California Watershed Management Forums
Forum #2 - “Expectations of Governance”
November 15, 1999
FORUM #2 SUMMARY
Forum #2 Objective: “To explore the various expectations of state and local governance of watershed management programs, to identify the commonalities and principles among diverse interests, and to identify what changes need to be made to improve such governance.”
WELCOMING REMARKS - Dennis Pendleton, UC Davis
§ The first forum (9/1/99) heard from Resources Secretary Nichols on the State’s direction in watershed management. Its major focus was on what people are doing in other states: Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington.
§ The objective of this 2nd Forum is “to explore the various expectations of state and local governance of watershed management programs, to identify the commonalities and principles among diverse interests, and to identify what changes need to be made to improve such governance.”
§ There is potential value in getting together to talk about how we can make what happens on the ground work more effectively.
WHERE WE’VE COME, WHERE WE’RE GOING
State Government Overview - Maria Rea, California Resources Agency
§ With watershed management, we need to define what it is and what it is.
§ The State has done a fairly good job of that with watershed principles in various forms portraying its vision.
§ I think the reality of where we are in California will always be a great degree of diversity in our efforts and imperfect communication, but there’s a great deal we can learn from other states who have organized their watershed management activities.
§ About 5-7 years ago, two different tracks emerged: agency-driven management efforts with stakeholder advisors to solve large-scale problems (e.g., CAL/FED, Northwest Forest Plan); and grassroots, local watershed projects which are not agency led. I think they’re both necessary and both can learn from each other.
§ Conversation is difficult, partly because we don’t always have a common language, and also because we have not defined expectations of ourselves and each other.
§ This series of forums is the type of broad-based discussion that we need to have and to continue in order to build coalitions around watershed management.
§ One of the challenges is defining performance-based watershed management. How do we have joint expectations that make sure that the entrepreneurial, creative, grass-roots level is maintained? The public is going to increasingly demand results.
§ Statewide watershed legislation [AB 760], introduced by Assemblyman Dickerson and drafted by RCRC and the Sierra Nevada Alliance, is attempting a broad vision of what a statewide framework in California might look like. CAL/FED also has a watershed management program in draft form, with principles in it and overall direction for how a program, based on local efforts, would play out in the Central Valley (and also other areas of the state).
§ Rural counties and counties in general are taking more of a leadership role, which is really new and very welcome. Many are seeking to revitalize rural communities through watershed management. However, tensions between some counties and some local watershed groups exist and that dialogue needs to come out today in how those relationships might ideally take place or have needed flexibility for different parts of the state.
§ Two bonds [Prop. 12 & 13] are on the March ballot - the water bond and the parks bond - which together represent hundreds of millions of dollars for watershed management, going to and through a variety of different agencies, with the intent to deliver those dollars on the ground. If those bonds pass, it will certainly be challenging for the state agencies to gear up to deliver that money effectively, which is something the agencies are already starting to talk about.
§ Opportunities are available through FERC relicensing efforts to be more community-based.
§ Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) are being widely recognized for their ability to provide important leadership, deliver programs to landowners in many parts of the state, and playing a role for housing watershed coordinators.
§ I hear a lot of common interest in getting locally funded watershed coordinators out there and on the ground. People recognize the value of those coordinators getting new money, making it actually work, and providing feedback to agencies about their programs.
§ We have a new agenda on coastal salmon recovery with an integrated set of actions by different departments. More science-based conferences are going on, with academia increasingly seen as part of the discussion. Great watershed assessments are now beginning to come out.
§ Several barriers or issues need to be addressed to keep moving forward as quickly as we can.
§ #1 is Funding: not necessarily more funding, but making sure we do a better job of using the funding we have (e.g., RFPs that state programs put out are actually getting dollars to the ground in a way that’s useful). Making the state grant process more user-friendly is needed as well as getting information back on what the results are of these various efforts. We’ve got some good ways (e.g., ICE at UC Davis) and Oregon has a good documentation program. Without that kind of information, we will at some point see the funding dry up.
