|
STATE WATERSHED STRATEGY GUIDEBOOK
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Page numbers correspond to print version)
Fundamental changes are taking place in water management in the West. There is increasing emphasis on watersheds as units for solving an array of resource problems. Increasingly, neighbors are joining together, sometimes reaching across governmental unit boundaries, and finding practical solutions to problems ranging from water pollution, to soil conservation, to fishery protection, to water supply, attempting to satisfy several interests at once. Policy makers are seeing the potential for broader use of the watershed for planning and problem solving. Turning to the watershed approach is in large part a response to the recognition of the increasingly complex nature of water resource challenges in the West. For example, as growing cities exercise more influence on water policy, public support is increasing for instream values -- water for recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, and aesthetic values. In this context, there is increased focus on the interrelationships between water quality and water use. Support for instream values, however, comes relatively late. Most of the West’s water has already been allocated. Further, providing new water supplies through the construction of large storage projects is not generally viewed as an option. Preventing water quality degradation from municipal and industrial "point source" (end of pipe) discharges has improved significantly, but pollution from diffuse "non point" discharges remains a significant challenge. Protection of ground water is becoming of increasing concern, as most drinking water in the West comes from ground water sources. To solve the region’s water challenges, many observers urge water conservation to achieve greater efficiency in the use of existing supplies and reallocation, primarily from agricultural to urban uses, and, to a lesser extent, to support instream values. But, while providing appropriate incentives for conservation and using water markets to transfer water to higher valued uses makes good sense, applying these tools to help solve the complex water supply problems in the West is difficult. Water conservation, while obviously an important tool, has limitations. It may or may not make economic sense in a particular setting, and it may have environmental benefits or detriments, depending on the situation.<n.1> This reality counsels against blanket requirements solely for the sake of water conservation without careful consideration of all the impacts. n.1 The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s guidebook for preparing agricultural water conservation plans recognizes that western irrigated agriculture has both enhanced and degraded the environment and recommends that irrigation districts ascertain the extent to which conservation measures would affect wetlands and habitat dependent upon existing flow regimes. This advice finds support in general BOR policy which states "A water conservation planning process needs to identify and evaluate the potential for environmental effects (both positive and negative) of implementing the plan. Memorandum to Area Managers from Eluid Martinez, BOR Commissioner, December 10, 1996. Likewise, many believe that voluntary markets should be encouraged. Indeed, states have moved through various mechanisms to do so. However, although win-win scenarios are achievable, they are also difficult to attain when considering third party impacts, such as agriculture, rural communities, the environment, urban residents and ethnic communities. Some urge governmental intervention to affect reallocation of water consistent with changing societal demands. However, significant limitations exist on the exercise of governmental power. Water law in the West developed on the basis that a system was needed which emphasizes security in the long-term use of water, necessitating the granting of private property rights to the use of that water. The emergence of public-interest criteria in evaluating new applications and the development of instream flow mechanisms are important, but relatively recent developments which apply to unappropriated water, and to some extent transfers. Most of the West’s water has been historically allocated under a system that did not explicitly consider the public interest or the value of instream flows. Control of non-point source pollution is also problematic, where a mix of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches is generally considered a better, although not a simpler, strategy.
The recognition of the increasingly complex water resource challenges in the West is coupled with the increasingly accepted view that we should reject traditional ways of effectuating water policy in favor of new models. The past models of "command and control" regulatory programs and decision making through the combined influence of competing well-organized special interests are increasingly seen as ineffective. They have led to paralysis and subordination of the role of local communities and citizens.<n.2> In this context, the new paradigm that is taking hold relies on locally initiated watershed approaches involving all the relevant stakeholders representing the range of interests within the watershed. The National Governors’ Association stated in 1992: "The governors believe the future demands a new model for managing water resources, based on well-defined geographic units such as basins or watersheds. (Water Resource Management Policy Statement adopted at a 1992 meeting of the National Governors’ Association). Most recently, the federal government’s Clean Water Action Plan <n.3> recognizes a watershed approach as "the key to the future" and envisions that state and tribes, in cooperation with federal land and resource managers on federal lands will "take the lead in unifying these various existing efforts and leveraging scarce resources to advance the pace of progress toward clean water. As a number of state and tribes have demonstrated, they can meet existing requirements more efficiently and develop more coordinated and comprehensive priorities on a watershed basis." n.2 The State Role in Western Watershed Initiatives, Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law, p. 20-1 (1998). n.3 USEPA and USDA, Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America's Waters (1998), pp. ii-iv. Convinced of the state’s vital role in realizing the potential of this paradigm, this guidebook is directed primarily at state water managers and other state officials. It is intended to identify for interested states opportunities and ways to develop and implement, or in some cases improve, a strategy to encourage local watershed initiatives as a means to help resolve water resource problems. Although this guidebook is written from a western perspective, it should also be useful to states located in other regions of the country. Indeed, much of the activity associated with watershed initiatives is occurring in the East.
Acknowledgments This project was initially conceived by the Western Governors’ Association (WGA), with which the Western States Water Council is affiliated. The Western States Water Council is comprised of representatives appointed by the governors of sixteen western states. The Council was created by the governors in 1965. It addresses a wide range of water resource issues on behalf of its member states. Its principle purposes are to protect and enhance state prerogatives regarding water resources management and to help build state capacity to deal with challenges in the West regarding water resources. The WGA has provided important input regarding the general direction for this guidebook. Financial support has been provided by Region VIII of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This document is a result of the collaborative efforts of the staff of the Western States Water Council; namely, Craig Bell, Executive Director; Tony Willardson, Associate Director; and Jim Alder, Legal Counsel. They wish to acknowledge the invaluable help of several individuals in state government throughout the West who work at the forefront in development and implementation of watershed strategies. We also want to acknowledge the generosity of the World Wildlife Fund in allowing us to utilize a format very similar to their publication entitled Statewide Wetland Strategies: A Guide to Protecting and Managing the Resource (Island Press, 1992). We also benefitted greatly from the substance of their report, particularly the classification of the tools available for protection and management of natural resources.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
States play the pivotal role in water management. They are responsible for allocation, administration and protection of water resources. State governments are also the link between national interests, federal programs and the local interests, issues and site-specific situations that must be accounted for in creating suitable solutions. States can bridge the gap between these various interests by creating statewide watershed programs which encourage and assist local and private parties in solving water related problems within the context of state and federal law and regulation. The basic elements necessary for a successful statewide watershed strategy are grounded in the principles upon which the emerging watershed movement is founded. These six principles, developed in one context as the Park City Principles, together represent a comprehensive approach to resolving water problems. Rather than relying on a governmental or private entity established along artificial boundaries, these Principles urge the use of a process at a geographically-based "problemshed" level. This process should recognize all interests and involve them in the conception, organization and implementation of solutions. The principles also encourage flexibility and decentralization, as well as negotiation and market-type approaches to resolving problems. The impetus for states to move to watershed-based strategies has arisen from many different factors; court decisions, compliance with federal water quality and endangered species requirements, or a desire to improve agency program efficiency and effectiveness through greater coordination of federal/state and local resources. Three main categories of state watershed strategies are evolving. These strategies may be adopted by a single state agency or several agencies with related responsibilities.
