California Watershed Management Forums
FORUM #2 FEEDBACK
November 15, 1999
Total Number Responses = 14 (out of 70 participants attending)
STATE GOVERNMENT OVERVIEW – by Maria Rea, Resources Agency
§ Excellent - provided good background information to set the stage for the rest of the day
§ I generally find introductory talks are an unnecessary overview except for the last 3-5 minutes. My experience is that we understand and are familiar with the contents of the talk and we all (speaker and audience) would benefit from a short issues statement versus a long overview.
§ Wanted more specifics - where is the state going? Is there leadership in getting us to a more formal structure for watershed management in California
§ I don’t think this was an overview. It is key that the State listen to the local efforts.
§ Good point that a definition of roles and levels of responsibility and involvement needs to happen. Also need to see where these forums fall into the state’s view of watershed management.
LOCAL WATERSHED GROUP OVERVIEW – by Sari Sommarstrom, Watershed Management Council
§ Very good perspectives. How do we integrate groups of “likes and unlikes” in decision-making?
§ Excellent - provided good background information to set the stage for the rest of the day
§ Lots of content. I’d like to see it in writing.
§ I think Sari has done a tremendous job putting all this together. Again, the overview information tends to be repetitive. I would encourage her to have her talk available on e-mail (so we could review the massive information) and instead of speaking it all, give us a 2-5 minute outline, take a deep breath, and take a slower approach. I can tell Sari is extremely active - I hear information better when the delivery is slower and less dense.
§ Good overview. Maybe more real life examples, also discussion about how these groups work together.
§ I believe material provided was right on. What it showed to me is that California needs some overarching guidelines.
§ Nice charts - I’d have liked copies.
§ Good job of framing some of the issues (e.g., accountability) to follow; a bit rushed.
§ Good description of the differences along the continuum.
§ Watershed restoration on the broad scale is relatively new in California. Cost/benefit analysis needs to be used for accountability issues but comparisons and valuing benefits are difficult in this area of resource management. Cumulative benefits need to be researched and integrated into decision making.
§ Very good. Panelists were very knowledgeable and brought up some good concerns /issues regarding a state-wide watershed planning program.
§ As always, ensuring representation from many sources brought excellent depth to discussion. May have served better to place this later in the day.
§ We heard the status quo and aggravation with the process. But ultimately, I didn’t feel that clarity was achieved. More work needs to be done here. I senses defensiveness on the part of the State agencies, rather than inquiring how to fix it. We are a long way from having a practical effective sense of accountability. The message was it is still “TOP DOWN”.
§ Provacative and interesting. I agree we need more science. I went to the bioassessment conference last week, where standardized protocols and on-the-ground dialogue was the emphasis, while here the discussion is more policy-based. I’d encourage you to get Jim Harrington of DFG into this conversation. We need to find a middle ground between the bioassessment conference and discussions like this.
§ We need to streamline the accountability. We need to have financial and contract guidelines but we are losing track of the overall goals. Improvement on the ground and in the watershed.
§ Good ideas.
§ I think it would be helpful to turn this question around to the funding agencies to be sure accountability is a 2-way street.
§ Should have been longer! I was disappointed that no one ever framed the issue around different goals: building social capital vs. Natural capital (i.e., restoration). Could have been a ½ day topic.
§ If public funds are used, there needs to be accountability in some form to the funder. Just because public funds aren’t used, it doesn’t mean that the “wrong” things are occurring or that folks aren’t collaborative or progressive in their management.
PANEL ON GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE AND FLEXIBILITY
§ Good discussion. Local contributions to watershed efforts is important but local “control” is ill-defined. Cat Black’s comment is all too true that many watershed groups are formed because the direction of local government and local agencies is often inadequate and co-opted by local politics.
§ Excellent! Discussion was right on target. Someone needs to take the lead - develop guidance, funding for coordinators, streamlined granting process, etc.
§ Very useful. Establishment of standards in any “new” field of endeavor is paramount to helping define our goals, ourselves, our programs and even our failures. As abhorent as labels and categories can be to some, I believe the structure is necessary, particularly as regards funding and interaction with other fields.
§ This panel was actually fun (at least for me!)
§ Pleased to see the panel focused on State governance. Felt that there were many superb, realistic points brought up by this panel.. The first panel should have been here to listen to this panel.
§ Good dialogue.
§ To me, it appears the State needs to define its governance structure. Don’t invent another level - use the one we have.
§ Good ideas.
§ Good, though it suffered a bit from generalities (i.e. what do individuals mean by standards and how does scale apply?) and how do these mesh with local control.
§ Local, ground-up structures should be recognized and utilized as the final decision-makers. The state should create the structure to handle information dissemination, education and outreach.
PANEL ON INCENTIVES
§ Good points. Sungnome has an excellent perspective. The issue of incentives for representative of Public Trust Resources is an interesting and should be addressed.
§ Good discussion and excellent panelists.
§ Each panelist tended to think unilaterally, rather than on a watershed management as a whole level. This was good and bad - illustrated more narrow perspectives. But also illustrated the dangers of private advocacy and agendas applied to what is essentially a regional issue.
§ I wish we could have gotten to the questions that were in our packet. I would have liked to see ideas, options. David Yardas’ comments on incentives - regulation being the same side of the coin was excellent.