§ #2 is Science & Laws: continuing to work on the science, making sure that the data we’re collecting is important, useable, and available, continuing to get our laws to work together as much as we can (e.g., local watershed groups experiment to meet multiple laws).
§ #3 is Scale: we need to have a very sensible discussion on watershed scale because it’s a large state. People working within the range of scales from very small watersheds to large basins need to find some common way of discussing this that allows us to move forward and have a good discussion with each other.
§ 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 - Sari Sommarstrom, Watershed Management Council
§ I’m going to be intentionally provocative in my remarks this morning on local watershed groups, partly because the WMC likes to be thought-provoking and partly because I was once a coordinator for two local watershed groups.
§ California is as diverse as its citizenry and landscape in its approach and experience with cooperative, community-based watershed organizations.
§ While CRMPs began in California back in the 1960s, the present groundswell movement began in the 1980s and mushroomed in the 1990s. Reasons for forming these voluntary, collaborative efforts include need to repair a local stream, response to agency incentives (carrots and sticks), desire to avoid new regulations, and seeking an alternative to environmental “wars” in one’s backyard.
§ We Californians have a do-your-own-thing creative approach to naming groups. One cannot always tell from the name of a watershed group whether they are collaborative; you have to look at their by-laws, membership, and mission to determine who the decision-makers are and what they’re trying to do as a group.
§ Collaborative groups are composed of “unlikes” - stakeholders of different views and values. Groups of “likes” - stakeholders of similar persuasions - are also quite common, ranging in philosophy from environmental to private property rights advocates. Agencies also have advisory groups that seek diverse opinions from stakeholders. All tend to call themselves community-based, local watershed groups.
§ The scale of watershed size that local groups represent varies extremely, from 2,000 acres to over 1 million acres & 10 million people (Los Angeles / San Gabriel Watershed Council).
§ A continuum or spectrum is apparent for these ranges of membership diversity and watershed scale, but also for their organizational structure (formal to informal), longevity, and independence.
§ “Successes” among California’s local watershed groups are noted by their longevity, implementation of projects, improvement over the social or biological status quo conditions, and national awards. “Failures” - meaning the members had no desire to continue meeting as originally constructed - have also occurred in at least five major watershed collaborative efforts in the state.
§ Often instrumental as a catalyst for new groups are Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs). Their respected reputation by local landowners, their white hat role as a non-regulatory special district, and their access to NRCS technical assistance have all contributed to this success. On the other hand, RCD Boards tend to be seen as a group of landowners suspicious of and by environmentalists.
§ The Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) process, developed over 40 years ago, is used by at least 45 active groups in California. The process requires face-to-face communication, includes diverse viewpoints (though not all self-described CRMP groups do), uses common interests to find common solutions, and promotes consensus decision-making. On the down side, some CRMPs tend to be dominated by agencies in their composition which has created barriers to landowner involvement.
§ The proliferation of watershed groups in the state has created a desire for some type of umbrella organization that can serve all of the groups - something like the Massachusetts Watershed Coalition. So far, no one entity has stepped forward to perform this role, though the California CRMP Council serves a networking role for many.
§ The State Legislature has not officially enabled or endorsed local, collaborative watershed groups, unlike Oregon. Policies to support and encourage “community-based watershed efforts” are found in Governor Wilson’s Executive Order of 1997, while policies in the State Water Resources Control Board’s Watershed Management Initiative and the Watershed Protection and Restoration Council’s 1998 plan encourage “voluntary, collaborative decision-making at the local level that is open to all stakeholders”. The 1999 Watershed Principles adopted by the California Biodiversity Council only state “Community-based: Emphasize local initiatives and energy while acknowledging larger public trust interests. Do not employ a top-down approach.” These mixed or unclear signals from Sacramento can be seen as politically pragmatic in order to please everyone or as avoiding the more difficult task of establishing a process to help resolve local watershed conflicts.