Just how a state should go about creating a statewide watershed strategy will vary, but should be determined only after a careful examination of its goals and objectives. The groundwork for existing strategies has been laid in a variety of ways. It has almost always been seen as necessary for a dialogue to take place between state agencies, lawmakers and key stakeholders to formulate the desired strategy. Passage of special legislation may be necessary to provide funding or authority to carry out the agreed to strategy. The acquisition of private, professional consultation may be advisable to assist in creating a strategy designed to best meet the needs of a state and its citizens. Most states that have adopted a watershed strategy have conducted outreach activities to acquire the input and opinion of the public and key interest groups as to the creation of a watershed strategy. Designation of a lead state person or agency is recommended to focus accountability and access. It may be advisable to conduct training for state government personnel in order to help them become oriented to the new strategy. The sharing of information and buy-in of participants will help ensure the successful implementation of a strategy. Participants need to understand the process, the issues, the policies and/or regulations, and the actions needed to successfully implement the plan. This sharing of information and recognition of interests leads to the building of trust between participants and the creation of clear objectives. Experience has shown that watershed strategies will need to change and evolve in response to issues and priorities. Building and maintaining support for the strategy is as important as the strategy itself. There are many different tools and resources which states may rely on in formulating and implementing their strategies. How to facilitate and maximize the best use of these tools will be critical in achieving success for watershed programs because of the unique challenges presented in each watershed. These include: land use planning needs, water rights, water quality, wildlife protection, natural resources, and multiple governmental jurisdictions. Funding is a critical and overriding issue in the development and successful implementation of any strategy. Developing partnerships to share costs and showing progress in addressing issues is likewise critical. States with watershed strategies are, for the most part, in the early stages of implementation. Many are focusing on initial planning and priority setting. The ultimate test of the success of state watershed strategies will be met as the emphasis shifts from conceptual planning to development and implementation of measures that have the support of diverse stakeholders and will make a difference "on the ground." Experience to date suggests several advantages, including:
INTRODUCTION
Muddy Creek is aptly named. Located within the Greenfields Division of the Sun River Project built by the Bureau of Reclamation in Northern Montana, it picks up substantial run-off from the Greenfields irrigation district. When combined with storm events and run-off from non-irrigated lands, it contributes many times the natural flow. This results in stream bank erosion and significant water quality related problems in Muddy Creek and the Sun River which it feeds. The Sun River in turn contributes substantial sediments to the Upper Missouri River, 80% of which comes from Muddy Creek. These effects can readily be seen in the mud flats on the Missouri within Great Falls and increased flood potential. Water quality for drinking and recreation and fish is also adversely affected. Suspended sediment concentrations in the Sun River far exceed water quality standards for both cold and warm water fish. Dissolved solid concentrations in the Sun often exceed drinking water standards. The siltation problems also adversely impact a hydropower project operated by Montana Power on the Missouri River. Wild and scenic river reaches far below Great Falls are also threatened if the problem persists. In light of these longstanding problems, landowners had gotten together frequently and numerous studies (70) were done. But nothing happened. Because funding for studies was more easily attainable and inexpensive, most government efforts had thus been expended analyzing the problem and possible solutions. In addition to causing feelings of being overwhelmed, discussions about the problem resulted in considerable polarity among the parties about who was to blame, i.e., the federal project, the irrigation district, natural conditions such as storm events and non-irrigated land run-off, etc. Frustration led to the point that the only option left appeared to be litigation. However, news coverage of two people retracing Lewis and Clark’s expedition including coverage showing the condition of the Sun River (once crystal clear), served as a catalyst for state action. In 1992, the state of Montana stepped in, created a method for conflict resolution among the interested parties and got a number of them together to discuss potential solutions. The interested parties included affected soil conservation districts, the Greenfields irrigation district, property owners adjacent to Muddy Creek, state legislators, the Montana Wildlife Federation, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Agricultural Extension Service, the Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resources Conservation Service), the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), as well as the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (DFWP), recreational interests, the City of Great Falls, Cascade County, and Montana Power. At the outset, it was assumed that the problem could not be fixed overnight and that large amounts of federal dollars did not exist to help. Thus, new innovative ideas and cost effective approaches would be needed. From the large group of stakeholders, a task force was selected to represent the combined interests of all the groups. The task force established a consensus building process, which allowed for open discussion thus contributing to a feeling of ownership in the outcome of the project. The process almost immediately evolved into a very informal working group. Meetings were typically run in the same fashion seen in a work place where people gather together without structure to discuss and work out problems. At each meeting the group divided up the tasks by each person volunteering for what they were comfortable with. Associated government agencies provided a great deal of information and technical assistance. However, government agencies were to assist the group, not control it. The key administrative work was to be accomplished primarily by the Cascade County Conservation District and DNRC. A project coordinator was put in place.
The task force is now in the process of implementing solutions. These solutions focus on efforts to address the problem through reduction in the run-off from the irrigation project by turning to more efficient irrigation methods, and stream bank stabilization measures. These measures should in turn mitigate the problems for downstream users, including the city of Great Falls and Montana Power, as well as enhance the fisheries and downstream recreation. Although achieving the ultimate goals will cost several million dollars, solicitations for funding have been successful so far. Contributors include the Bureau of Reclamation, the irrigation district, the state, and recreational interests. Fifteen separate entities have provided letters of support that have been useful for soliciting funding. The mechanism for receiving and distributing the funds for the Muddy Creek project is the Cascade County Conservation District. With the strong support from the local communities, as well as congressional backing, the momentum continues to grow for needed financial support. Further, large amounts of in-kind services have allowed the group to keep the project moving without large amounts of cash. Although several lessons can be learned from the Muddy Creek Task Force efforts, chief among them is that a state agency, in this case the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, may provide needed impetus for bringing polarized parties together to solve problems. The pivotal role the state has played in this case is reflected in many other case studies of local watershed based initiatives across the West. Indeed, realizing the full potential of these locally based initiatives may well depend on an effective strategy to support such initiatives at the state level. This assumption provides the primary impetus for this guidebook.
The Muddy Creek project was one of the case studies examined by a diverse and representative mix of water managers (federal, state, Indian, local, and private) water interest groups, and academics assembled to address changing needs in water management in the West in the context of a series of workshops sponsored by the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) and the Western States Water Council (WSWC). These workshops began in 1991 in Park City, Utah, and resulted in agreement on a set of six principles which should be considered in western water resource management and policy development. These became known as the "Park City Principles" among the water resources community.
