Monitoring and Evaluation of Selected Rural Watershed Councils in the Continental United States
i. Executive Summary
ii. Glossary
iii. Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Watershed Basics
3. Watershed Groups
4. Council Survey
4.1. Representation
4.2. Balance
4.3. Facilitation
4.4. Sustainability
4.5. Power
4.6. Effectiveness
4.7. Issues
4.8. Opposition
4.9. Accomplishments / Failures
4.10. Advice
5. Conclusions
A. Literature Survey
B. Bibliography
C. Interview Contacts
Chapter 4
WATERSHED COUNCIL SURVEY
Our survey consisted of ten questions, the first five relating to organizational issues and the second five related to policy issues.
1. REPRESENTATION:
Who is represented on your Council? Federal agencies? State? Local? Business representatives? Non-profits? Environmental groups? Landowner representatives?
2. BALANCE:
What criteria do you use to decide representation, or to invite agencies to send representatives? Is your Council "balanced" between representatives seeking development and those seeking river preservation? Is "balance" an issue?
3. FACILITATION:
Who facilitates the meeting / calls the meeting / sets the agenda? How often are meetings called? Is the credibility or political importance of the facilitator significant, both in terms of what is accomplished and who actually participates in the meetings? How so?
4. SUSTAINABILITY:
Is your Council permanently mandated as an ongoing entity? or just intended to solve particular problems and then disband? Do you have a legal mandate / charter / incorporation? Please attach a copy of by-laws and mission statement, if any.
5. POWER:
Does your Council have any legal power? regulatory power? advisory power? or just a forum to air views? Why did your Council end up with the power it has?
6. EFFECTIVENESS:
Has your Council been effective at achieving its mission? Has it been effective at improving water quality in your river? What has been the key to its effectiveness, or what would be needed to make it more effective?
7. ISSUES:
What major issues has your Watershed Council dealt with? What issues will you address in the near future? Have there been issues you have avoided, and why?
8. OPPOSITION:
Have you encountered any strong opposition to your Watershed Council? What do the opponents say, and how have you countered?
9. ACCOMPLISHMENTS / FAILURES:
What have been the primary accomplishments of your Watershed Council? And its worst failures? What factors account for success in one area and failure in another?
10. ADVICE:
What would you change about your Watershed Council? What advice do you have for someone starting a Council? Please feel free to add any topics you feel we missed.
4.1. REPRESENTATION
Who is represented on your Council? Federal agencies? State? Local? Business representatives? Non-profits? Environmental groups? Landowner representatives?
COUNCIL SURVEY SUMMARY:
The survey respondents had two methods for deciding representation on a watershed council: 1) as inclusive as possible; and 2) as local as possible.
The intent of inclusiveness is to involve all of the stakeholders (Big Spring, Animas). Inclusiveness is preferred when the primary purposes is education; when solutions require widespread participation; or when opposition would otherwise be strong.
Making the watershed council as local as possible is preferred when watershed residents do not feel that their voice is being heard (Mn-Wis Boundary, Great Egg), or when landowners fear a loss of their property or rights. Larger government agencies are sometimes limited to "observer" status (Ozark) or are included for "coordination" (Upper Delaware).
LITERATURE SURVEY SUMMARY:
The complete literature survey is included in Appendix A of the "general distribution" version of this report, including citations. A summary is included with each section of this chapter for comparison to the Council Survey.
The surveyed literature indicated that a start-up watershed council must make two important choices: 1) Whether to include federal agencies or not; and 2) whether to include local citizens or not. There was consistent agreement that county and state government representatives are necessary for a successful watershed council. It was acknowledged consistently that it is beneficial for local residents, landowners and businesses (everyone that has a stake in the river) to be as involved as possible.
For including federal agencies, the factors in favor are: the council gains legitimacy; and the council has a stronger base for fundraising (and often a federal agency can contribute directly). The factors against federal inclusion are that the federal agency may dominate the council.
For including local citizens, the factors in favor are widespread participation; direct knowledge of river issues and "bottom-up" solutions; and increased community commitment. The factor against local citizens' participation is that the process is likely to take longer.
The most frequent representation scenario in our survey has a mix of federal, state and county agencies; perhaps a water board; local technical experts; business representatives; and perhaps a landowner's association.
Start-up watershed councils must also choose a scale (i.e., whether to include every tributary in the river system, or just one river branch's watershed). Some groups operate at the "sub-basin" level (one tributary) which produces quicker results; others operate on larger watersheds (e.g., multiple connected rivers) in a more holistic approach.
COUNCIL SURVEY RESPONSES:
Animas River Stakeholder Group
1. The Group includes over thirty organizations including representatives from city, county, state and federal agencies; private landowners; businesses and environmental groups.
Big Spring Creek Committee
1. A diverse group of twenty-five stakeholders form the membership of the Committee. These include representatives from city, county, state and federal government along with private landowners, industry and environmental groups.
Great Egg Harbor Planning Committee
1. NPS is the lone federal agency on the Committee and is developing the river management plan. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the EPA collaborate. Others who sit on the Committee are State representatives: New Jersey Environmental Protection Agency, Pinelands Commission, Watershed Association, environmentalists and private landowners. Two of four counties in the watershed (two declining an invitation to participate), and twelve municipalities are represented. Meetings are open and we invite landowners to participate. Local business has also participated.
McKenzie Watershed Council
1. Federal, state, county and municipal governmental agencies, non-profits, businesses and environmental representatives.
Mill Creek Watershed Council
1. County government, municipalities, state agencies, federal agencies, environmentalists and private citizens.
Minnesota Wisconsin Boundary Commission
1. A Governor-appointed citizens board consists of ten individuals, five appointed by each governor. The citizens are all from the watershed of either the St. Croix or Mississippi.
Mississippi National River - WaterShed Partners
1. Thirty active partner comprised of four categories of members: academic and education related; watershed management; non-profit and environmental groups; and government agencies (no private landowners).
Niobrara Council
1. Four county commissioners, state and county government, landowners, recreational user groups and timber interests.
Ozark Scenic River Watershed Partnership
1. Our governing body consists of the eight County Commissioners covering the three rivers administered by the NPS and USFS. Meetings are held quarterly. NPS, USFS, and the Missouri Department of Conservation provide support and are observers, but the eight commissioners constitute the Board of Directors. Agencies rotate in providing coordination and facilitation.
Partnership for the Saginaw Bay Watershed
1. Representatives from businesses, educational institutions, state agency, environmentalists (no federal agencies involved).
St. Miguel Planning Team and Watershed Coalition
1. Federal, state and local agencies, non-profits and individual local landowners.
Sun River Watershed Committee
1. Landowners, irrigation districts, state agencies, federal agencies, and conservation districts are the main players. Irrigation districts are managed by a board elected by the farmers in each district.
Upper Arkansas Watershed Initiative
1. Twenty-five organizations are represented on the Council.
Upper Delaware Council
1. State of NY, state of Pennsylvania, municipalities in both states, Delaware Basin Commission, and the Citizens Advisory Council is a ex-officio non-voting member. NPS is a partner and has a cooperative agreement with the Council. They believed that the lowest level of government involvement was the best. The council encourages advisory members to participate. Membership is voluntary.
4.2. BALANCE
What criteria do you use to decide representation, or to
invite agencies to send representatives? Is your Council "balanced" between representatives seeking development
and those seeking river preservation? Is "balance" an issue?
