California Watershed Management Forums
FORUM #1 FEEDBACK FROM PARTICIPANTS
September 1, 1999
Number of Responses = 27 (out of 77 participants attending)
CALIFORNIA OVERVIEW
§ Excellent and honest report of where CA is. I hope that the future holds more opportunity for watershed groups to benefit from State organization and responsibility.
§ Not a concept of bottom-up, but appears to be movement at agency level toward a watershed management plan.
§ Ideas that might work for CA: 1) A state entity that collects all monitored information from watersheds; 2) riparian tax credits, conservation enhancement tax credits, industry tax credits (could be an excellent state program); 3) no legislative watershed framework/ structure - maybe suggested only; state commitment to watershed coordinators.
§ Like the idea that the Biodiversity Council is being involved in watershed planning.
§ Good to get Mary’s view and commitment to establishing a state framework to support local watershed partnerships
§ Good.
§ What is the “structure” for watershed management for California? Who will define it? Strictly State?
§ What is the Resource Agency’s goal for watershed management? How will Department organizations be made to better fulfill this goal? Support for local funding --approaches (special assessment district, State)
§ Need to establish a process / structure for support - technically, $ and enthusiasm
§ We need to include local floodplain administrations in watershed team efforts. They have responsibility for keeping inappropriate developments out of the floodplain. Desirable to coordinate watershed efforts with the Floodplain Management Association (CA) — which is an association of local floodplain administrations. Also, need to maintain coordination with DWR’s FPM Program, which serves as the State FPM coordinating agency.
§ The Secretary’s goals are great but will not happen in the bureaucratic atmosphere in the Resources Agency and the RWQCBs.
§ Support the ideas and framework needs. Hard to get a local leadership effort on private land for CA. This needs to be watershed, water quality, watershed health, etc.
MASSACHUSETTS
§ Good presentation of what is happening. Very different and valuable point of view with useful ideas for the West, esp. Water use projection
§ The best. But didn’t get a sense of how they convince their agency types to work in a bottom-up process. Important piece of Mass. success is probably due to leadership of Sec. Durand when he was a leader of the Legislature and now the head of the agency
§ Interesting presentation. Oregon’s watershed program is more applicable to California as we share many similarities. Teams: Team leaders could be a good idea if voluntary. Visiting with the Mass. Presenter, I learned that this is the case in Mass. - voluntary.
§ Legislative Districts designed around watershed regions - another way to bring about continuity, or at the very least educational material that depict current districts comparted to watersheds and their representatives.
§ Appreciated focus on a stakeholder process that encourages participation by all possible parties (not just the traditional agencies, env. group involvement). In CA, more hours and funding need to be focused on involving all possible local stakeholders. (Excellent science and agency involvement alone cannot get to successful watershed solutions.) Grant funding - Need to address “competitive” nature of funding request processes. How do you maintain enthusiasm at the local level when you have to deny funding to so many projects on an annual basis (an often times demoralizing process for local groups)?
§ Difficult to compare to CA because of size / scale.
§ Dynamic leadership at state level is critical. The idea of team leaders who have attributes of great communication skills as well as organizational skills and who are the conduit for communicating the grassroots’ voice upward.
§ Create incentives for completing a local watershed plan - connecting SRF priorities to completed plans - SRF offers a huge amount of funds available to implement water quality improvement projects. These funds ($100s of millions) can be used for NPS projects and other types. 2) Team leaders - good concept - if MA has 20, CA may need 20 per Regional Board. 3) Conduct “build-out” analysis of a project 20 years out, identify potential impacts, promote alternative development patterns.
§ Exciting, esp. from public participation/ education standpoint. Population density helps - small watersheds with intensive recreational use. Quality of life drives process there.
§ The entire structure of the Watershed Initiative is an interesting model to examine what might fit for California. Transferrable ideas should include use of volunteer monitors in a more formal way; development of the 5-year plans for watersheds; the idea that all watersheds are created equal - no “priority watersheds”; funding availability for state, regional, and local projects. Basically, the ground-up approach needs to be advocated for here in California. Some very good ideas that should be looked at by our Resources Agency.