Given that western water management faces increasingly difficult challenges from changing demands for water resources, changes which reach beyond the capacity of established mechanisms to address, workshop participants felt that new approaches were necessary. The Park City workshops captured a growing consensus that conflict resolution at the watershed level, rather than along artificial government or private boundaries, offered the opportunity for a holistic approach to resolving water problems. Such an approach facilitates integrated analysis and decision making through comparison of risks, impacts, trade-offs, costs and benefits of various options. While local wisdom will always tailor application of such an approach, some of the best examples of successes today come from such a comprehensive, inclusive process. Indeed, perhaps the most profound result of the Park City workshops, and other similar endeavors, is the recognition that: "In shaping the destiny of western water management, each interest will act in its own realm, but it must also work in concert with others to make the system work better."
For a variety of reasons, states are well positioned to implement a strategy to foster the creation of local watershed initiatives, and to help implement the proposed solutions that arise from such initiatives. While there is no "recipe" for developing such a statewide strategy, nor will any two strategies be necessarily similar, a process to develop and implement a successful statewide strategy should contain certain basic elements. It is the purpose of this guidebook to identify these basic elements. The guidebook also identifies resources to help implement a strategy. In so doing, the guidebook will underscore the potential advantages accruing to a state that takes the lead in developing and implementing such a strategy, as well as address the challenges they will face along the way. In so doing, it is recognized that no panacea is being offered. Indeed, the "jury is still out" on whether this emerging paradigm for resolving the complex water resource problems of the West will actually prove to be fruitful. Early indications are sufficiently promising, however, to warrant this guidebook to assist interested states in developing a strategy to encourage it.
The Pivotal Role of the States The state was deemed by the Park City participants to be the most suitable level of government to enable and empower comprehensive approaches to problem-solving developed through local watershed initiatives. Participants recognized that decentralized, close-to-the-ground approaches work best because they accommodate site-specific variations and local needs and values. While there are overriding national interests and goals that states and local decisions should recognize, the group concluded that states are the bridge between necessary grassroot activities and federal interests and goals. The state role includes allocation of water supplies, administration of water rights, implementation of water quality protection programs, and protection of public water resource values. States are in the best position to integrate related aspects of water management, such as surface and groundwater, water quantity and quality, and economic development and environmental protection, and to balance water uses.
The Park City participants concluded that to effectively fulfill this role states must fashion water laws and institutions responsive to the entire range of water values and interests, including those not traditionally recognized in water law and administration. States should improve their integration of the broad spectrum of public values now protected through a diverse array of public interest considerations required by federal laws and programs. Most state water codes require consideration of the public interest. However, many public interest advocates have turned to the federal government as a more amenable forum than the states. In spite of significant advances in public interest protection, according to the Park City consensus, states should do a better job of incorporating public interest values into water management decision making, or risk more federal preemption of their decisions. While focusing on the central state role, the Park City group found that significant progress cannot be achieved without federal support and cooperation. The Park City group found that the federal government should continue to establish national policy guidelines, and should provide research and funding to meet national goals. But in addition, the federal government should:
The Park City participants noted that local and regional governments and private entities offer the greatest variety of institutions providing water resource services. These services include urban and industrial water supply, wastewater collection and treatment, irrigation, drainage, recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement, and environmental amenities. Traditionally, local entities have addressed single purpose functions. In the future, the Park City participants concluded, local entities must increasingly work with state and other local interests, operate in the context of comprehensive regional development and resource protection, and facilitate watershed management efforts. To some extent, states have been involved for some time in encouraging watershed-type efforts, but interest in watershed management at the local level has increased rapidly in the last few years. The watershed approach will not be a "silver bullet" for all water resources challenges. In some cases, state support for watershed initiatives may not be appropriate. However, the watershed approach is being viewed by a growing number of states as an effective method of targeting the most critical problems that affect a watershed while reducing duplication and inconsistency among regulatory entities, and increasing harmony and cooperation between user groups. Further, it allows public involvement to be focused on a defined area, where results can be measured, and fosters cooperative problem solving where players can assist each other to reach mutually beneficial results. A greater state role in serving as the pivotal integrating level of government in water management is thus increasingly focusing at the local level and specifically on watersheds. The importance of this state role to the success of local watershed efforts is a core finding of this guidebook.
CREATING A STATE STRATEGY
Why a state strategy? As described in the previous chapter, there are a number of inherent reasons why states are well positioned to assume a role in encouraging and assisting local watershed initiatives. While it doesn’t necessarily have to be the state, there are potential advantages to the state taking an active leadership role. But, whether or not the state is or should take the lead may depend on any number of considerations such as the availability of state resources, staff and money, state interests, priorities, and leadership incentives. Thus, each state will want to define what that role is or should be.
A number of western states have adopted or are considering management approaches that focus on watersheds as a means of defining and addressing specific problems within a limited geographic boundaries. Statewide watershed management may lead to the creation of new state programs, but it is primarily a new management approach -- not a new program. In developing a state watershed strategy, it is important first to define the state’s own goals and objectives, which then may be summarized generally as a mission statement. Consideration will be given to how and what goals should be set, who should participate in the goal setting process, and how progress towards implementation will be measured. Some potential state objectives may be to:
Once the state has defined its goals and objectives, the focus then shifts to developing a state strategy that will best achieve those goals and objectives while utilizing a watershed approach.
A quick review of the evolution of state watershed strategies reveals any number of variations. It is important to observe that a state or individual state agency may select the same or different strategies, for various reasons, and that no two states now seem to have consciously adopted the same strategy. With strong political support from the governor and the legislature, Oregon has taken perhaps the most comprehensive and proactive approach to watershed management, reorganizing programs around watersheds and initiating pilot state watershed projects. A number of states, with encouragement and support from the federal Environmental Protection Agency, are reorganizing their water quality protection programs to reflect a new watershed approach. Washington has recently taken additional steps toward a comprehensive state watershed strategy that integrates water quality and water quantity programs. Montana and New Mexico have established state water resources planning processes that incorporate many elements essential to a watershed strategy and are moving towards a more geographic-based approach to problem solving. Different strategies may require different budgeting, planning and management procedures and processes. Some strategies are passive, some more active, and some more comprehensive. The purpose of this guidebook is not to recommend any particular strategy, but highlight different considerations and possible approaches for undertaking a process to develop a strategy tailored to an individual state or state agency.