COUNCIL SURVEY SUMMARY:
The councils generally believe that balance is achieved as a direct result of representation. Many councils are concerned with balance, but let it occur passively rather than actively pursuing it.
On councils with open membership (Sun River), balance comes because all stakeholders are welcome and all viewpoints are heard.
On councils with appointed members (Niobrara, Mn-Wis Boundary), the governor or appointing agency is supposed to consider balance, and the council's balance follows from appropriate appointments.
On councils where balance is considered an issue (Animas, McKenzie, Mn-Wis Boundary, Sun River), the councils desire more representatives from either pro-preservation or pro-development groups, or recognize a bias toward either preservation or development. No pattern favors either preservation or development interests, however.
LITERATURE SURVEY SUMMARY:
Achieving balance can be difficult because of the numerous parties involved and the different interests each have. However, effective communication articulating and identifying the parties, and delineating the issues and goals of the watershed is the key to success in balancing the rights of the competing groups. Often, understanding the views of each group is sufficient to convert competing interests into coordinated action.
A watershed council is designed to be a partnership of equals, using a consensus approach where neither the government, nor the landowners, nor environmental groups, nor any other party dominate the perspective and goals. Our theory is that if any party comes to dominate, the council becomes "politically captured" and is just another forum for expressing the dominant party's view, instead of a means of achieving consensus. Our survey indicates that watershed groups are cognizant of competing interests, but do not actively seek balance, because the structure of the watershed council forces balance by inclusion. In cases where balance is actively avoided (such as excluding environmental groups), the results are subject to heavy criticism and legal attack from those who did not participate in the process.
COUNCIL SURVEY RESPONSES:
Animas River Stakeholder Group
2. All stakeholders need to be represented. Meetings are open to the public. The Stakeholder Group is moderately balanced but varies from time to time. Better representation from the environmental community would provide a closer balance.
Big Spring Creek Committee
2. Meetings are open to anyone interested in the river. The Committee advertises meetings in a local paper to attract interest. There is no fee for joining. The Committee is balanced, but because there is no voting on issues it is less important. Folks from all viewpoints are members of the group.
Great Egg Harbor Planning Committee
2. Always an open meeting encouraging as many people as possible to participate. The Committee is not formalized beyond the municipal level. We targeted municipal government as the level at which the Committee should function. They haven't determined how many representatives there should be, except that it should be an odd number to avoid deadlocks. Currently, conservationists are the most numerous participants but when a particular issue arises others come to the Committee to express their concerns. We focus on issues and on finding ways for groups to communicate without polarization.
McKenzie Watershed Council
2. The organizations to be included were provided for in the charter: major federal, state and local agencies. They looked at whether they were a major stakeholder and whether they impacted water quality. 70% of watershed in federal agency hands, so balance leans toward federal agency concerns. Balance is an issue; we probably need more environmentalists.
Mill Creek Watershed Council
2. No criteria for parties to join, the Council is open to everyone who would like to participate. There are a few industry people, but would like to have more. Overall, balance is not an issue.
Minnesota Wisconsin Boundary Commission
2. Governor appoints to fill vacancy. The range geographically in both upstream and downstream. Yes, the governors consider balance in making their appointments. Balance is always an issue. Historically the Commission has had a bias toward preservation.
Mississippi National River - WaterShed Partners
2. The group has sought to include a diverse range of interested partners. Two functions of council need balance: a) education and interpretation; b) resource management.
Niobrara Council
2. The county government is largely involved in initiating the council and it is an actual part of county government. The hope is that it will be balanced.
Ozark Scenic River Watershed Partnership
2. Membership is open to individuals, organizations, and government agencies. The County Commissioners are supposed to represent all their constituencies and thus balance is achieved through the representative and electoral process.
Partnership for the Saginaw Bay Watershed
2. They invite everyone they can. It is a dues-based council, so anyone who pays their fee can sit on the Council. There's a fair amount of interest in balance, but the Council leans toward river preservation. Balance has not really been an issue.
St. Miguel Planning Team and Watershed Coalition
2. The Coalition and Planning Team are totally inclusive, everyone is invited to participate through meetings which are open to the public. The smaller Planning Team is developing a management plan for the river. The Planning Team consists of twelve of the major players, including the federal agencies and cities. The team was chosen to consist of people with specific knowledge and have time to spend to write the plan. The Coalition's goals are balanced. Balance is an issue in all the work of the Planning Team and the Coalition.
Sun River Watershed Committee
2. The Committee encourage participation by anyone who is interested and will represent more than just himself. Any stakeholder with a key role to play is welcomed. The Committee is well balanced but leans toward agriculture since members are typically residents, and the residents are predominately farmers. Balance is an issue but agricultural folks are satisfied and currently so are environmental representatives.
Upper Arkansas Watershed Initiative
2. They use broad criteria, and the Council meetings are open to the public. Anyone with a water-related interest on the river can become a member.
Upper Delaware Council
2. The Council works with the closest and lowest form of government. Involvement of state agencies was extremely important for the coordination because of the need to use existing laws and regulations. Balance is dependent on which individuals are appointed to the Council because decisions are often based on personal beliefs. Balance was not an issue because it's government appointees who are members.
4.3. FACILITATION
Who facilitates the meeting / calls the meeting / sets the agenda? How often are meetings called? Is the credibility
or political importance of the facilitator significant,
both in terms of what is accomplished and who actually participates in the meetings? How so?
COUNCIL SURVEY SUMMARY:
The councils concur that credibility is important to effectiveness, and that the council's facilitator is the key to credibility. But, as usual, the councils have different means of achieving those ends.
Some councils' facilitators live within the watershed (Mill Creek) to ensure credibility, and some are from outside the area (St. Miguel) to ensure that he is a "neutral person."
Some facilitator positions are filled by a strong local leader (Big Spring) to encourage participation, and some are rotating positions (Sun River) to ensure collaboration and "equal influence."
LITERATURE SURVEY SUMMARY:
A facilitator's job is to get people involved with the watershed council. Business representatives, political representatives, and community members should be approached in different ways. Our survey indicates:
Get businesses and political leaders involved early. Keep business leaders involved by approaching the Chamber of Commerce and by economic analyses. Keep political leaders involved by demonstrating public support and awareness. Keep the community involved with newsletters and press releases, and by staging public events (river trips, booths at fairs, etc.), which have been found to assist in raising public consciousness and creating a support base.
At meetings, a designated, knowledgeable and neutral facilitator should direct the proceedings, making sure the important issues are addressed and making sure all relevant parties participate.
The successful watershed coordinator generally reflects the values of the local community. It is often up to him to achieve balance between the groups and maintain the focal point toward the common goal. Some watershed groups require that the facilitator reside in the watershed, but others have succeeded with a facilitator who is involved with the river's issues but lives outside the watershed.
COUNCIL SURVEY RESPONSES:
Animas River Stakeholder Group
3. In the beginning the Group was professionally facilitated. This was considered essential. After two years of monthly meetings, where participants became tolerant of others positions, the Group chose to facilitate its own meetings. Each month someone must volunteer to facilitate the next meeting. A full time watershed coordinator sets the meeting topics as needed or directed by participants. A part time facilitation assistant is retained to record minutes, provide public notices and mailings, and other organizational tasks.