§ The Coalition (NGO) was the impetus for creating the critical legislative mass initiating 4 watershed initiatives: biodiversity, community preservation, environmental education, and watershed initiatives.
§ Works best in “confined” space. Cannot apply to Western states.
§ “True advocacy at the local level.” Each watershed is led by its local watershed needs. “Env. Zoning approach” with SRF to pay. State staff reorganized by watershed, with leads for each. Build analysis to 2020 - do you have water supply to complete build-out.
§ It was good to see the progress and how they have dealt with very stringent issues. And see the state support the program.
§ Impressed by the coordination used in addressing their resource concerns.
§ Specifically make capacity-building grants available to RCDs and other community-led groups that help motivate, organize and lead watershed planning and implementation group efforts.
§ Units are too small.
§ Like and believe the local leadership method could work in CA; 2) Support of a State level of 4 million and the agency support is vital; 3) Feel the idea of a State Council could be used in CA under the Resources Agency. Involve the departments. 4) Idea of capacity building grants to existing groups (@ $50,000) is excellent.
§ I feel that the initial “permissive” legislation makes an unthreatening situation at first which is desirable. Sometimes it takes some on-the-ground projects for an adaptive management basis. No one has the money to all the assessment necessary anyway.
§ Good info from Louise and Jacqueline - lists of what works, what would do differently. Very helpful in designing Calif program. Also - similar to Mass - it appears that a critical piece of getting a statewide program is having leadership in Legislature.
§ Most valuable presentation for our benefit in CA. They have quite a bit of experience in watershed planning and have some ideas of what works and what doesn’t. I received the most useful information from this presentation.
§ Please watch Oregon tax reform for possible similar tax reforms in CA. 2) Info sources - coordinated data banks - good; 3) Project accountability - good; 4) Like to have a state framework run by the Resources Agency, not CAL/FED.
§ Agree that the “process” is at least if not more important than the “product”. California needs to build in strong foundation before heading down the trail. California needs an organization / agency that can “organize” all the emerging watershed agencies units, councils, conservancies, etc.
§ Permissiveness is important to get things to happen. Liked the idea of requiring broad-based participation to create model for successes.
§ Need to develop tools for local watershed partnerships, instead of having each partnership have to develop their own tools.
§ Very helpful ideas. I liked J. Dingfelder’s presentation immensely. Oregon had best panel. Most applicable to California of the 3 states.
§ Good presentation of what did not work as well.
§ Good ideas: 1) mandated monitoring for 5-10 years; we can’t learn if we’re being effective if we don’t monitor; 2) funding for local watershed groups/councils is helpful; 3) Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board is a good umbrella for all the watershed work. Not so good: a) too many councils - CA should look at regional councils based on bioregion than go to the more local level for implementation. b) not enough tools - who are the experts?
§ 1993 Watershed group composition had to be approved by State to receive funding; 2) 1995 - Local government approves councils; 3) Assessment, monitoring and restoration manuals are developed. Action plan manual being developed. 4) Product is the process! Don’t expect too much too soon.
§ Works well due to higher legislative and constituent level of consensus... and economic dependency on natural resources (fish, timber, wildlife, etc.).
§ Louise Solliday - integrate healthy watershed with healthy economies and integrated decisions; watershed resource center = web. Set up funding. Too many local watershed councils.
§ Good overview of structure of the watershed group structure.
§ On the whole, Oregon’s funding of watershed councils is admirable. Too bad this state doesn’t have a similar effort.
§ Sounds as if it is the most progressive and aggressive program that works.
§ Don’t believe the top-down approach will work. The basic process of plans, etc. with assessment, plan, implementation, monitoring and education are vital. The idea of watershed coordinators is a necessity. CRMPs and capacity building grants can help do this.
WASHINGTON
§ I find this paradigm a bit too top-down but it can make for more State coordination between departments.
§ Scary structure. Couldn’t understand how they get acccountability, good science
§ Like the idea of agencies incorporating watershed plans into their framework - budgets would be created, regulation reduced, cooperative implementation.
§ Nothing new to add here, except that maintaining partnerships at the state-level between CA, WA, and OR on an ongoing basis is important (share ideas, collaborate, etc.).