The Variety in State Strategies A state may choose to take a passive strategy and support local watershed initiatives, but wait to be asked to participate and be invited to meetings. The state’s level of participation may be circumscribed by the availability of resources or its interests in the activities of the particular watershed group, as well perhaps as by its confidence in the feasibility of the undertaking. However, it is hard to imagine many situations in which state participation or at least cooperation would not be essential to the success of any watershed initiative. Such participation may include:
States adopting such a strategy have generally determined in advance what their level of participation will be in response to requests from local groups. Several states appear to have adopted this particular watershed strategy in some form, if only by default. A state may choose a more active participatory strategy and seek to serve as a catalyst for the formation of local watershed groups and development of watershed initiatives. Obviously, this requires a greater commitment of state resources. A state, for example, may choose to encourage and support local leadership, or step out on its own and assume a stronger leadership role with primary responsibility for initiation, facilitation or coordination of watershed efforts. However, so far, it generally appears that an active state’s approach is focused on providing assistance and support, without requiring control. A state may also provide information and technical assistance, staff time and other inkind contributions, or cash to help finance watershed initiatives. A state may also be in a position to help provide policy direction and perhaps regulatory relief in order to encourage watershed planning, reduce duplication, and to avoid inconsistencies. For example, more and more states, with EPA’s encouragement, are using a watershed approach to focus regulatory, planning, and implementation activities to more comprehensively address water quality and environmental values. <n.4> n.4 As described more fully in the sidebar on page 4, the total maximum daily load program, for example, envisions a transition from water programs based on technology-based controls to water quality-based controls implemented on a watershed basis. Lastly, a state may also choose a comprehensive statewide strategy and systematically redesign and redirect its programs and services, grants and loans, administrative and regulatory activities to maximize state support to nurture and implement watershed group recommendations. A state may initiate pilot programs or projects within watersheds and focus its natural resources policy development and management decisions around watersheds. Whether or not it is appropriate for the state to chair and manage a watershed group may depend on the circumstances surrounding the particular issue(s) to be addressed. However, an important principle behind successful watershed initiatives has been the support of stakeholders and local interests. No single entity (federal, state, etc.) can unilaterally define the problems and dictate solutions. The state must represent its interests, and may be the catalyst to start the car and provide a map, but someone else may be the better driver and everyone in the car must have a say in where it’s going and when to go. Greater state involvement and leadership may have advantages. These include:
Organizing a State Watershed Strategy Development Process "Practical proposals for change often languish because insufficient attention is paid to the process of building support for them and sustaining that support over the long haul." <n.5> n.5 Statewide Wetlands Strategies: A Guide to Protecting and Managing the Resource, World Wildlife Fund, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1992, p. 43. Building and maintaining support and momentum for a state watershed strategy is as important as the strategy itself. Without careful development and nurturing, or without sufficient support from state leaders and stakeholders, no strategy will survive for long. Again, it is critically important to involve stakeholders in the strategy development process. Conflicts cannot be side stepped or ignored. Otherwise, without a feeling of ownership for the strategy, excluded stakeholders will likely derail the process. Although collaborative processes are challenging, they have the most promise for developing and successfully implementing any state watershed strategy. In developing a watershed strategy, selecting and clearly framing the right questions are important. For example:
Once a mechanism is chosen, components of the watershed strategy will be developed.
State Watershed Strategy Coordinator The development process may benefit by having a state watershed strategy coordinator who has political support. An appointment by the governor and/or state legislature serves to provide public legitimacy and momentum. A strategy coordinator may be selected from a variety of sources:
Related duties and functions of the coordinator would be to:
Strategy Development Processes State watershed strategy development is likely to involve the use of multiple processes. A particular process may be selected depending on the stage of strategy development, such as information gathering, stakeholder identification, or plan development and agreement. There are few rigid guidelines for collaborative processes, but several general mechanisms are common. These include informal outreach activities, public meetings, workshops, advisory committees, formal negotiations, and fact finding task forces. The following is a brief discussion of various mechanisms.
Informal Outreach This may involve communication between the coordinator and individuals or groups to provide and gather information and identify concerns and priorities. Informal communications can be phone calls or meetings, opinion surveys, toll-free lines, newsletters, brochures and other publications, on-line information access, etc. The purpose is to let the public know about the strategy development process and begin building constituencies.
Public Meetings These meetings are open to any interested party. Public meetings may be structured to provide one-way communication, such as an agency explaining the process and issues and simply listening to comments without response, or with two-way communication and the agency/coordinator responding to questions and comments from the floor. Public meetings are sometimes a legal requirement. These may be large general sessions, or involve the use of smaller discussion groups.
Workshops Workshop participation may be by invitation only, in order to involve a small, but representative group of stakeholders. Workshops may be designed to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to meet and get to know one another, as well as each others concerns and priorities. They may be used to discuss differences and new management options, and explore win-win opportunities. The topics of discussion are usually clearly defined in advance, but alternative actions are not.
Advisory Committees Advisory committees may be an effective means to involve stakeholders and others with specific interests and/or expertise that may be helpful in the strategy development process. Careful consideration should be given to the selection of members, and the committee’s responsibilities should be clearly articulated. An advisory committee may be particularly useful as a means to explore alternative solutions to difficult issues. Committee members may also meet periodically with the coordinator on an individual basis.
Formal Negotiations This process is used to develop and execute agreements related to the state watershed strategy. It is critical that all stakeholders be invited to participate so that they will have an investment in the outcome and will work to implement any agreement. Such negotiations can be expensive and time consuming. They also require a lot of groundwork in order to ensure that there are sufficient incentives to encourage the parties to reach an agreement. However, such negotiations can be effective in breaking down political barriers and building broad support.
Use of a Facilitator Facilitation can be used in conjunction with any of the foregoing mechanisms to organize and guide states through the challenging process of designing a watershed management framework, while keeping partners involved, focused, productive, and unified. A facilitated approach often includes a portion or all of the following:
Benefits realized by using a facilitated process include:
Key elements of the facilitation process include:
Providing some level of funding may be vital as a catalyst for formation and implementation of watershed initiatives. As an example, state financial support for a neutral mediator, rather than lending state agency personnel, may be key where problems within a watershed have caused controversy and polarization among the parties. State financial assistance may include direct funding by legislatures. However, such funding has typically been directed at specific projects and tends to be short-term and site specific. While such projects may well be an important part of a watershed initiative, groups also seek some minimal level of long-term funding to cover administrative, communication and other expenses. A few suggestions forwarded to develop such long-term sources of income include: (1) assessing a "headwaters protection" fee on downstream urban water users whose source of domestic supply is the watershed; (2) major non-point source industries, such as agriculture, timber, and mining, could be assessed a fee to support watershed efforts; and (3) similarly, a portion of point source discharge permit fees might be targeted to watershed initiatives. The purpose of these suggestions is to distribute the cost to those groups that benefit from the environmental and other improvements. <n.6> n.6 The State Role in Western Watershed Initiatives, Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law, p. 55 (1998). There are complications involved in getting funding to watershed groups if funding is contingent on money being filtered through a government entity. Bureaucratic delays can burden effective project implementation, particularly where projects involve private landowners. Regardless of whether direct funding is provided, states can support watershed initiatives through in-kind assistance. This typically takes the form of technical assistance whereby state agency personnel help watershed groups assess conditions, set priorities and implement projects. More definition and some examples of such technical assistance are found under the section on "State Tools" to assist watershed groups in Chapter 5.