Big Spring Creek Committee
3. A prominent local businessman facilitates the meeting as the chair. A small committee develops the agenda with input from the chair. The chair or facilitator has been responsible for moving agendas and encouraging participation from all sides.
Great Egg Harbor Planning Committee
3. The facilitator function is performed as a collaborative effort: NPS functions as a co-facilitator with local groups; local groups mediate because the federal agency is not an inhabitant of the area. NPS also offers logistical support. The meetings are jointly hosted once a month or as needed. Joint facilitation is very important on a locally managed river, and using government assists in that effect. NPS brings validity and political clout. It spurs interest. Local agencies also bring validity and open the door for NPS to utilize resources for activities.
McKenzie Watershed Council
3. The facilitator is provided by federal agencies because federal employees can't be advocates. Administrative functions are done by an Executive Committee comprised of five members from the Council. We have one meeting per month. Facilitation is very important and the federal agency personnel have developed lots of trust and credibility.
Mill Creek Watershed Council
3. The Chairman sets the agenda and calls the meetings. Council meetings are held once every three months. Six working groups meet monthly, and the Executive Committee which oversees the working groups meets once a month. The previous chairman did not live in the watershed; the new one does and that lends credibility. Yes, credibility is important.
Minnesota Wisconsin Boundary Commission
3. Staff makes agenda proposal to the chair, but it originates from the four full time paid staff members. Commission meetings are held every two months. Additionally, there are two sub-committees, one for each river (St. Croix and Mississippi) and they also meet every two months.
Regional Committees are detailed study groups. Credibility and reputation are the keys to the Commission's effectiveness. The facilitator must be able to consider the interests of a wide range of people. Even though the Commission has been operating since 1965, there is still not a lot of public attendance at the meetings or public input in general because meetings are always scheduled during working hours.
Mississippi National River - WaterShed Partners
3. The NPS facilitates the meetings which are held monthly. The group is administered by a steering committee but the group is not facilitated by a chair. The groups operate on consensus and the objective is to share in decision making with the entire group.
Niobrara Council
3. The chairman of the Niobrara Council facilitates, and the Council meets once a month. The chair represents both development and preservation interests well.
Ozark Scenic River Watershed Partnership
3. The partnership is facilitated on a rotating schedule between the three main agencies. Currently the Missouri Department of Conservation facilitates the meetings. The meetings are held four times a year and are open to the public.
Partnership for the Saginaw Bay Watershed
3. The agenda is set by the chair, and meetings are held monthly. Credibility is important but when nothing is accomplished credibility suffers. Low credibility means low stakeholder buy-in.
St. Miguel Planning Team and Watershed Coalition
3. Meetings are co-facilitated by the NPS and a local non-profit (Telluride Institute). We now have a paid watershed coordinator. The planning team meets every six weeks, and full coalition meetings are held once a year. Yes, credibility is important, to handle jurisdictional jealousy and interagency turf concerns. The facilitator is a neutral person from outside the area. The NPS has a certain status and reputation, and their local representative is perceived as being fair.
Sun River Watershed Committee
3. Calling a meeting depends on the circumstances. Any organization can contact the watershed coordinator and ask that a meeting be held on a particular topic. The coordinator decides the merits of having a meeting, then contacts key stakeholders (three-county conservation districts to set date). Then a letter is sent to everyone else. There are no regular meetings, but there is always at least one per year. Submeetings are held quarterly.
Facilitation is conducted by the conservation district personnel, more like a chair of the meeting than a facilitator. Outside facilitators are sometimes used on contentious problems. Facilitators are chosen from federal or state agencies that are neutral on the issue. Yes, credibility of the chair and conservation districts has been the key component. However, members also believe that no one entity or person controls the council and that everyone has equal influence.
Upper Arkansas Watershed Initiative
3. The Watershed Coordinator is the facilitator, and there is also a Leadership Committee. Issues are brought to the Council through a formal process ("WARP") whereby an organization follows a set of multi-level procedures which when completed will bring the issue before the full Council. Full Council meetings are held quarterly, but subcommittee meeting may be held more frequently.
The facilitator position is funded through a grant, and he is independent of any government agency. He is not an employee of any organization, but NRCS provides him an office and office equipment. His neutrality is maintained through his grant funding and no government affiliations.
Upper Delaware Council
3. The Council chairman set the meeting agenda, and calls meetings. The meetings are held once a month. There are also three major committees that also meet separately once a month:
- operations;
- project review (includes the comment and review function on new permits and government action and also the technical assistance grants mandated to municipalities for helping with compliance with new federal programs);
- and water use / resource management issues.
The credibility and political importance of the facilitator is very important. In the eight years the Council has been operational they have amassed considerable political clout and there is strength in numbers in that many entities are represented by the Council.
4.4. SUSTAINABILITY
Is your Council permanently mandated as an ongoing entity?
Or just intended to solve particular problems and then disband? Do you have a legal mandate, a charter,
or articles of incorporation?
COUNCIL SURVEY SUMMARY:
The councils surveyed ranged in formality from legal incorporation (Saginaw) which includes designation as a Public Advisory Committee; to "extremely informal" (Sun River) which focuses on "issues... instead of spending resources on rules and frameworks."
The mandates of the councils ranged from legal state mandates (Mn-Wis Boundary) with annual state funding; to informal by-laws (Big Spring) which emphasizes the voluntary nature of the council.
In general, the level of legal formality did not have a significant impact on power or effectiveness (see following two questions).
The councils generally considered themselves to be permanent entities regardless of their formality. None were "ad hoc" committees to address one or two issues. Some noted that permanence is relevant because watershed issues are long-term and ongoing.
LITERATURE SURVEY SUMMARY:
The literature does not address the specific question we posed so we address here the more general issues of how a watershed council gets started and how a watershed council gets funded for ongoing activity.
Ideally, a watershed council should come about from local initiative to address local resource issues. Realistically, federal or state agencies are typically involved with the initiation process. The literature includes examples of initiation by government agencies, water utilities, university studies, and grassroots efforts. The issues that watershed councils form around include resource management, sediment control, conflict or lawsuit avoidance, and the threat of federal intervention.
Getting started should be expected to be a long process. It is important for local participants to go through a process of defining and developing consensus on the common interests the council is to address, align and balance special interests, and acquire agreement on policy and objectives.
The amount of funding requires varies according to the roles the watershed council takes on. Acting as a forum or information source requires little financing, while restoration projects require substantial funds.
In-kind donations of office space and personnel from member agencies is a common source of funding. Other sources include: grants from federal and state agencies (with member agencies as intermediaries); "cost sharing" by member agencies; grants from environmental groups; investments by water utilities (especially for sediment control); and citizens' volunteer work.
COUNCIL SURVEY RESPONSES:
Animas River Stakeholder Group
4. The Stakeholder Group is viewed as an ongoing entity because the issues it works on will continue to need to be resolved. There's no legal mandate, however the Colorado Water Quality Commission empowered the group to perform numerous tasks before the next triennial review to determine water quality standards and stream classifications. These tasks include characterizing the basin, determining the amount of reversible contamination which can be remediated, and what standards and classification goals might be realistic to achieve over a 20 year period. They do have a mission statement and a list of goals.