§ Discussion was disjointed
§ Incentives means getting rid of disincentives. Need to revisit current regulations.
§ Didn’t work.
§ Might be great to have panel discussion with some of the private funders supporting watershed efforts.
§ Somewhat unfocused; nothing much new.
§ We ended up being “hung up” on the dialogue between private landowner and “public” trust and if those connect. Maybe my fault, but I came to represent the clear landowner perspective. It’s also interesting that at both forums, folks refer to ag and landowners and how important they are. Yet, I began to feel that when hearing from a landowner (me), they (agency/ngos) didn’t want to hear the reality that a landowner can be self-empowered to do the “right” thing and doesn’t need or want $$ and can act independently for the betterment of the whole.
PANEL ON INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT
§ Good panel and informative
§ There was quite a bit of overlap on this panel. Maybe fewer panelists?
§ Ann Riley’s comments were superb. State does need to put their real work where their lip service is. “We need to plan to act” “Practitioners are coming up with the knowledge”
§ Why wasn’t data repository like CERES and UCD ICE included?
§ Clearly defined need to support local effort. Bottom line - we need to develop a technical assistance model much like the old NRCS model.
§ Good ideas, but didn’t necessarily address the question.
§ Again, here I would have thought it helpful to hear from actual local watershed groups re: what their needs are.
§ Facts correct; 2) What is the desired outcome? What will the use be to determine what and how the information is gathered and in what form it is?
OVERALL FORUM EVALUATION (1= low, 5= high) Average score = 4.1
Overall Comments:
§ All discussions were informative and helped bring the council closer to focusing on the relevance and importance of working cooperatively in watersheds.
§ Had to leave early - Looking forward to reading summary
§ Panel size excluded hearing answers to all questions.
§ Great job! Great discussions. My kudos to your panel moderators. Thanks for putting it together.
§ This group (yours) should set up a notification system re: key legislation and lobbying that needs to be done (e.g., lobbying for more NRCS staffing in CA!)
§ I would think that you’d want to have a few more local watershed groups represented or involved in these forums
Highlights?
§ Stirring the pot - opponents of existing watershed efforts need to debate more.
§ Panel discussion on Governance Structure and Function
§ Educational to learn what’s going on
§ Ann Riley - need to know what clients want in order to design a system. Good questions about who is the audience and the barriers the government can erect.
§ Networking
§ Funding discussions; Structure discussions
§ Discussion on Needs for Information and Tech Assistance
§ Morning panels; select statements throughout the day.
§ Broad, diverse participants; agencies; interests
§ Governance Structure and Flexibility
§ Accountability and Governance
What didn’t work?
§ Not enough city and county planners and officials. Panels too large.
§ A few panels needed tighter controls to the topic
§ Need more in the way of getting to an outcome by the end of the day. Otherwise participants have the sense of being spectators only. Try to get to some conclusions, recognizing that they may not be conclusions. Didn’t really pick our brains.
§ Limited discussions during panels
§ Incentives discussion was disjointed.
§ Afternoon panels not structured enough - good ideas but wandered.
§ Not enough audience participation allowed
§ Too many questions, which left trickier ones insufficient time.
§ Environmental justice and tribal councils need to be involved.
§ Please list phone numbers and e-mail addresses on participant list to facilitate follow up discussions and interaction
§ More time for questions. Need more from the grassroots, local groups.
§ We need to come up with recommendations
§ Do have another one!
§ Summary or synthesis for each panel would have been useful. Major concepts and concerns or limitations of those concepts, approaches.
§ In most cases, too many panelists per issue.
§ Wonder what will occur from this dialogue?
Ratings: (1= don’t agree; 5 = strongly agree)
1. Panelists presented the range of viewpoints on the topic. = 4.2
2. Audience participation and dialogue was sufficient. = 3.5
3. Topics and questions were sufficiently discussed by panelists & audience. = 3.5
4. The objective of the Forum was met. = 3.9
“What changes to be made?” “Exploration only”
5. Sufficient time was provided for networking during breaks and lunch. = 4.5
6. I came away with a better understanding of other viewpoints on these topics. = 4.2
NEXT FORUM: Suggested topics and format
Topics:
§ Successful watershed efforts
§ Visioning - goals of watershed management
§ Define watershed management
§ Explain what entity should integrate the different facets
§ Should a committee be formed to set watershed management standards?
§ Turf boundaries between agencies, institutions
§ Need Feds in on these discussions too
§ Work on: 1) Defining watershed management; 2) State legislative session - what’s coming and how can we get ready (bonds and watershed legislation)?; 3) What role does education play in watershed management
§ Development of an action plan
§ Get state/fed agency answers to why they can’t / how they can do the things raised in this discussion - put them on the spot.
§ Define watershed management
§ State Principles
§ Exhibit and dialogue of what is happening out on the ground.
Format:
§ Can we get a broad view from smaller panels and get other views from the open mike? Maybe next time it could be scheduled for long discussion periods on fewer topics?
§ Get participants to generate some product, suggested action. Get the group to answer 3 key questions. You (Maria Rea select the topics) select the questions based on what you’ve heard over two Forums.