Another key issue in strategy development will be the composition of watershed entities. As previously discussed, states have taken various roles in relation to watershed groups and initiatives. Their experience underscores that states are in a pivotal position to influence the formation and composition of such groups, as well as the geographical boundaries within which they operate. <n.7> n.7 See generally id. at 58-64. As a means of exercising influence, a few states have provided official recognition to watershed groups to assure that such groups meet minimum requirements. However, it has been noted that such recognition by the state may have the undesirable side effect of creating a perception that the watershed initiative represents a "governmental project," a perception that can hinder support. Less formal recognition has also occurred. In California, for example, a number of agencies and groups have joined together to assemble information on more than one thousand projects being developed and implemented throughout the state. Montana’s Department of Natural Resources and Conservation has established a database that provides contact persons for about 30 watershed groups. States may influence specific group characteristics. Because a state may refuse to support non-compliant groups through funding or technical assistance, this role of the state has been controversial. Control over membership may be met with suspicion, while on the other hand, a lack of membership requirements may result in affected interests being excluded, a matter which has been of concern to national environmental organizations. <n.8> Oregon requires a balance of interested and affected persons and encourages a high level of citizen involvement. The Oregon legislation lists ten examples of interests which might be represented to achieve such a balance. New Mexico’s regional water planning legislation sets criteria to ensure efforts are made to effectively include all affected interests. Guidelines require evidence that "reasonable and diligent efforts have been made to reach the public so as to invite, value, and reflect public comment." Regional plans must show that stakeholders have been identified and efforts made to involve them in the planning process. n.8 Id. at 69. Another major item for consideration as state strategies are developed is the geographic boundaries within which watershed groups may operate. Where the state is endeavoring to integrate local stakeholder advice into existing resource management processes, such efforts serve the interests of efficient administration. The State of Washington specifies boundaries for watershed planning groups. Under the Water Resources Act, the Department of Ecology divided the state into 62 water resource inventory areas. Oregon’s watershed management legislation includes a geological definition of watersheds, but does not mandate boundaries for watershed groups. Rather, it permits local governments to voluntarily initiate and implement management programs for watersheds within their jurisdiction. If watershed boundaries cross multiple jurisdictions, the legislation provides that "the affected local governments together determine their respective roles." On the other hand, New Mexico gives considerable freedom to local groups to designate planning unit boundaries. As a result, these regions currently are a mix of hydrologically-based and politically-based areas. Utah and Arizona have designated watershed management areas based on hydrologic criteria. No requirement exists that watershed groups confine their activities to the designated boundaries, but both states encourage formation of groups to work with them within the specified areas.
Managing a Collaborative Process Successfully managing a collaborative process to develop a strategy can be a laborious and time consuming process. It involves laying the groundwork, selecting the appropriate participants, delineating the issues, developing clearly defined objectives, establishing protocols or ground rules for participation, decision making and timetables for action, building effective support, developing an agreement, implementing the outcomes and maintaining support for any plan and the process. The following chapter contains a summary of the process used by various states to develop their respective watershed strategy.
EXAMPLES OF STATE DEVELOPMENT OF WATERSHED STRATEGIES
Introduction This chapter of the guidebook provides a summary of the watershed strategies in several western states and responses of various state agency personnel in answer to the questions about the development of their respective strategy. It is not a comprehensive survey, but rather a description of several state strategies that are believed to represent the types of watershed strategies that have developed thus far in the West. In putting together this part of the guidebook, we tried to reflect as closely as possible the actual language of the respondents to our survey. It is their experience and perspectives that represent the most valuable part of this guidebook. In some cases, in summarizing the response, he questions are combined where this appeared appropriate. The following questions were included in the survey: In your state:
The responses to the central questions posed above are summarized in a table on page 83.
Watershed Strategy Description Arizona has engaged in an effort to reorganize its water quality protection program to involve a comprehensive approach to watershed planning. An initial motivating factor for this approach was that there were already a couple of local advisory councils involved in the management of some of Arizona’s river basins. This, combined with the nationwide trend towards watershed planning and federal agency support for such management styles, prompted the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to adopt a comprehensive approach. Organization of the Arizona watershed approach is coordinated on three levels and relies on six separate entities. The three levels of coordination are: the local subwatershed, which rallies public support and participation of local stakeholders to establish specific watershed management action plans to protect water quality; the watershed level, for assessing water quality conditions within the watershed and establishing management goals and priorities specific to the region; and, statewide, for agencies and organizations that conduct watershed management activities across the entire state and have need of a statewide structure for targeting and coordinating efforts with one another. The six entities which comprise the framework upon which ADEQ relies are capable of operating at more than one of the levels just described. The Natural Resource Coordinating Committee is an existing statewide interagency body with members from many key state agencies with responsibility for natural resource management. It provides a forum for communication among participating agencies that can be further expanded to meet the increased need for communication within the watershed approach. A Watershed Advisory Committee is established for each delineated watershed. It is composed of stakeholders (those affected by water quality problems or management and regulatory actions), sponsors (agency or organization taking the lead in coordinating stakeholder meetings and preparing watershed reports), and partners (agencies and organizations that have agreed to participate who contribute to the development and implementation of the plan and negotiate with other stakeholders to identify complementary objectives and areas for collaboration). Committees serve as the focal point for planning and implementation activities. Watershed Project Teams are an extension of the advisory committee and may include staff from statewide agencies and local agencies. They are focused on tasks that require direct implementation and close collaboration with residents and landowners, especially nonpoint source projects. ADEQ Watershed Support Teams consist of ADEQ personnel and are established for each Watershed Advisory Committee with the purpose of providing coordinated support to each committee in meeting their project objectives. The ADEQ watershed support team leader will regularly attend watershed advisory committee meetings, representing ADEQ’s interests and communicating the needs of the advisory committee directly to ADEQ. The ADEQ Statewide Watershed Coordinator is the central point of information from the ten watershed support teams. The Coordinator promotes communication among ADEQ watershed teams through regular meetings with team leaders, tracks progress for all watersheds, helps team leaders identify problems and solutions and serves as a liaison between the ADEQ watershed team leaders and the ADEQ section managers. The Coordinator also gathers information for all watersheds for use by the ADEQ Section Managers Round Table for workload and resource planning. The ADEQ Section Managers Watershed Round Table provides management support and direction to ADEQ watershed support teams. Round Table membership may include the statewide watershed coordinator, Water Quality Division section managers, a representative from the ADEQ divisions, and possibly a representative from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Round Table directs division resources, projects staff and budget needs, briefs internal management and staff on a quarterly basis, identifies cross-media and cross-agency issues that need to be addressed in the watershed framework, provides policy leadership to adjust departmental procedures to accommodate watershed-based management activities, and guides transition of statewide efforts to the watershed approach. Watershed plans are the final structural element of the Arizona watershed approach. They document the consensus-based process that identifies and prioritizes water quality problems and develops management strategies to address them. They guide agency partners and stakeholders in implementing resource protection activities, and are a reference for future iterations of the watershed management cycle. The overall goal of watershed plans is to promote understanding of management activities for specific waterbodies and regions, and consolidate information and fulfill reporting requirements for several programs and agencies into one central document. Strategy Development - Response Summary
How was the groundwork laid? Where did the mandate, impetus, legislative authority, etc., come from? The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) began exploring the concept of the watershed process prior to 1995 through a grant from the EPA. The EPA was encouraging states to consider watershed-based implementation of their Clean Water Act responsibilities. Initial recommendations to management regarding the process were made by ADEQ personnel.