Big Spring Creek Committee
4. The Committee is not formally mandated and does not operate pursuant to a charter. This reinforces the voluntary nature of the project. They operate under the conservation district, which is a sub-entity of the state government. The program is funded from a CWA 319 grant from the EPA.
Great Egg Harbor Planning Committee
4. The planning committee was initiated to be an ongoing entity. Hopefully the body will be accepted within some existing institutional framework. Legal authority comes from the WSRA section 10, which allows cooperative agreements to conserve and protect designated rivers.
McKenzie Watershed Council
4. The Council is permanently mandated as an ongoing entity. We have a charter that everyone signed on to.
Mill Creek Watershed Council
4. We think the council will go on. However, it may change into something else. It is a 501(c)(3) organization.
Minnesota Wisconsin Boundary Commission
4. The Commission is permanently mandated as an ongoing entity by the Cooperative Agreement of 1965. The two state legislatures placed the Commission within statutory provisions which also provided for a annual appropriation. Its legal mandate is found within the enabling statutes.
Mississippi National River - WaterShed Partners
4. We are an informal organization. We have no legal mandate. We are currently engaged in a long-range planning effort. It is the mission of the WaterShed Partners to promote a public understanding that inspires people to act to protect water quality in their watershed.
Niobrara Council
4. We are not mandated pursuant to legislation, but are formed as part of NPS general management plan. We will continue as an ongoing entity indefinitely.
Ozark Scenic River Watershed Partnership
4. Yes, they are permanently mandated through a charter. The main purpose is education.
Partnership for the Saginaw Bay Watershed
4. The Partnership is not mandated, and there's nothing in state law. However, the council functions as designated Public Advisory Committee, for the river's remediation plan which is tied to Great Lakes remediation. The Council is incorporated 501(c)(3).
St. Miguel Planning Team and Watershed Coalition
4. The Planning Team is mandated to conduct the process to develop a plan and to operate the Coalition. Neither has a charter nor incorporation. The Coalition has a mission statement.
Sun River Watershed Committee
4. The Committee is not permanently mandated, but because of the length of time required to address the issues the council is viewed as going on essentially forever. There's no legal mandate, no by-laws nor mission statement. It's extremely informal. When the group was being formed, they simply wrote a list of issues and then started work on those issues, instead of spending resources on trying to put together complex institutional rules and frameworks.
Upper Arkansas Watershed Initiative
4. They are not formally mandated. They do have a charter and use another 501(c)(3) as their account holder.
Upper Delaware Council
4. The Council is permanently mandated in the River Management plan. Yes, it's incorporated as a non-profit 501(c)(3), and also registered to do business in the State of New York.
4.5. POWER
Does your Council have any legal power? regulatory power? advisory power? or just a forum to air views? Why did your Council end up with the power it has?
COUNCIL SURVEY SUMMARY:
The legal power of the councils surveyed ranged from a forum to air views (Saginaw, Ozark, Mississippi), to limited advisory power (Upper Delaware, Mn-Wis Boundary, McKenzie).
Although some councils in our survey were formed through state law (Niobrara, Mn-Wis Boundary), none have legislative or regulatory power.
Many councils noted that their power derives from working cooperatively and because all parties agree to consensus action.
Some councils (Mill Creek, Sun River, St. Miguel) note that their real power comes from powerful individual members, who bring the council consensus back to their own agencies.
LITERATURE SURVEY SUMMARY:
Typical watershed councils have only informal power, as a forum or in an advisory role. Despite a lack of formal power, watershed councils gain authority because their member agencies do have formal power. Many watershed councils produce river guidelines, act as an information source, act as a "watchdog" over agency actions, or provide studies advising regulatory agencies.
Voicing the desires of the community (acting as a forum) is often sufficient to achieve the desired goals because federal authorities usually defer to the needs of local communities when those needs are stated.
Often the involvement in river management of a combination of federal, state and local agencies leads to a fragmentation of authority and conflicting goals. Water pollution transcends political boundaries and often creates a lack of accountability. Broadly-focused watershed groups address this fragmentation.
Making behavior voluntary, rather than mandatory through regulations, is often the most effective solution. (An essential distinction is that watershed councils are voluntary while regulatory agencies mandate actions.) However, in many cases, the concept of voluntariness is purely a fiction, because of the threat of enforcement if "voluntary" actions are declined. The use of incentives can encourage and enhance the proposed behavior in a voluntary way, and can often preclude new regulations or other government intervention.
COUNCIL SURVEY RESPONSES:
Animas River Stakeholder Group
5. They have advisory power to influence decision making in the watershed. They decided the kind of power the council would have when they developed it (see question 4).
Big Spring Creek Committee
5. The Committee has no legal, regulatory or administrative authority. The Committee operates through consensus. It's a forum to discuss issues, provide direction within the watershed, and coordinate governmental activities. It has considerably more depth than coordinated resource management because of its restoration activities.
Great Egg Harbor Planning Committee
5. The Planning Committee, while it has no legal power, does have power to the extent that we work cooperatively with others. It has advisory power and it's a forum to air views. Power comes through cooperative and shared values and resources.
McKenzie Watershed Council
5. They have advisory power on land use planning and development. Primarily a forum to air views. The Council was an attempt by organizations and residents to be pro-active in the water quality issues in the watershed.
Mill Creek Watershed Council
5. The Council has no regulatory or legal power. It has a good bit of influence because of the powerful members of the Council who individually have power.
Minnesota Wisconsin Boundary Commission
5. The Commission has no regulatory or legal power. It does have advisory power through the notice and comment procedure on any major action impacting the rivers. It is also an important forum to air views. Its mandate is to protect the public's interest.
Mississippi National River - WaterShed Partners
5. It has no regulatory power. It is a forum to air views but also enables members to leverage and share resources which adds to the effectiveness and efficiency of actors in the group.
Niobrara Council
5. It could have formed as an entity of the local county government, but was formed instead through state law, and is a part of county government. There is a cooperative agreement between NPS and the Council.
Ozark Scenic River Watershed Partnership
5. While it has no legal power, it is a forum to air views and inform the public. When an issue is presented, speakers on both sides of the issue are asked to speak.
Partnership for the Saginaw Bay Watershed
5. The Partnership has no legal or regulatory power, and not even formal advisory power. It does provide a forum to air views. What power they have is held by individual members but through consensus they can bring power to bear. They also can give input into the draft remediation plan.
St. Miguel Planning Team and Watershed Coalition
5. The Planning Team is developing a river management plan, and the Coalition is a forum to air views. The coalition is too young to meet it potential. The Planning Team has power through consensus, when everyone agrees on something. But the true power to do something is always vested with individual members of the team.
Sun River Watershed Committee
5. No legal or formal power. Advisory power comes from the group because the Council can suggest to a given entity a certain course of action but it is all voluntary. It is also a forum to air views. Power is held by each member of the Council individually. There is power when all entities agree to act or refrain from acting. Additionally, shared information and resources has potential leveraged power.
Upper Arkansas Watershed Initiative
5. No regulatory or legal power. Decisions made on a consensus basis. Power comes from the track record of the Council. Credibility is based on track record and power comes from credibility.
Upper Delaware Council
5. No legal power but advisory power is the meat of its existence through the comment and review process. The reason the council has power is because the local people decided they wanted it that way.
4.6. EFFECTIVENESS
Has your Council been effective at achieving its mission?