§ I like that MA, OR and WA support (fund) local watershed coordination.
§ Although I solidly agree with the State being obligated to change policies and rules, I question whether the state gov’t has the courage to follow through. Superb - state funding assistance on start-ups ($50,000) and assessment funding ($200,000).
§ Strong tie to local gov’ts is good but the model of local elected officials as the “councils” may be too restrictive for CA and will limit too much more divisive and grassroots involvement that will be essential for success.
§ Good but quite a different approach. I think western WA is pulling the whole state along. It is definitely a model for the future.
§ Agree on analytical tools for assessment. The quantity focus is an interesting one, though not sure if this is a good way to go. Good = local officials involved - this is especially applicable because of local land use control in Calif. Good = locals had to spend their own $s to get region $s. Bad = no monitoring for effectiveness.
§ WRIA - Water Resource Inventory Area; MOA - from State agencies directors; water quantity assessment - water budget!
§ Interesting, but not proven.
§ Local gov’t funding has been driver. This is critical as well as long term mechanisms for sustainable funding. Local vs. Regional funding distinctions. Systems approach instead of organizational chart. No shotgun approaches - adaptive mgt - pause and reflect and collective ed. decisions - funnel decisions.
§ Joe & Nancy provide some real good background and information on what WA is doing. They gave me some good ideas and thoughts.
§ Presentation somewhat confusing to me. Didn’t sound as if their activity was as tightly structured as OR and MA.
§ Too soon to tell.
§ Like idea of giving authority to locals with state involvement. Funding from state makes it happen. CA needs the water budget idea to determine what resources are available.
COMPARISONS & EVALUATIONS
§ Shared purpose: getting people and their needs together to share a common goal. Oregon example - most applicable to CA.
§ It is nice to hear a presentation that is more than just cheerleading. But one of the key points in the discussion time is the need to include mainstream environmental groups, but no words on need to involve landowners / resource managers.
§ This was excellent - I look forward to getting River Network’s new publication. Also - Doug Kenney provide a good reality check.
§ Support watershed coordinators!!! Not a panacea - not a replacement for carrying out existing laws.
§ Don Elder was entertaining and sage. Kudos! Prof. Kenney was not very inspiring - I guess we needed that perspective. He was a good addition.
§ All speakers were excellent! Especially liked last 2 - great evaluation
§ Failures are important to analyze. Focus on manageable projects. Coordinator funding. Focus on small watersheds / units.
§ Good synthesis: few things work well across the state boundaries and different US regions
§ Key is resources - funding and governance structures - and critical to sustaining long term commitment needed to achieve watershed goals.
§ Support the “coordinator” position. Get landowners, water districts, land manager groups involved in planning/ policy point of process.
§ We need a workshop on success stories re: existing Calif community-led watershed groups.
§ The states that were represented were much more proactive in providing funding for locally driven process than the state of Calif which wants to manage and regulate the process without providing financial assistance.
§ All are based on state framework. CA needs one to address all levels, federal, state and local. A State department needs to coordinate (In CA it should be Resources). Hard to define watershed boundaries (state function). Technical assistance in necessary. State funding for local leadership is needed.
GENERAL COMMENTS
§ I believe the first forum was pretty much on the mark and valuable for those attending. I was very pleased to see some SWRCB and RWQCB management in attendance. The trick now will be to narrow the focus on Calif. - what’s now being done, what’s working, and what isn’t and why, where would we go from here.
§ Thank you for bringing such great speakers together - and all your hard work. P.S. the lunch was wonderful.
§ I am disappointed that there has been so little on how watershed management work has impacted private landowners/ resource managers. No private resource managers were among the presenters and the presentations gave scant attention to land management issues. Yet all that would be done will happen on someone’s land. Unfortunately the discussions focused on other people’s land, other people’s money.
OVERALL FORUM EVALUATION
1. Was the Forum worthwhile? Average
score = 4.2
§
It was worthwhile, but I hope
that the CA State folks found it even more so.
§
Excellent that Mary Nichols,
Maria Rea, Cathy Bleier, and Nina Gordon heard the MA example.