§ In this policy void, local watershed groups in California have usually been self-declared as “cooperative” or “collaborative”, with accountability mainly to their members or funders.
§ While the State cannot delegate its regulatory or funding powers to local watershed groups, it is unclear what its intentions often are. A few years ago, State officials promoted the use of voluntarily developed watershed plans as a means to comply with state and federal laws, a concept which can seem like an oxymoron to some. Overlapping mandated with voluntary programs on these watershed groups will continue to be problematic. The benefits may not outweigh the risks if the tension and incompatibility can permanently damage an existing watershed group as an ongoing process.
§ An effective collaborative group has the means of providing a neutral town forum for airing concerns about the watershed, for holding field trips and workshops to do joint fact-finding, and for directly tackling nagging problems on-the-ground and in-the-stream that can remain in-the-abstract for those in Sacramento. The “power” of the local, diverse watershed group resides in the beneficial result of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts - where cumulative effect becomes good instead of bad - and where better watershed management practices become permanently and personally internalized because the people believe in them and want them to be so.
§ If the state and local expectation is for these groups to function permanently or in a long-term role, then some institutional support is required instead of the approach-avoidance behavior now seen. Being sustained on just leadership, volunteers, and irregular grants is not the way to meet this expectation. Collaborative efforts need a lot more care and feeding than other groups, but the rewards can be well worth it.
§ Clarity is needed in our definitions of such groups to improve our communication as well as our expectations of them. Oregon’s experience shows that its definition of “watershed council” has not “homogenized” their councils nor impeded their flexibility.
§ Finally, California shouldn’t be afraid of experimenting with policy to clarify our expectations of local watershed councils and then fine-tuning them as we learn from experience - as other states have done. But we need to prepare ourselves for what results due to the well-known state principle, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism”.
Audience Written Feedback:
§ 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.
PANEL ON ACCOUNTABILITY
Moderator: Laurel Ames, Sierra Nevada Alliance
Panel Members: Michael Bird (CDFG), Dennis Bowker (Napa County RCD), Bob Franzoia (Calif. Senate Appropriations Committee), Dianne Gaumer (Deer Creek Watershed Conservancy), Sarge Green (ACWA Watershed Working Group), John Ladd (SWRCB), and Prof. Jeff Mount (UCD Center for Integrated Watershed Science and Management).
§ Moderator: We have different kinds of ways of looking at accountability - use of funds, accomplishments, success. We don’t have a common understanding of what success means, a common set of protocols for watershed restoration, a common reporting mechanism, or a common understanding of each other’s perspectives.
§ Question #1: How do local watershed groups who receive public and private funding provide an accountability to their funders?
§ Our board makes a commitment to be accountable for the deliverables and the task itself: fiscal, physical and legal responsibility for the grant must be accepted.
§ We produce the product that we promised to produce from the grant.
§ In the contracting process, the product often becomes non-contextual relative to the local, state, regional, and federal needs and goals and desired outcomes are not described very well. The product for each task gets separated from those larger visions. We need better articulation of desired outcomes and then keep those paramount with the methods of reaching those options so that we can engender creativity instead of uniformity with chosen methods.
§ The state role (SWRCB) in putting out grant funds is one of devil’s advocate. After selecting projects for funding, the state and grantee go through a very testy process of contract negotiations. We need these details to be able to attain accountability and sustain an audit. The public expects us to do it, we are audited periodically, and it’s not a very pleasant process sometimes. Once agreed upon, the contracts move on with pretty good ease and we end up with products that we call successes. That might not be the best way, but that’s the way it is right now.
§ State agencies do have a responsibility to insure that these monies are spent appropriately. There is a tremendous degree of skepticism amongst the Legislature’s policy and fiscal committee staffs and at the Leg. Analyst’s Office (LAO) about what these projects will look like and how we’ll determine if our money has been spent successfully.