Has it been effective at improving water quality in your river? What has been the key to its effectiveness, or what would
be needed to make it more effective?
COUNCIL SURVEY SUMMARY:
Generally, the mission of all of the councils surveyed is to improve water quality. Most claim they have achieved that goal, or at least have addressed the issue while hoping for future improvements.
The councils offer a wide range of keys to their effectiveness:
- Broad range of partners (Mississippi, St. Miguel, Upper Delaware);
- Full-time paid staff (Upper Arkansas, Saginaw, Mill Creek);
- Long-term stability and perspective (Great Egg, Mn-Wis Boundary);
- Representing all interests (Great Egg, Animas);
- Avoid taking positions (Ozark);
- Facilitator or members push action (Big Spring, Sun River);
- Coordination between partners (McKenzie);
- Avoid over-ambitious projects or scope (Saginaw).
LITERATURE SURVEY SUMMARY:
The active involvement and support of local communities and residents and landowners is paramount to the success and effectiveness of a watershed effort. Key stakeholders and influential community leaders should be involved early in the process and kept involved later.
Communicating progress is a means of maintaining strong local support. Clear and frequent press releases and newsletters keep the community involved and circumvent the "rumor mill."
The principles and objectives of watershed management must be clear and precise. In particular, the watershed council should define the watershed boundaries and define measurable goals.
Collecting physical information and analyzing its interconnections is another key. This often means conducting a "watershed inventory," detailing biodiversity and a baseline of pollution levels. Coming up with a list of measurable results is good planning toward a healthy watershed. The results can be phrased in the same terms as the watershed inventory, in species populations and desired pollution levels. The surveyed councils focused on reducing erosion and on measuring progress in terms of healthy fish habitat.
COUNCIL SURVEY RESPONSES:
Animas River Stakeholder Group
6. It has been effective at achieving its mission. Yes, it has helped improve water quality. The key to its effectiveness is that decisions are made by consensus and all factions are represented. Effectiveness would be greatly improved with greater regulatory flexibility to encourage third party cleanups, partial cleanups (based on available technology), and assurances for long term support of the process.
Big Spring Creek Committee
6. It has been an effective project and will result in the largest stream restoration project in Montana. The project has resulted in improved water quality. The key to its effectiveness has been that the chair ensures that the group moves forward and that the group openly accepts the idea. The individual who facilitates the group is a local business man and he also sets agendas.
Great Egg Harbor Planning Committee
6. Yes, the Committee has been effective in undertaking work on specific management issues but not necessarily resolving them. The Committee answers questions that need to be raised. The Committee functions as a body where the public can raise issues and hold federal agencies responsible for their activities. The key to its effectiveness is its long term stability. It's seen as a stable and a continuous operation and is known for trying to represent all interests and the committee resists pointing fingers at people.
McKenzie Watershed Council
6. Yes, they have been effective at achieving their mission. The water is already very high quality and the Council has been effective in ensuring the water stays high quality. The key is the high level of trust between partners, providing a great forum for coordination and resource sharing that didn't occur before. Coordination and dialogue have been very successful.
It is essential to have a strong process and structure to have an effective watershed effort. A good process adds credibility to the effort, which is essential when seeking funding.
Working by consensus, rather than by majority rule, is preferred in order to gain the maximum support for group decisions.
It is valuable to have a local agency initiate the process. The Eugene Water and Electric Board played a key role during the scoping and start-up phases.
Mill Creek Watershed Council
6. The Council has been effective, for an all-volunteer group, in getting started. Water qual-ity improvement is going to take 20 years to do. We have increased public awareness about it. The Corps of Engineers has agreed to re-study the Flood Control project and Greenways master planning is underway. To be more effective, we need more money and full-time paid staff.
Minnesota Wisconsin Boundary Commission
6. We think it has been a success but that is difficult to quantify. However, through working in partnership with others (such as NPS and the Army Corps of Engineers) there has been an improvement in water quality. If the Commission weren't there to act or advise on these issues this work would not get done.
The Commission has two sources of effectiveness:
- Its institutional bi-state perspective on two rivers allows for a broad ranging perspective on broad range of issues. The Commission has authority so it can make suggestions and recommendations but does not have to implement or enforce them, thus lacking responsibility. By making recommendations the Commission can be a source of leverage for other agencies.
- Because of the long-term perspective and watershed focus, The Commission can blend issues between states and avoid the political jurisdictional problems which typify rivers that are not managed as a watershed.
Mississippi National River - WaterShed Partners
6. The coalition has been meeting regularly for less than two years. It has been effective in promoting educational awareness. Its key to effectiveness has been having a broad range of partners including community representatives who are able to make contact and reach out to the local community. The other key is its focus on action: its educational outreach is geared to getting people to act.
Niobrara Council
6. No response.
Ozark Scenic River Watershed Partnership
6. It has been fairly effective as an educational tool. The forum has provided speakers on all sides of an issue. The purpose of the Partnership was not to take positions on issues but to inform the public. Some of the effectiveness of the Partnership to represent all views was lost when the Board took a position on one side of a politically and environmentally sensitive issue. The chairman of the group must be politically astute to balance the program and discussion at any meeting. Members of the Partnership disagree on this opinion, as well as on the issue itself.
Partnership for the Saginaw Bay Watershed
6. The Partnership has not been very successful but has done a few things well such as educating people about the watershed. We can't tell if they have had any effect on water quality. At this point they are just struggling to keep the organization going as an entity. The watershed encompasses 22 counties and it is almost impossible to coordinate and maintain interest on that level. They need paid staff but no one wants to fund the administrative expenses, just programs. Additionally they are almost completely dependent on membership for funding.
St. Miguel Planning Team and Watershed Coalition
6. The Planning Team has been effective in developing a draft plan. Yes, the Coalition and Planning Team have improved water quality because they have been able to procure funds for river restoration and educational projects. Developing partnerships has been the key to both entities' effectiveness. Another key has been working together toward a common goal and conducting fundraising for a community watershed based organization.
Sun River Watershed Committee
6. Yes, it has been effective: the Committee's time line and targets have been reached. They have also seen water quality and quantity improvements. It could be more effective with additional man-hours and financial resources. Key to its effectiveness is that people have been highly motivated. One group (agricultural) was motivated by threats of serious lawsuits and fines for non-compliance and the other group is motivated by concern for the river.
Upper Arkansas Watershed Initiative
6. They are currently preparing to do an annual review of their effectiveness. Effectiveness has resulted from a full time-paid position for a watershed coordinator.
Upper Delaware Council
6. Yes, it has been effective at improving water-quality in cooperation with other entities. The key to its effectiveness is the ability to get people at the table with each other and then resolve issues that affect the river. To be more effective the Council could bring in the other municipalities that decided not to participate.
4.7. ISSUES
What major issues has your Watershed Council dealt with? What issues will you address in the near future?
Have there been issues you have avoided, and why?
COUNCIL SURVEY SUMMARY:
The councils surveyed cover the spectrum of river issues:
- Water quality / urban and rural runoff / mining pollution;
- Water quantity / flow disputes / flood control;
- Property rights / recreational usage / land use / land stewardship;
- Education / water quality monitoring / regulatory enforcement.