How were goals identified? What outreach activities were conducted? Outreach programs played an important role in the shaping of the Watershed Framework. ADEQ personnel became involved in several local water-related groups and used these forums to introduce the watershed management concept. They also used every opportunity to introduce the concept to sister state agencies, local governments, federal agency personnel, environmental and citizen’s groups, regulated industries, water professional, regional water policy makers and anyone with whom the division had regular contact.
How were participants selected to participate in the process? What criteria were used? Employees of the ADEQ communicated with many others both inside and outside ADEQ to produce the Arizona Statewide Watershed Framework, the backbone document for implementing the program. Existing water user groups were then identified to be "infiltrated" in order to plant the watershed seed and help parlay the success of such smaller groups into the watershed advisory committees.
What obstacles/issues remain? Implementation of Arizona’s 6-step watershed process will continue in two of the ten watersheds per year, so that available federal and state-based resources may be shifted around from watershed to watershed providing more equitable focus of available resources statewide, increasing opportunities for strategic water quality monitoring and the collaboration and cooperation of the stakeholders.
Did the strategy evolve from its initial iteration? Still in its infancy, the Arizona program has not experienced any significant change in its structure.
What do you feel will be critical to successful implementation in the future? To be able to point to some real life, concrete examples of success on a smaller scale will do more to "sell" the watershed approach to local communities than any implementation strategy that a government agency could ever come up with. The sharing of watershed data is the basic building block of sound decision-making, because of the lack of information, spread of misinformation and politicization of information among the affected parties. But even more important is the polarization, general suspicion and lack of trust between government and the regulated community, developers and their customers, industries and their neighbors, federal and state governments, state and local governments and even between nations, along the Arizona-Mexico border. Community-based sharing of data, information, understanding and perspective is key to making sound environmental decisions that benefit the broadest number of interests with the least associated costs.
For additional information, contact: Jon Hathaway, Statewide Watershed Coordinator, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Tel: (602) 207-2303.
Website information: http://www.adeq.state.az.us/water/mgmt
Watershed Strategy Description Montana does not have a comprehensive watershed strategy in the sense that the state establishes priorities among watersheds and allocates resources accordingly. Montana makes use of a state water planning process that is a collaborative, consensus-building forum that recognizes a large number of federal, Indian, state, local, and even regional entities that have a role in managing Montana’s water. The planning process also provides an opportunity for all these parties to work cooperatively with local water users and water interests in formulating and implementing policies, programs and strategies to resolve water resource conflicts and problems. The planning process is founded on community or local input. Communities have an opportunity to provide public comment and review as well as a chance to identify issues and develop solutions. The water planning process in Montana is continuous, operating generally on a two-year cycle, and can easily be updated in response to implementation experience and emerging problems and opportunities. The planning process for individual watershed issues may take considerably longer. This level of planning depends on the desires and needs of individual watershed groups and the complexity of the problems being addressed. Additionally, twenty-three state, federal and local agencies came together in 1995 to sign a "Memorandum of Understanding Establishing a Framework for Cooperation to Sustain Ecosystems, Watersheds and Communities in Montana" (MOU). The purpose of the MOU was to create a general framework for participation, interaction, and coordination among the participants and build relationships among the agencies by sharing information, training and other resources. This framework establishes a coordinated, integrated approach for solving watershed problems and defines an approach for agencies to use in their decision-making processes that involves all stakeholders in a watershed and that takes into consideration the impact of any decision on the watershed as a whole. Another objective of the participants in the MOU was to forge new partnerships with local communities and other affected interests for achieving more successfully the common goal of developing and implementing sustainable management strategies within Montana’s watersheds. The Montana Watershed Coordination Council serves as a statewide coordination network for Montana’s natural resource agencies and private organizations to share resources, identify and capitalize on opportunities for collaboration, and avoid duplication of efforts. The Coordination Council also promotes watershed planning and is developing a variety of ways to share information among groups as well as between agencies and groups. Local watershed committees are welcome to become members and participate in the Coordination Council. Most watershed committees do not send a representative to the Council. However, most watershed groups have members or advisors who participate in the Council. Montana’s approach to watershed planning is very flexible. Montana does not have a single watershed coordinator. Communities/basins have the option of forming watershed committees and these committees may develop a basin plan for potential adoption as a section of the state water plan, although only one watershed committee has elected to do so at this point. Strategy Development - Response Summary
Where did the mandate, impetus or legislative authority come from? What outreach activities were conducted? What goals were established? The strategy for watershed planning and problem-solving in Montana evolved from a number of activities that began in the early 1980s. The Flathead Basin Commission was the first official watershed group formed in Montana and it was created in 1983 by the Montana Legislature in response to water quality threats to the Flathead basin. In 1989, the Northern Lights Institute organized a broad-based group of water users and interests in the Upper Clark Fork basin to address conflicts between the need for instream flow protection and water requirements for agriculture uses. After working together for about a year, this group evolved into the Upper Clark Fork Steering Committee. The state water plan statute, passed in 1967, encouraged the formulation of the state water plan based on hydrologic divisions or watersheds. In developing the plan, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) began addressing statewide policy issues and watershed problems. Key components of the state water planning process were the active involvement of broad-based, grassroot participants and the use of a collaborative, consensus-based process. DNRC began providing assistance to watershed groups in the late 1980s. Between 1990 and 1995, there was a ground swell of new watershed groups forming in many basins in response to water conflicts and problems that needed addressing. The U.S. Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS), working with local conservation districts, helped facilitate the formation of watershed groups through its Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) process. NRCS provided staff support and assisted these groups to address water and land issues. In cooperation with NRCS, DNRC, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and the Montana Association of Conservation Districts began to provide "capacity building" training to its field personnel. This training included methods for creating and empowering local watershed groups to solve natural resources problems. The Montana Consensus Council, formed in 1995 and associated with the Governor’s office, promotes fair, effective, and efficient processes for building agreement on natural resource and other public policy issues important to Montanans. The Council staff provides facilitation training and assistance to local watershed groups. In June 1995, Governor Racicot helped legitimize watershed problem-solving by leading the charge in signing and implementing a Memorandum of Understanding entitled, "Establishing a Framework for Cooperation to Sustain Ecosystems, Watersheds and Communities in Montana." Along with these activities, the Montana Watercourse, an adult and student water resource education program, began a community-based watershed education project entitled "Know Your Watershed" workshops in 1996. These workshops are aimed at improving citizen’s capacities to address local water resource issues and to increase individual and community awareness and knowledge of Montana’s water. A number of these watershed workshops have led to the formation of local watershed groups.
