river management implementation, agencies risk losing trust and potentially increasing misinformation when re-evaluating flood risk reduction approaches. By identifying local truth regimes and developing communication strategies that speak directly to community-crafted narratives, environmental managers may gain trust and avoid misinformation. Our work provides an actionable framework to understand how community members challenge agency-driven information campaigns and craft their own truth regimes. Listening to community members and developing data-driven communication can improve river management policy implementation and public participation for planning.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors thank the people of Holt County, Brunswick, and Jefferson City who shared their experiences and opinions with us.\u0026nbsp;The authors thanks Robert B. Jacobson and Brooke A. Cassell for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors and Affiliations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMarine and Environmental Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAngela J. Catalano \u0026amp; Damon M. Hall\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSchool of Public Policy \u0026amp; Urban Affairs, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGerardo M. Gentil \u0026amp; Damon M. Hall\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAJC conducted the analysis, wrote the initial draft, and edited all drafts. DMH conceptualized the research design, secured funding, and edited and commented on all drafts. All authors contributed to interview data collection. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Center projects #1021674 and 10011989; US Environmental Protection Agency EPA-ORD-OSAPE-CDS-2023-09, #EM840651-01; USDA Agriculture Research Service,\u0026nbsp;Hydraulic Engineering Unit \u0026ldquo;Missouri River Basin water resource management: Challenges to sustaining competitive agriculture: Improving resiliency to extreme weather in the Missouri River Basin States\u0026rdquo; MU0068192; National Institute of Food and Agriculture NIFA, McIntire Stennis Program 1021674; Missouri Water Center-University of Missouri; The Coastal Sustainability Institute-Northeastern University.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of Interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare they do not have any known competing interests that would influence the work reported in this study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study received institutional review board approval from the University of Missouri (#344114 and #377850) and Northeastern University (#24-01-42).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings in this study are restricted due to confidentiality agreements and are not available publicly.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdams GR, Marshall SK (1996) A developmental social psychology of identity: understanding the person-in-context. J Adolesc 19:429\u0026ndash;442. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1006/jado.1996.0041\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1006/jado.1996.0041\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdger WN, Barnett J, Heath S, Jarillo S (2022) Climate change affects multiple dimensions of well-being through impacts, information and policy responses. Nat Hum Behav 6:1465\u0026ndash;1473. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01467-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41562-022-01467-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAfifi WA, Felix ED, Afifi TD (2012) The impact of uncertainty and communal coping on mental health following natural disasters. Anxiety Stress Coping 25:329\u0026ndash;347. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2011.603048\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10615806.2011.603048\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35:216\u0026ndash;224. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/01944366908977225\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBirkholz S, Muro M, Jeffrey P, Smith HM (2014) Rethinking the relationship between flood risk perception and flood management. Sci Total Environ 478:12\u0026ndash;20. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.01.061\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.01.061\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBradt JT, Kousky C, Wing OEJ (2021) Voluntary purchases and adverse selection in the market for flood insurance. J Environ Econ Manag 110:102515. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102515\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102515\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBreen S-PW, Loring PA, Baulch H (2018) When a water problem is more than a water problem: fragmentation, framing and the case of agricultural wetland drainage. Front Environ Sci 6:129. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00129\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fenvs.2018.00129\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrondizio ES, Ostrom E, Young OR (2009) Connectivity and the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: the role of social capital. Annu Rev Environ Resour 34:253\u0026ndash;278. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.020708.100707\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/annurev.environ.020708.100707\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBruner J (2004) Life as narrative. Soc Res Int Q 71:691\u0026ndash;710. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1353/sor.2004.0045\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1353/sor.2004.0045\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCatalano AJ, Gentil GM, Hall DM (2024) Flood resiliency engagement in repetitive-loss Missouri River communities: Brunswick, MO, USA. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18661.00482/1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.13140/RG.2.2.18661.00482/1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eColeman K, Stern MJ (2018) Exploring the functions of different forms of trust in collaborative natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 31:21\u0026ndash;38. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1364452\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/08941920.2017.1364452\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eColloff MJ, Pittock J (2019) Why we disagree about the Murray\u0026ndash;Darling Basin Plan: water reform, environmental knowledge and the science-policy decision context. Australas J Water Resour 23:88\u0026ndash;98. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2019.1664878\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13241583.2019.1664878\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConsoer M, Milman A (2018) Opportunities, constraints, and choices for flood mitigation in rural areas: perspectives of municipalities in Massachusetts. J Flood Risk Manag 11:141\u0026ndash;151. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12302\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/jfr3.12302\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConstantino SM, Weber EU (2021) Decision-making under the deep uncertainty of climate change: the psychological and political agency of narratives. Curr Opin Psychol 42:151\u0026ndash;159. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.11.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.11.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCox JR (2010) Beyond frames: recovering the strategic in climate communication. Environ Commun 4:122\u0026ndash;133. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17524030903516555\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17524030903516555\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCreswell JW, Poth CN (2016) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEngdahl E, Lidskog R (2014) Risk, communication and trust: towards an emotional understanding of trust. Public Underst Sci 23:703\u0026ndash;717. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512460953\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0963662512460953\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEnu KB, Zingraff-Hamed A, Boafo YA, et al (2024) Citizens\u0026rsquo; acceptability and preferred nature-based solutions for mitigating hydro-meteorological risks in Ghana. J Environ Manage 352:120089. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120089\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120089\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErrington F, Gewertz D (2018) Managing an endangered species: palliative care for the Pallid Sturgeon. Am Ethnol 45:186\u0026ndash;200. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/amet.12631\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/amet.12631\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFarrell J, McConnell K, Brulle R (2019) Evidence-based strategies to combat scientific misinformation. Nat Clim Change 9:191\u0026ndash;195. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0368-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41558-018-0368-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFekete A, Aslam AB, De Brito MM, et al (2021) Increasing flood risk awareness and warning readiness by participation \u0026ndash; But who understands what under \u0026lsquo;participation\u0026rsquo;? Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 57:102157. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102157\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102157\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFerrell J (1996) Soundings \u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;100 years of the Missouri River navigation project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFischer F (2000) Citizens and experts in the risk society. In: Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Duke University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFoucault M (1976) The archaeology of knowledge. Harper \u0026amp; Row, New York\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFRAWG (2020) Flood Recovery Advisory Working Group Final Report for Governor Michael L. Parson. Missouri Department of Nature Resources\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGaillard JC (2023) The invention of disaster: power and knowledge in discourses on hazard and vulnerability. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGibbons M (1999) Science\u0026rsquo;s new social contract with society. Nature 402:C81\u0026ndash;C84. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/35011576\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/35011576\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGilbertz SJ, Hall DM (2022) Bringing sustainability to the ground level: competing demands in the Yellowstone River Valley, First edition. Business Expert Press, New York, New York\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrace-McCaskey CA, Pearce SC, Harris L, et al (2021) Finding voices in the floods of Freedom Hill: innovating solutions in Princeville, North Carolina. J Environ Stud Sci 11:341\u0026ndash;351. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-021-00701-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s13412-021-00701-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGriffin RJ, Zheng Yang, Ter Huurne E, et al (2008) After the flood: anger, attribution, and the seeking of information. Sci Commun 29:285\u0026ndash;315. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007312309\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1075547007312309\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHall DM, Catalano AJ (2023) Piloting a Flood Resiliency Engagement Process in Repetitive-Loss Missouri River Communities: Holt County, MO, USA. 36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHall DM, Catalano AJ, Gentil GM (2024) Flood Resiliency Engagement in Repetitive-Loss Missouri River Communities: Jefferson City, MO, USA. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12379.75048\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.13140/RG.2.2.12379.75048\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHall DM, Gilbertz SJ, Anderson MB, Ward LC (2016) Beyond \u0026ldquo;buy-in\u0026rdquo;: designing citizen participation in water planning as research. J Clean Prod 133:725\u0026ndash;734. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.170\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.170\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHall DM, Gilbertz SJ, Horton CC, Peterson TR (2012) Culture as a means to contextualize policy. J Environ Stud Sci 2:222\u0026ndash;233. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0077-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s13412-012-0077-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHall DM, Kidd KR, Emerson MR, Gilbertz SJ (2021) Comparative analysis of Yellowstone River cultural inventory 2006\u0026ndash;2018. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29438.72001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.13140/RG.2.2.29438.72001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHall DM, Lazarus ED, Swannack TM (2014) Strategies for communicating systems models. Environ Model Softw 55:70\u0026ndash;76. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.01.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.01.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarris DM (2017) Telling the story of climate change: geologic imagination, praxis, and policy. Energy Res Soc Sci 31:179\u0026ndash;183. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.027\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.027\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHassenforder E, Barreteau O, Daniell KA, et al (2020) The effects of public participation on multi-level water governance, lessons from Uganda. Environ Manage 66:770\u0026ndash;784. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01348-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00267-020-01348-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHenderson F, Steiner A, Farmer J, Whittam G (2020) Challenges of community engagement in a rural area: the impact of flood protection and policy. J Rural Stud 73:225\u0026ndash;233. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.11.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.11.004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHorton CC, Gilbertz SJ, Hall DM, Peterson TR (2019) Negotiating the democratic paradox: approaches drawn From governance efforts on Yellowstone River. Front Commun 4:25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fcomm.2019.00025\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHouston JB (2012) Public disaster mental/behavioral health communication: intervention across disaster phases. J Emerg Manag 10:283\u0026ndash;292. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5055/jem.2012.0106\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5055/jem.2012.0106\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHouston JB, Hawthorne J, Perreault MF, et al (2015) Social media and disasters: a functional framework for social media use in disaster planning, response, and research. Disasters 39:1\u0026ndash;22. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12092\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/disa.12092\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIdekar Farms, Inc., et al. (2018) Ideker Farms, Inc., et al. v. United States of America, Case No. 1:14-cv-00183-LJB\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIPCC (2023) Climate Change 2021 \u0026ndash; The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJacobson RB, Bouska KL, Bulliner EA, et al (2022) Geomorphic controls on floodplain connectivity, ecosystem services, and sensitivity to climate change: an example from the Lower Missouri River. Water Resour Res 58:e2021WR031204. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR031204\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1029/2021WR031204\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJacobson RB, Lindner G, Bitner C (2015) The role of floodplain restoration in mitigating flood risk, Lower Missouri River, USA. In: Hudson PF, Middelkoop H (eds) Geomorphic Approaches to Integrated Floodplain Management of Lowland Fluvial Systems in North America and Europe. Springer New York, New York, NY, pp 203\u0026ndash;243\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKlijn F, Lang M, Bakonyi P (2022) Integrated flood risk management: novel approaches for an uncertain future. Water Secur 17:100125. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2022.100125\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.wasec.2022.100125\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKousky C, Netusil NR (2023) Flood insurance literacy and flood risk knowledge: Evidence from Portland, Oregon. Risk Manag Insur Rev 26:175\u0026ndash;201. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/rmir.12242\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/rmir.12242\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKreibich H, Van Loon AF, Schr\u0026ouml;ter K, et al (2022) The challenge of unprecedented floods and droughts in risk management. Nature 608:80\u0026ndash;86. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04917-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41586-022-04917-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLangston JD, Ros-Tonen MAF, Reed J (2024) Making landscapes negotiable: Q-methodology as a boundary-spanning and empowering diagnostic. Environ Manage 74:4\u0026ndash;12. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-024-02004-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00267-024-02004-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLatour B (2004) Politics of nature. Harvard University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeech NL, Onwuegbuzie AJ (2011) Beyond constant comparison qualitative data analysis: using NVivo. Sch Psychol Q 26:70\u0026ndash;84. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0022711\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/a0022711\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLewandowsky S, Oberauer K (2016) Motivated rejection of science. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 25:217\u0026ndash;222. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416654436\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0963721416654436\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLukensmeyer C, Goldman J, Stern D (2011) Assessing public participation in an open government era: a review of federal agency plans. IBM Center for the Business of Government, Washington, D.C.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMatilainen A, Pohja-Mykr\u0026auml; M, L\u0026auml;hdesm\u0026auml;ki M, Kurki S (2017) \u0026ldquo;I feel it is mine!\u0026rdquo; \u0026ndash; Psychological ownership in relation to natural resources. J Environ Psychol 51:31\u0026ndash;45. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.03.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.03.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcComas KA (2003) Public meetings and risk amplification: a longitudinal study. Risk Anal 23:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcDermott TKJ (2022) Global exposure to flood risk and poverty. Nat Commun 13:3529. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30725-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41467-022-30725-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcEwen L, Garde-Hansen J, Holmes A, et al (2017) Sustainable flood memories, lay knowledges and the development of community resilience to future flood risk. Trans Inst Br Geogr 42:14\u0026ndash;28. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12149\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/tran.12149\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMees H, Crabb\u0026eacute; A, Alexander M, et al (2016) Coproducing flood risk management through citizen involvement: insights from cross-country comparison in Europe. Ecol Soc 21:. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08500-210307\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5751/ES-08500-210307\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMerz B, Bl\u0026ouml;schl G, Vorogushyn S, et al (2021) Causes, impacts and patterns of disastrous river floods. Nat Rev Earth Environ 2:592\u0026ndash;609. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00195-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s43017-021-00195-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMileti D (1999) Disasters by design: a reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Joseph Henry Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiller ZJ, O\u0026rsquo;Brien C, Canfield C, Sullivan L (2023) Show-me resilience: assessing and reconciling rural leaders\u0026rsquo; perceptions of climate resilience in Missouri. Environ Manage. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01836-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00267-023-01836-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNabatchi T, Leighninger M (2015) Good or bad? Charming or tedious? Understanding public participation. In: Public participation for 21st century democracy. Jossey-Bass, New Jersey, pp 13\u0026ndash;44\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNOAA (2019) Extreme Wetness of 2019 - Missouri River Basin\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaikes J, Henstra D, Thistlethwaite J (2023) Public attitudes toward policy instruments for flood risk management. Environ Manage 72:1050\u0026ndash;1060. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01848-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00267-023-01848-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRichardson JJ (2021) The national flood insurance program as an incentive to employ multiple regulatory approaches to manage floodplains: lessons learned from Pennsylvania, Vermont and West Virginia. Environ Sci Policy 115:8\u0026ndash;15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.09.024\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envsci.2020.09.024\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRothschild ZK, Landau MJ, Sullivan D, Keefer LA (2012) A dual-motive model of scapegoating: displacing blame to reduce guilt or increase control. J Pers Soc Psychol 102:1148\u0026ndash;1163. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0027413\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/a0027413\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRowan KE (1992) Strategies for enhancing comprehension of science. In: When science meets the public. pp 131\u0026ndash;143\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSamaddar S, Oteng-Ababio M, Dayour F, et al (2021) Successful community participation in climate change adaptation programs: on whose terms? Environ Manage 67:747\u0026ndash;762. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01421-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00267-020-01421-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSandman PM, Miller PM, Johnson BB, Weinstein ND (1993) Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments. Risk Anal 13:585\u0026ndash;598. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01321.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01321.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeeger M, Sellnow TL (2016) Narratives of crisis: telling stories of ruin and renewal. Stanford University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSenecah SL (2004) The trinity of voice: the role of practical theory in planning and evaluating the effectiveness of environmental participatory processes. In: Communication and public participation in environmental decision making. pp 13\u0026ndash;33\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith AB (2020) U.S. Billion-dollar Weather and Climate Disasters, 1980 - present (NCEI Accession 0209268)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSumares D, Fid\u0026eacute;lis T (2011) Natura 2000 and the narrative nature of nature: a case for critical discourse analysis. J Integr Environ Sci 8:53\u0026ndash;68. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2011.556649\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/1943815X.2011.556649\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTambal SARMA, Elsawahli HMH, Ibrahim EIE, Lumbroso D (2024) Increasing urban flood resilience through public participation: a case study of Tuti Island in Khartoum, Sudan. J Flood Risk Manag e12966. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12966\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/jfr3.12966\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUlibarri N, Ajibade I, Galappaththi EK, et al (2022) A global assessment of policy tools to support climate adaptation. Clim Policy 22:77\u0026ndash;96. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2021.2002251\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/14693062.2021.2002251\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2013) Principles and Requirements for Federal Investments in Water Resources\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2003) Amendment to the 2000 Biological opinion on the operation of the Missouri River main stem reservoir system, operation and maintenance of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project, and operation of the Kansas River reservoir system\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2000) Biological opinion on the operation of the Missouri River main stem reservoir system, operation and maintenance of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project, and operation of the Kansas River reservoir system\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUSACE (2018) Missouri river mainstem reservoir system: master water control manual\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Den Broek PW (2001) Narrative Comprehension, Psychology of. In: International Encyclopedia of the Social \u0026amp; Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier, pp 10281\u0026ndash;10284\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Hulst M, Metze T, Dewulf A, et al (2024) Discourse, framing and narrative: three ways of doing critical, interpretive policy analysis. Crit Policy Stud 1\u0026ndash;23. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2024.2326936\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/19460171.2024.2326936\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWahlstrom M, Guha-Sapir D (2015) The Human Cost of Weather-Related Disasters 1995\u0026ndash;2015. UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWard PJ, De Ruiter MC, M\u0026aring;rd J, et al (2020) The need to integrate flood and drought disaster risk reduction strategies. Water Secur 11:100070. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2020.100070\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.wasec.2020.100070\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeick KE (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeir L (2008) The concept of truth regime. Can J Sociol 33:367\u0026ndash;389\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWRDA (2020) The Water Resources Development Act of 2020\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYoung JC, Rose DC, Mumby HS, et al (2018) A methodological guide to using and reporting on interviews in conservation science research. Methods Ecol Evol 9:10\u0026ndash;19. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12828\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/2041-210X.12828\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"environmental-management","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"emvm","sideBox":"Learn more about [Environmental Management](http://link.springer.com/journal/267)","snPcode":"267","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/267/3","title":"Environmental Management","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Flood risk management, community engagement, decision-making, water resources, stakeholder engagement, misinformation","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5278335/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5278335/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eRiverine flooding is increasing in frequency and intensity, requiring river management agencies to consider new approaches to working with communities on flood mitigation planning. Communication and information sharing between agencies and communities is complex, and mistrust and misinformation arise quickly when communities perceive that they are excluded from planning. Subsequently, riverfront community members create narratives that can be examined as truth regimes \u0026mdash; truths created and repeated that indicate how flooding and its causes are understood, represented, and discussed within their communities \u0026mdash; to explain why flooding occurs in their area. To better understand community perceptions of river management related to repeated flooding, we employed a qualitative methodology of semi-structured interviews with 112 community members in 3 communities on the Missouri River, USA. Discourse analysis of the interviews revealed three dominant truth regimes that shape perceptions of river management in these communities: 1) upstream reservoir releases are driven by recreational aims, such as fishing and boating, instead of flood control; 2) endangered species management surpasses other uses; and 3) river navigation for commerce is no longer prioritized. For environmental managers, understanding the truths circulating within communities can help moderate mistrust of and frustration with governing bodies, guide project messaging to disarm false truth regimes, and improve the communication of science and policy.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Examining local truth regimes on flooding and river management in the Lower Missouri River Basin, USA","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-10-29 17:08:34","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5278335/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-11-22T21:48:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-11-22T07:34:41+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-11-13T03:09:40+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-11-05T21:27:21+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"294979015406273105168769464694319269888","date":"2024-10-23T00:00:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"222556040611056635184535501651710867680","date":"2024-10-22T15:04:17+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"124849355217002563521436186031165117745","date":"2024-10-21T23:58:01+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-10-21T14:31:18+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-10-18T18:54:17+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-10-17T02:48:57+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Environmental Management","date":"2024-10-16T20:37:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"environmental-management","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"emvm","sideBox":"Learn more about [Environmental Management](http://link.springer.com/journal/267)","snPcode":"267","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/267/3","title":"Environmental Management","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"938f8814-a4b4-429a-b509-9135420fdb5a","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 29th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-01-13T16:07:16+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-5278335","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02110-8","journal":{"identity":"environmental-management","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Environmental Management"},"publishedOn":"2025-01-11 15:57:57","publishedOnDateReadable":"January 11th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-10-29 17:08:34","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s00267-025-02110-8","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02110-8","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5278335","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5278335","identity":"rs-5278335","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}