Since a primary purpose of most councils is to educate and discuss viewpoints, few issues are avoided. Some exceptions are:
- Issues with jurisdictional conflicts (Great Egg);
- Issues requiring technical expertise (Mn-Wis Boundary);
- Issues where members can't achieve consensus (Animas, McKenzie);
- Avoid contentiousness to build support (St. Miguel);
- Limit issues due to limited resources (Mn-Wis Boundary, Saginaw).
LITERATURE SURVEY SUMMARY:
Issues include:
- Point-source vs. nonpoint-source pollution;
- Excessive sediment loss and sedimentation problems;
- Cumulative effects of long-term pollution;
- Agriculture and silviculture practices;
- Land development in rural areas;
- Recreation on public lands;
- Failure of existing legislation;
- Providing information and education.
The roles of a watershed council should include:
- Coming up with an Action Plan;
- Forum (a place to voice opinions);
- Education (acting as a central information clearinghouse);
- Monitoring (recording pollution levels and/or agency compliance);
- Demonstration projects (publicizing local examples of Best Management Practices);
- Conflict resolution (interagency and inter-jurisdictional conflicts as well as private lawsuits).
- Funding (providing information about funding sources or assistance and cost-sharing).
Other questions to be decided include:
- What management strategies should be implemented to protect or enhance outstandingly remarkable river values?
- What aquatic and riparian conditions are needed to protect fisheries and other river values?
- How should vegetation, wildlife, scenic resources, and cultural resources be managed in order to protect and enhance river values?
- How should recreation opportunities and experiences be managed to protect river values?
- How can changes to existing uses on private lands be accommodated while protecting other river values?
- Where should boundaries be located to protect river values?
COUNCIL SURVEY RESPONSES:
Animas River Stakeholder Group
7. The Stakeholder Group's issues have been acid mine drainage, water quality regulation and enforcement issues, water quality monitoring, and remediation of abandoned mines. These issues will continue. No issues are avoided, but we would avoid an issue that the Group couldn't come to consensus on. Avoiding Superfund designation in the basin has been a challenge. The process is clearly demonstrated that a grass roots organization can accomplish CWA goals in a cost effective manner while developing a local sense of stewardship for the environment.
Big Spring Creek Committee
7.
Our issues are:
education;
encouraging landowners to implement best management practices and conservation easements;
streambank restoration;
and current and future impacts from development and recreational activities.
The formal goals of the Big Spring Creek Watershed Partnership include:
- Providing a forum on issues concerning the watershed;
- Promoting communication between public and private interests;
- Assess the cumulative efforts of activities in the watershed;
- Identifying opportunities and developing action plans that are beneficial to watershed health;
- Providing educational opportunities;
- Making Big Spring Creek an ecological, economic, & recreational resource for local residents.
Great Egg Harbor Planning Committee
7. A study is underway on the recreational carrying capacity of the river. The issues are the proliferation of docks and resulting riparian habitat destruction. Yes, they avoided issues that they felt they were unable to address for reasons such as jurisdictional barriers.
McKenzie Watershed Council
7. Current issues: comprehensive water quality monitoring, stream bank restoration, land use and water quality. Future issues: Conflict resolution about forestry practices and water quality. Fisheries. Avoided issues: very contentious issues and those that major players on the council are heavily involved in.
Mill Creek Watershed Council
7. Issue of ACE (Army Corps of Engineers) flood control project, combined sewer overflow, water quality standards. In the future: same issues. Didn't avoid issues but decided to promote some over others.
Minnesota Wisconsin Boundary Commission
7. River planning, water quality monitoring, property rights issues. They have avoided some issues such as a nuclear power plant construction and others because of: 1) competition for resources with other priorities; 2) lack of technical expertise; 3) another agency has mandate or jurisdiction.
Mississippi National River - WaterShed Partners
7. Urban runoff, pollution and education.
Niobrara Council
7. Visitor use and land use stewardship.
Ozark Scenic River Watershed Partnership
7. Mainly educational, discussions about non-point source pollution, Confined Animal Feeding Operations, lead mining. No issues have been avoided. The goal is not to reach a conclusion but rather to discuss.
Partnership for the Saginaw Bay Watershed
7. Land use, water-quality monitoring, general stewardship. The big future issue is the continued existence of the Partnership due to lack of interest and resources. They avoid some issues because they lack the resources to address them so they pick and choose what they can and can't do.
St. Miguel Planning Team and Watershed Coalition
7. Current issues are: water issues, growth and community issues, natural resources, recreation, education and stewardship. The mandate to develop the management plan created a grouping of agencies with the group functioning similarly to a council. We avoided supporting certain proposals and stayed away from contentious issues because the coalition and team are very young groupings. Instead they look for issues that have a broad spectrum of support.
Sun River Watershed Committee
7. The current issues are: water quality, water quantity and agricultural viability. In the future they will address weeds and housing developments. No issues have been avoided.
Upper Arkansas Watershed Initiative
7. a) Water flow management and allocation; b) water quality; c) information and education. Main purpose is to provide forum for different views.
Upper Delaware Council
7. Water-quality issues, water quantity/flow issues, private property rights issue and riparian land ownership, federal energy licensing (hydro power), hazardous substance spill training. The issue on the horizon is river flow. No issues are avoided.
4.8. OPPOSITION
Have you encountered any strong opposition to your Watershed Council? What do the opponents say, and how have you countered?
COUNCIL SURVEY SUMMARY:
The surveyed councils suggest that inclusion of all stakeholders precludes opposition (Mill Creek), and that cooperation limits opposition (Mississippi).
Most councils have encountered some opposition; they attribute the causes to:
- Fear of federal government and eminent domain by NPS (Upper Delaware, Great Egg, Animas);
- Concern for property rights (Sun River, Animas, McKenzie; Mn-Wis Boundary);
- Council "tells people what to do" (Great Egg, Mn-Wis Boundary; Niobrara);
- Lack of adequate representation on council (Ozark, St. Miguel);
- Delegation of federal power to counties (Niobrara).
LITERATURE SURVEY SUMMARY:
Much opposition to river protection is focused on avoiding federal designation. "Wild and Scenic" and other designations are significant sources of river protection but are controversial when designations include private land.
Local communities are told to change practices that degrade rivers but are provided little support or direction for making changes that can also maintain economic vitality. In overcoming this opposition, getting correct information to affected residents is key to getting landowners involved.
The farmers who will cooperate in pollution control are those who see the problem as having an equitable resolution. Non-farmers usually are less resistant to change (as the cost and risk to them is negligible compared to farmers). Often the use of media and direct mail is enough to persuade them that change is necessary. A surefire way to fail in such projects is to not demonstrate appropriate respect for watershed residents.
Another form of opposition is reflected by the Wise Use movement. Some of the basis for the Wise Use movement is in the ambiguity of a God-given right to use natural resources versus a God-given responsibility to protect natural resources.
The regulatory strategy of "ecosystem management" has been advanced to protect undeveloped land recently. Watershed management is a form of ecosystem management. Ecosystem management is considered by some opponents to be just another means of exerting federal land use restrictions. The lack of clearly defined boundaries is another point of opposition, along with a lack of clear criteria for distinguishing one ecosystem from another.