How were participants selected and objectives identified? As noted earlier, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which was initiated by a group of mid-level state and federal natural resource managers, took over two years to evolve before 22 state and federal natural resource agency directors and the Montana Association of Counties could achieve consensus on its content. The purpose of the MOU is to make natural resource agencies more effective and responsive in meeting their own legal mandates and in solving their natural resource based problems by providing educational, technical, and financial assistance to local watershed groups and communities. The MOU encourages the use of CRM and other collaborative, consensus-based processes that are driven by local watershed groups and not government agencies.
What type of agreement was reached as an outcome? During this time period, the Montana Watershed Coordination Council (MWCC) was formed, and its purposes were described and legitimized in the MOU. The Operating Guidelines for the MWCC identifies three primary purposes:
Council membership includes representatives of each of the signatories to the MOU, citizen representatives from local watershed groups, conservation districts, and other groups or persons interested in watershed planning and management. The MWCC is building a homepage that will identify the make-up, objectives, and accomplishments of local watershed groups; the availability of financial, technical, and educational assistance to local groups; and other relevant information to assist watershed groups and local governments. The Website address is: http://water.montana.edu/docs/watersheds/MTwtshds.htm.
What issues/obstacles remain? Watershed legislation, based on the Oregon legislative model, was introduced in the 1997 Montana Legislature that aimed to institutionalize watershed planning and management. The bill failed because the legislature felt that local watershed groups were already successful in Montana and because the bill was initiated by a state agency without grassroot support. Another obstacle that DNRC and other state and federal government agencies have had to overcome was the general distrust of government by the Montana public. Through our collaborative, face-to-face discussions, however, a general sense of trust and understanding has been building. There are a number of obstacles that remain. Finding funding to cover ongoing administrative staff support for the watershed groups is always a challenge. It is easier to find project funds than monies to cover general operational expenses. Another obstacle is to maintain the enthusiasm and efforts after the first major problem is solved. Presently, there are over 50 active and successful watershed groups in Montana. The MWCC is working to facilitate the exchange of information among these groups and in providing them with coordinated and effective assistance. Another significant challenge is to tie the program dealing with Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for resolving water quality problems on impaired streams to the existing watershed framework. The 1997 Montana Legislature gave the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) the authority to mitigate point and non-point source impacts on impaired streams through the use of local watershed groups. The melding of DEQ’s new statutory authority with the many ongoing watershed groups and activities is being worked out by the affected governmental agencies through the MWCC.
Did the strategy evolve? In implementing the state water planning process in 1988, a spirit of distrust resulted from the fact that the process was planned and design primarily by DNRC. There was also considerable confusion over who should be making what decisions and at what point in the process. Members of the agricultural community did not feel that their interests were adequately represented. Too much was attempted too quickly during the first year of the planning process, which limited public involvement and dispute resolution until after the draft plan sections were submitted to the public for review and comment. This experience resulted in an evolution in the state approach to emphasize more local leadership and control by the full range of stakeholders in defining the problem or problems, seeking possible solutions, conducting the necessary studies and then selecting the solution that has the greatest support and opportunity for implementation. To begin the second biennial water planning process, the DNRC facilitated eight Community Dialogues to identify the issues that would be addressed. Representation on the State Water Planning Advisory Committee and the Steering Committees was carefully balanced to reflect all affected interests. The DNRC also played a more neutral role in facilitating the development of the plan sections. The planning cycle was extended to two years to allow additional time for research, negotiation, public involvement, and consensus building. During this time, the first local watershed groups, using the same basic collaborative planning process, began to experience successes. These successful efforts culminated in the MOU, and the passage of a bill by the 1997 Montana Legislature that encouraged the use of local watershed groups to address water quality issues associated with TMDL. In addition, the Legislature added $50,000 to DNRC’s budget to support the administrative needs of local watershed groups.
What do you feel will be critical for successful implementation in the future? The state water plan and local watershed planning and problem solving efforts have always keyed on implementation. However, at times, the lack of staff and financial support has make it difficult to implement some recommendations. Further, there needs to be a better system of accountability to ensure that the implementation of plan recommendations does occur. A strategy should also be developed to address new issues that emerge during any given planning cycle. Based on Montana’s experiences, a successful state strategy should support watershed groups by helping to provide or facilitate:
There also needs to be an understanding and realization that as soon as the first water issue is resolved (that was the impetus for creating a local watershed group), there are likely other issues for a watershed group to resolve. However, it can be difficult to maintain the active involvement and enthusiasm of citizen members as they have other jobs and responsibilities. Local watershed groups can solve issues and conflicts that they identify, but they can also solve problems brought to them by local, state and federal governments. For example, Montana would prefer to mitigate impacts to endangered species by working with local watershed groups rather than through federal regulatory means. Government also has a responsibility to provide technical support, monitoring, and funding for implementing recommendations and for keeping a local watershed group functioning successfully. The beauty of the Montana strategy or framework is its flexibility and responsiveness to local problems within watersheds. There is no one single formula for success.
For more information, contact: Rich Moy, Chief, Water Management Bureau Tel.: (406) 444-6633
Website information: http://water.montana.edu/docs/watersheds/MTwtshds.htm
Watershed Strategy Description Although New Mexico does not utilize a statewide system that supports so-called "watershed" councils, it does use a process that is based upon "regional plans" that are formulated within the individual hydrological units. The Interstate Stream Commission strongly encourages regions to negotiate solutions to local water problems. Elements of these regional water plans may contain relevant and substantive elements for use by the State Engineer in "public welfare" and "conservation" determinations in actions before the State Engineer within the regional planning area or affecting the area. Elements of regional water plans may not necessarily be determinative but rather part of a larger set of considerations that are applicable to a given action. Regions are also invited to propose changes to New Mexico water law. Broad public participation is considered necessary in developing regional water plans, both to enhance their acceptance locally and to increase their potential contribution to state decision making in regard to "public welfare" and "conservation" determinations. Water plans are based upon the assumption that all future needs must be met by the management of the water supply currently available. Water conservation is the first item considered among feasible water supply alternatives in the management of water to meet current and future water demands, and the regional water plan must demonstrate what portion of the future water demand could be met from projections of conserved water. The Interstate Stream Commission is authorized to make loans or grants for the purpose of regional water planning. Strategy Development - Response Summary
Where did the mandate, impetus or legislative authority come from? The mandate for New Mexico’s Regional Water Planning Program (NMRWPP) came from legislation developed and adopted in 1987 (N. M. Stat. Ann. 72-14-44, 1993 Cum. Sup.) pursuant to findings in City of El Paso ex. rel. Pub. Serv. Bd. v. Reynolds, 563 F. Supp. 379 (D.N.M. 1983) and 597 F. Supp. 694 (D.N.M. 1984) that if New Mexico wished to prefer its own citizens over an out of state appropriator, there had to be a showing of the supply of water available within the state of New Mexico (or a region), the water demands within the state of New Mexico, whether shortages existed within the state of New Mexico, and whether supplying water from particular sources was relevant of feasible. (See N. M. Stat. Ann. 72-12B-1, 1985 Repl. Pamp.) While broad guidelines for water planning grants were set forth in 1987 by the regional water planning legislation, specific guidance as to plan content was not available until December of 1994 when the Regional Water Planning Handbook (Handbook) was developed by an Interstate Stream Commission (ISC) subcommittee. Outreach activities have assumed the form of workshops for regional water planners sponsored by ISC, the New Mexico Regional Water Planning Dialogue (Dialogue), Western Network, and development of a newsletter for sharing water planning information through the Dialogue. Workshops have been held on program administration, public participation and local plan programs. Funding from yearly program appropriations has also been provided for population data and forecasting, steering committee formation, data acquisition, water study bibliographies, and conservation programs. Approaches to efficient administration of the program continue to develop. Concepts being considered include budget management, enhancing public involvement strategies, a staff team to be available for project assistance and collaborative problem solving, and a plan acceptance procedure.