§
Good for networking; I met people
face-to-face that I’ve been dealing with only on the phone.
§
Great job, well organized, on
topic, useful, good speakers, good participation, even a few people from SoCal
§
It is hard to tell now, I will
know more after the next two meetings
§
Good cross section of out-of-state
info. Need to discuss what is going on in the state now
§ I generally feel that large gatherings like this are not that worthwhile but I was very impressed with all the presenters and the information shared
2. What were the highlights?
§
The different paradigms, unique
elements. The summary speakers!
§
Speaker Sec. Durand - great way
to start. Lunch. Importance of stakeholder-based consensus processes.
§
The speakers
§
Stimulation of a lot of good
discussions
§
Good to get different perspectives
on watershed approach
§
Presentation by Massachusetts
§
Definitely the quality of the
speakers
§
Lessons learned
§
Good networking time during breaks
and lunch
§
All good examples of state programs
- good succinct presentation
§
Mass. Overview, Don Elder’s presentation
§
Other states’ presentations
§
It was great to ask audience
what they learned from each session
§
Exchange of variety of experiences
§
Nancy Hansen’s discussion of
funding and long term governance presentation
§
The multitude of variety in speakers,
but the last two were very good
§
Oregon presentation and comments
after
§
Ability to interact aside from
presentations (networking)
§
Locals make it happen, state
government as to leadership
§ The opportunity to hear from those outside the “California perspective” and experience. The two wrap-up speakers were great.
3. What didn’t work?
§
Not enough time for questions.
Lack of understanding of the discussion part. Microphones.
§
The air conditioning - too cold
§
Short amount of time to discuss
- limitation of 1 day meeting.
§
Discussion / brainstorming sessions.
Not enough Q & A time.
§
Washington is as yet untested
§
Getting participation was limited
by having to have participants speak into the microphones
§
Nothing
§
More time for dialogue
§
More time needed for questions
and answers and discussions
§
WA - King County presentation
strictly
§
The announcement did not provide
a map or address of the location!
§
Mailout didn’t go out to all
§
Too many speakers said the same
thing about the same thing
§
It went real long
§ With this group - too much detail about each effort. Summaries with more time for discussion is more effective
4. What should be done differently next time?
§
It is really hard to schedule
the amount of important presentations and leave time for Q&A. Nobody ever
gets it right, probably because there is no good formula.
§
A little more available time
for discussions.
§
More landowner speakers (i.e.,
timber, cattle, water diverters, fishing)
§
1.5 to 2 days in length?
§
More landowner / manager perspective
§
More discussion time
§
Invite agricultural industry
and landowners
§
Ending these discussions is very
difficult - tend to rush to be overwhelming because not everyone is included
§
Invite broad groups - county
planners
§
Possibly 1.5 to 2 days - people
just get going
§
Need to involve some of the bigger
NGOs - Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club - also more scientists
§
More time for interaction at
Q&A
§
Brief overview of other states
success and failure
§
Nothing - keep at it - have another
session bringing in different perspectives
§
Can e-mail be used to broadcast
meeting (basic) info followed by a hard copy?
§
More diverse speakers, less speakers
to allow better discussion and sharing
§
Limit the number of different
people but maintain the topics and discussion length
§
Fewer presentations - more ability
or opportunity to learn actively from each other
§
It’s now time to focus on the
California situation
§ Include note paper in packer; time for everyone to briefly introduce themselves (name and affiliation); more time for Q&A; Clearer explanation of the likes/dislikes portion of the discussion.
Overall Forum Ratings: (out of 5 maximum)
1. Speakers were prepared and organized = 4.9
2. Speakers stimulated interest and discussion = 4.5
3. Speakers were responsive to participants = 4.6
4. Information provided as handouts was valuable = 4.0
5. Sufficient time was provided for speaker presentations = 4.0
6. Sufficient time was provided for questions and answers of speakers = 3.5
7. Sufficient time was provided for feedback and discussion by participants = 3.4
8. Sufficient time was provided for networking during breaks and lunch = 3.9
9. I came away with new ideas that might be worth trying = 4.2
10. I see new potential for state-local relationships in watershed management in CA = 4.2