COUNCIL SURVEY RESPONSES:
Animas River Stakeholder Group
8. Private property rights activists and anti-federal government interventionists complain that the group has too much Federal participation. To counter, all meetings and reports are kept readily available to the public. Local participation is encouraged by hearing and addressing their concerns. The majority of lands in the county are public, requiring Federal land managers' participation. It's slowly being realized that it is better they become partners that are held accountable to the needs of the community. Responsibility lies in the hands of those who are willing to take it. A well educated, grass roots group has power beyond what any one agency can effect, but education of all participants is a critical component.
Big Spring Creek Committee
8. We have encountered no opposition. The County Conservation District's firm position in protecting the private property rights of landowners has helped secure landowner support for the Big Spring Creek Watershed Project.
Great Egg Harbor Planning Committee
8. Yes, we have had opposition in the past. The locals said that they did not want outsiders telling them what to do and specifically the NPS. They were also afraid that designation would mean new regulations that would limit the use of their property or the possibility of zoning.
McKenzie Watershed Council
8. Yes, opposition has focused on questions about whether the Council represents locals; on the issue of too many bureaucrats; and in the beginning on private property rights.
Mill Creek Watershed Council
8. No strong opposition; we have all the key people on the council.
Minnesota Wisconsin Boundary Commission
8. On several issues the Commission has been seen as the bad guy. Mainly they have been accused of not respecting private property rights and of telling people what to do. One state legislature recently tried to eliminate funding for the Commission.
Mississippi National River - WaterShed Partners
8. No opposition because no one feels blamed. It is a cooperative spirit.
Niobrara Council
8. Yes, we've had opposition because the council operates as a function of county government, and opponents say NPS involvement is an unauthorized delegation of power to the county. Environmentalists are against this.
There are no environmental groups on the Council now. It's a locally formed council, and counties decided against including them. The main opposition group is the National Park and Conservation Association. Other environmental groups have expressed support, particularly the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club, who are informed about what's going on and are cautiously optimistic. Environmentally-oriented government agencies are on the Council (such as the Nebraska State Game and Parks Commission, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the NPS).
The Wise Use movement is not strong on the Nebraska side, but more so on the South Dakota side. They originally said that the Council was just more outsiders telling them what to do. We just did what we had to do, we didn't do battle, and eventually the locals felt that the Wise Use people were as much outsiders as any others. Keep the people as informed as you can - one of the strategies of Wise Use movement is to distribute misinformation.
Ozark Scenic River Watershed Partnership
8. Based on the Board taking a position on a sensitive issue, some of the environmental groups do not feel that they are being represented by the Commissioners and have quit participating in the Partnership meetings.
Partnership for the Saginaw Bay Watershed
8. No strong opposition, just apathy.
St. Miguel Planning Team and Watershed Coalition
8. No opposition, but we did have gaps in the partnership.
Sun River Watershed Committee
8. No strong opposition. However, people have been concerned about protection of private property rights and increased land use regulations.
Upper Arkansas Watershed Initiative
8. Quiet opposition.
Upper Delaware Council
8. Yes, we had strong opposition from people who fear the federal government and the NPS specifically and the use of eminent domain. We see fear of increased governmental regulation of land use. However, the NPS only has 23 acres in its unit.
4.9. ACCOMPLISHMENTS / FAILURES
What have been the primary accomplishments of your Watershed Council? And its worst failures? What factors account for success in one area and failure in another?
COUNCIL SURVEY SUMMARY:
In general, the councils surveyed feel that they have established a new means of communication. Some councils list specific successes as representing local people (Upper Delaware) and conflict mediation (Upper Arkansas). The councils have provided:
- A forum to air views and examine decisions;
- Education and awareness of issues;
- Public involvement on river issues.
The surveyed councils attribute their failures to:
- Inability to get all stakeholders to join (Upper Delaware);
- Alienating one group or another (Ozark, Sun River);
- Overambitiousness (Upper Arkansas, Mn-Wis Boundary);
- Inadequate funding (Saginaw).
LITERATURE SURVEY SUMMARY:
A checklist of why watershed plans fail includes:
- Lack of local leadership;
- Insufficient budget;
- Lack of interest;
- Non-specific big plans focusing on analysis instead of outcome;
- Fear of regulation may lead some, but pride generates longer lasting support.
Successful watershed programs share the following common characteristics:
- Comprehensive watershed-wide resource inventories and evaluations form the basis for program design;
- Specific goals and objectives;
- Careful targeting;
- Involvement of all affected interest groups using consensus decision making;
- Ongoing evaluation of program implementation and results.
The fundamental elements of watershed management planning include:
- Definition of the watershed;
- Assessment of water quality problems;
- Ranking priority concerns;
- Identifying stakeholders;
- Developing overall goals for the watershed;
- Development of the watershed plan;
- Implementation of the watershed plan;
- Monitoring and evaluating the watershed plan's effectiveness;
- Using strong local leadership;
- Using a systems approach that integrates all concerns and challenges.
The basic components of successful bottom-up private-land river restoration programs include:
- Establishing a mechanism to empower local communities;
- Providing sufficient technical and financial support;
- Distributing scientific information;
- Educating the public;
- Providing new community development options.
COUNCIL SURVEY RESPONSES:
Animas River Stakeholder Group
9. Our successes have been in influencing regulatory changes, developing the idea of community responsibility for their environment, and improving water quality.
Our failures have been centered around the lack of policy and regulations which allow and encourage partial cleanups by landowners and allow third parties to be "Good Samaritans" and accomplish cleanups without taking on liabilities they did not create. Sometimes our failures come about because federal agencies sometimes act too paternalistic.
Another success has been that the Department of Interior selected the Animas watershed as a national pilot project site for the abandoned mine lands initiative. This program has developed numerous study projects and characterization projects as well as funding for remediation, primarily on federally managed lands. Stakeholders help design and coordinate projects selected for implementation.
Big Spring Creek Committee
9. The main accomplishment was getting landowners to participate in giving tours. We also accomplished providing information on activities involving stream restoration; and on increasing awareness of landowner impacts on water quality. The project brought together representatives from city, county, state and federal agencies to discuss watershed issues.
Great Egg Harbor Planning Committee
9. Our success has been to create a forum to develop issues; and to develop a consistent level of participation and stabilize participants. Our challenge is to keep people interested enough to come to meetings.
McKenzie Watershed Council
9. Accomplishments in water monitoring, stream bank restoration, obtaining large amount of funding. We brought people together. Failure has been in the area of public outreach: we haven't been able to inform the public as well as they should.
Mill Creek Watershed Council
9. Our accomplishment is to get organized, and get the signatures of seventeen mayors. We got people together who wouldn't have done so if not for the Council. The adoption of by-laws and getting a solid organizational structure and funding are also very important.
Minnesota Wisconsin Boundary Commission
9. Every decision is examined to determine how the public will respond and what is in the public interest. People are coming to terms with conservation. The Commission provides a forum where the public is involved and where they feel they are being heard. Failures have occurred where the Commission tried to do too much or fill roles they are not set up to deal with.
Mississippi National River - WaterShed Partners
9. Our two main accomplishments are:
1) getting the 30 active partners together to discuss the issues.
2) creation of the interactive watershed education exhibit.
Niobrara Council
9. No response.
Ozark Scenic River Watershed Partnership
9. We provided educational opportunities to air views. We brought together diverse groups with the intent of bringing them together. Our worst failure is the alienation of the environmental community.