How are participants selected to participate in the process? What criteria are used? The program was authorized by the New Mexico Legislature and results from the legislative process with opportunity for input and debate. The Legislature had available to it a report from New Mexico State University that contained certain recommendations regarding water planning.
How were issues identified? The issues were identified and clarified in the legislative process, which included those issues set out in the report of the university, including:
What do you feel will be critical to successful implementation in the future? Several changes to the administrative procedures for NMRWPP are under consideration. These include development of a legal issues template, budget management, use of a staff team to collaborate with regional planners, enhancing public involvement, use of visioning activities by regions for their water future, use of GIS, and a procedure for accepting plans by ISC. Funding for a framework state water plan is being requested. The framework state water plan program includes completing regional water plans and developing a complete assessment of New Mexico’s water resources.
What other experiences, and perspectives could you share on a process of developing a successful state watershed strategy? Creation of a state water resources plan to best manage New Mexico’s water future, where regional water plan elements serve to document regional variables and provide for grassroot public involvement, is being pursued. Regional water plan boundaries organized by watersheds or sub-watershed boundaries could serve to better manage water conservation and other water supply and demand issues. Currently, political considerations may be taken into account in determining regional water plan boundaries and this sometimes complicates management objectives.
For more information, contact: Jay Groseclose, Deputy Interstate Stream Engineer Tel.: (505) 827-6160
Website information:
Watershed Strategy Description
Introduction Oregon’s Watershed Strategy has undergone change since the early 1990s. In the early days of the program, the Strategic Water Management Group (SWMG) provided oversight and direction. SWMG consisted of the directors of natural resource agencies in Oregon as well as advisory members from a few federal resource agencies. In 1995, SWMG was abolished by the state legislature and responsibility for the watershed program was transferred to the Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board (GWEB), a grant making body, with representatives from major state and federal natural resource agencies. The major impetus for this change was concern on the part of local governments and watershed councils that the program was too top down under the direction of SWMG. Following is a history of SWMG and a brief description of Oregon’s current strategy. History--Oregon's Strategic Watershed Management Group (Please note that while this model is not what is currently being used in Oregon, there are valuable components of the SWMG framework worthy of mention. The description of SWMG is also important from a historical, contextual standpoint.) In 1985, Oregon’s Strategic Water Management Group was created by statute to coordinate activities affecting state water resources and encourage federal agency actions that are consistent with state water policies. <n.9> It included the governor and director or head of each of the state’s major water-related agencies, or their designees. Oregon’s Watershed Management Strategy was first outlined in a report prepared by a work group for the state’s Strategic Water Management Group. Submitted on August 11, 1992, the cornerstone of the strategy was the establishment of watershed partnerships among local residents, state and federal agency staff, and other citizens interested in improving the management of a particular watershed. <n.10> n.9 Oregon Revised Statutes, 536.100-150. n.10 Strategic Water Management Group (SWMG) Policy Work Group, "Proposal: A Watershed Management Strategy for Oregon," August 11, 1992. The purpose of the strategy was to facilitate coordination, integration and implementation of existing local, state and federal programs to protect, enhance and restore the state’s watersheds, rather than create new programs. There were four major components of the watershed management strategy:
Together, these formed the framework for the strategy. Each participating entity or partner retained its current authorities and responsibilities. A watershed partnership served as a vehicle to improve communication among state, local and federal resource managers and local citizens. Further, the partnerships served as a means of promoting implementation of complementary policies and actions to enhance the protection of natural resources, while also meeting the needs of local communities. The strategy did not shift responsibility for state programs or regulatory actions to the local level.
Goal Statement, Objectives and Principles The Goal Statement guiding implementation of Oregon’s Watershed Management Strategy was as follows: Implement a consistent and integrated process to guide watershed-based resource planning and management to protect, enhance and restore the state’s watershed ecosystems in order to optimize the natural resources of the state for all beneficial economic, environmental and social uses. Involve local, state, federal and private land and water managers and interested citizens in the development, implementation and monitoring of watershed action programs. In order to accomplish this mission statement, the strategy involved the following objectives: (1) identify high priority watersheds; (2) prepare watershed action programs with well-defined goals and objectives; (3) implement innovative programs and coordinate and integrate local, state and federal planning activities, including data management, in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of resources management; and (4) identify and coordinate funding for action program development and implementation. The following principles were to be applied to the implementation of the watershed management strategy:
Identifying High Priority Watersheds Using readily available information and the following criteria, the first step in the watershed management strategy was identification of high priority watersheds. This involved an interagency team conducting a reconnaissance-type assessment of the state’s major river basins. However, high priority watershed units could be much smaller than a basin, probably a sub-basin. High priority watershed assessment criteria were categorized under: (A) watershed health; (B) the public interest; and (C) the likelihood of success.
Local Watershed Councils The next step, as part of the watershed management strategy, was the establishment of a local watershed council in each high priority watershed as a mechanism not only for public participation and comment, but for interested parties to play a meaningful role and make significant contributions towards improving management of their watershed and helping solve critical issues and shape future decision-making. SWMG agency staff were to meet with local officials to determine whether there was interest in forming a watershed management partnership between a local body and state and federal resource management agencies. If so, a local watershed council was formed to work toward the development of a watershed action program, in partnership and with the assistance and cooperation of the SWMG and federal agencies. Local watershed councils were primarily made up of local citizens and government officials, and were designed to ensure a high level of participation by a broad range of interests in development and implementation of a watershed action program. The |