Partnership for the Saginaw Bay Watershed
9. We succeeded in instituting a very successful school river monitoring program. Our failures come about because we fail to maintain a paid staff, and we fail to maintain adequate membership to cover administrative overhead and salaries. There are specific projects that the public supports and will contribute to but they don't want to pay for the administration of those programs.
St. Miguel Planning Team and Watershed Coalition
9. Successes: developed a draft management plan; the partnership developed and agencies contributed large amounts of staff time to Coalition and Team priorities.
Sun River Watershed Committee
9. We created teamwork that didn't exist before the project began. We have improved water quality because of the large amount of work done on erosion control on the river and its tributaries. All landowners have not bought into the need for erosion control projects on their land.
Upper Arkansas Watershed Initiative
9. Several accomplishments: Served as mediator during a water-flow conflict between Trout Unlimited and agricultural water users.
Failure: Tried to organize and deliver a 180-participant one-day seminar. Overly ambitious and under-resourced.
Upper Delaware Council
9. Principal accomplishment: effectively represent the local people in dealing with all issues that effect them including federal regulations. Our biggest failure was failing to convince the non-participating municipalities to join.
4.10. ADVICE
What would you change about your Watershed Council?
What advice do you have for someone starting a Council? Please feel free to add any topics you feel we missed.
COUNCIL SURVEY SUMMARY:
Advice differed from each council - they speak for themselves below. Some common themes are:
- Include a broad range of partners (Mississippi, Great Egg, Animas, McKenzie, Sun River);
- Allow enough time and work slowly (Great Egg, Sun River, Animas);
- Initiate the council locally (Big Spring, Upper Delaware, St. Miguel);
- Get local leaders involved (Mill Creek, Mississippi);
- Formalize council's purpose and tasks (Great Egg, Upper Delaware);
- Get dedicated funding (Saginaw, McKenzie);
- Be flexible (Mn-Wis Boundary, Upper Arkansas);
- Get a full-time paid coordinator (Saginaw, Sun River).
COUNCIL SURVEY RESPONSES:
Animas River Stakeholder Group
10. Everyone has to be at the table; maintain a balance of power and share all information freely. Give them a forum and wait for everyone to vent (be patient with the process). Allow people to continue to present their issue until they feel that they have been understood. All positions are valid. Environmental degradation which has taken over 100 years to create cannot be solved overnight - patience and perseverance are your allies.
Big Spring Creek Committee
10.
The key issues:
- STRATEGY: Be up front and develop an integrated educational strategy.
- DEMONSTRATION: A successful on-the-ground demonstration project will encourage local landowners interest and possible involvement.
-
EDUCATION: Educational phases:
- General education for watershed.
- Education for technical people.
- VOLUNTARY: Ensure that locals understand that the council is a voluntary approach.
- LOCAL INITIATION: The initiation of the council must come from within the watershed and arise from commonly shared values and concerns.
Great Egg Harbor Planning Committee
10. Expect it to take five years. Setting up a council is sometimes a 5-year or 10-year or even a 15-year process.
Don't create a council for its own sake. First define what issues it should and can address. Make sure locals are comfortable with it. The council will need representatives from all view points. Give time for environmentalists and Wise Use proponents to air old baggage. Put them on a project together that they both have interests in. Remember that Wild and Scenic Rivers have regulations and provisions that must be followed and gives some legislative power to undertake some cooperative actions.
McKenzie Watershed Council
10. You'll need a healthy mix of local folks, local agencies as well as federal and state who can bring in money and resources.
Mill Creek Watershed Council
10. Get interested and important people involved, especially important key political players. Getting them on board gives the Council credibility to recruit other key players.
Minnesota Wisconsin Boundary Commission
10. Keep it simple, do small things but do them very well. Be flexible. Understand where the control points are, and be proactive instead of reactive. Keep the group small, because when you have over five or ten representatives the Council becomes hard to run.
Mississippi National River - WaterShed Partners
10. Connect to the community, engage people and groups who are active in the community. Bring a broad range of partners to the table. Connect education to action opportunities.
At the Mississippi, the NPS has a mandate on less than 1% of watershed, which has shaped its approach at resource management.
Niobrara Council
10. Take the process seriously and remember that there are federal laws that govern what agencies can and can't do.
Be able to show locals what's in it for them, that's the main thing. Be above the fray and answer questions directly without misleading anybody. Tell them what you believe and find as many people as possible to ally themselves with you. Focus especially on media contacts. News releases are often printed in their entirety, even if the newspaper is against you in general. Newsletters are good, or any kind of public information.
Ozark Scenic River Watershed Partnership
10. Possibly the Board should include more entities that just the eight County Commissioner members. The Partnership as a whole should take positions on the issues, instead of the Board of Directors, to insure that all interests are represented.
Partnership for the Saginaw Bay Watershed
10. It's important to have a dedicated source of funding, while building your own funding program. Membership dues are important but often not enough and everyone wants to see some results from their contribution. Need a full time paid watershed coordinator to act as focal point.
St. Miguel Planning Team and Watershed Coalition
10. Make the council inclusive and a community lead process ensuring that people have the opportunity to voice concerns during process. Citizen involvement is critical.
Sun River Watershed Committee
10. Know who the players are, and it is important to know the behind-the-scenes players and ensure everyone is involved. Be willing to work slowly and diligently and be aware of what you can and cannot accomplish within your resources and political circumstances.
Most watersheds need to hire a paid watershed coordinator who can serve as a focal point for activities and information about the watershed. There is a need for paid staff because volunteers don't have the resources to continue this work.
Upper Arkansas Watershed Initiative
10. Every council is different - do not try and pre-determine what a council should do or look like. Must bring together local stakeholders and let them decide what their needs are. Do they even need a council? If so, then a taskforce should develop recommendations for development of council based on local needs. Water issues in the West concern water quantity so councils are different creatures there, concerning themselves with water flow versus water quality.
Upper Delaware Council
10. We feel there is very little that we should change. Intense desire to get local involvement and maintain local involvement throughout life of council. The key is to formalize and professionally undertake the tasks involved with setting up a council. All documentation and the process must be conducted in a systematic manner. Involving the states is very important and we were able to get a executive agreement with the governors that all state agency activities must be compatible with the Management Plan.
All material copyright 1998 by Jesse Gordon, Tim Jones, and the Buffalo River Stewardship Foundation.
Reprinting by permission only.
Contact: Jesse Gordon
E-mail: jesse@webmerchants.com
"Monitoring and Evaluation of Selected Rural Watershed Councils in the Continental United States"
by Jesse Alan Gordon, MPP, and Timothy T. Jones, JD.
Written for the Buffalo River Stewardship Foundation
Jon Johnson, Department of Management
College of Business Administration, U. Ark. Fayetteville
P.O. Box 2693, Fayetteville AR 72702 USA
e-mail: brsf@aol.com and jonjohn@comp.uark.edu
Written under the sponsorship of
The North American Fund for Environmental Cooperation
Attn: Janice Astbury, NAFEC Coordinator
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
393 St. Jacques Ouest, Rm 200, Montreal PQ H2Y 1N9
(514) 350-4357, e-mail: nafec@ccemtl.org
Brief citation: "Survey of Rural Watershed Councils"
The Buffalo River Stewardship Foundation does not necessarily endorse nor ascribe to the contents and conclusions herein.