§ We’re ready to move into the pragmatic or measurable phase, where you get measurable results. ACWA want to get behind people who are ready to do the kinds of things that have tangible results (e.g., pounds taken out) for all of the citizens of California.
§ Let us not lose sight of the fact that restoration and experimentation are synonymous. We don’t know if there’s going to be some specific outcome for all of our efforts. As a scientist (& critic), I worry a great deal that we are too rigid and too inflexible in the way that we set up our contracts and grants so that we desire specifics that are simply not achievable. I’m an advocate for being more flexible and less rigid in this process of accountability.
§ We need measurements, quantification of qualitative items. Often we get the measurement in the place of that which is supposed to be measuring progress towards, which is a moving target. Instead of confusing accuracy with precision, we ought to opt for precision and give up the accuracy.
§ Audience comments:
§ The most important accountability for local groups is in their own community with the local landowners, the residents, and the taxpayers because they’re the ones that are saying what are you doing with my tax dollars. Every successful local group is extremely accountable in their own community - that’s a critical element.
§ A lot of accountability has to do with water quality performance. EPA grants have it built in, such as monitoring protocols, agency and voluntary water monitoring.
§ How should success be measured, because the state and entities giving money really do need some means of determining success or whether it was worth it.
§ How do agencies deal with this cumulative issue of outcomes?
§ Our local process stands on mutual fact finding. The state should provide more funding for local agency representatives because of their job description and because our agency people have helped us greatly to make sure that we are accountable.
§ Panel response: One of the issues that needs clearing up at this point is the validity or acceptance of the volunteer monitoring. Right now the greatest resistance to volunteer monitoring acceptance seems to be coming from the academic community, not the regulatory community, and I think that will change.
§ Question #2: How does the State measure accountability and performance in working with local watershed groups?
§ In DFG’s grant program, one direction is contract law and the second is funding law. The scope of work is probably the most important part of the contract in defining exactly what it is you’re trying to achieve. Contract oversight is where the rubber meets the road. DFG makes site visits to do technical guidance, evaluate performance based on the contract, and approve payments. Payment is made only after work has been completed, never before. This after completion payment give you the best way of handling accountability.
§ Audience comments:
§ We have been waiting for up to two years for actual funds to hit the ground, which has been very disruptive for the council. What can local watershed councils expect for accountability out of the State to speed this system up?
§ While DFG’s staff has done an incredible job over the years trying to figure out how to make this stuff work, we need to change what is currently an adversarial relationship where there is an assumed mistrust and where there are long timelines with a reimbursable system. You completely hamstring these groups from being able to develop that trust and relationship in their community from the very beginning. Cooperative agreements with federal agencies (e.g., BLM, USFS) allows for the advancement of funds so that we could have the ability to provide cash flow and respond to landowners’ needs immediately. Once you know a group is fiscally accountable, it is better to build a trusting relationship by providing advances so they can accomplish the job at the local level.
§ Panel response:
§ We [SWRCB] warned everyone that this [CAL/FED Delta Trib] isn’t a quick process. We just started with outreach training and communication with watershed groups. We realize there’s a problem but it’s not going to go away and we have to live within the regulations we have. The State under current law cannot provide up-front money. We can under the new water bond, if passed.
§ The watershed program is unique since it is very, very different than the traditional funding programs that the state has handled for sewage systems, etc. There is a fair degree of apprehension, and probably rightfully so, by the departments. They don’t want to have to come before the Legislature and explain problems. I think we’re going to have go slow to get there in terms of trust.
Question #3: How does the SWRCB measure success in terms of grants to the local watershed groups?
§ We’re still tying back to those contracts and whether they were completed on time, and within the dollar limit. Hopefully, there’s some positive reaction with the watershed in the short term after those projects are completed. We’d like to see some of the 303(d) impaired streams be dropped off the list due to success. There’s going to be a long-term response to a lot of these watersheds to actual improvement and it’s going to be awhile before we see those start popping up as true successes. I wish I had a better answer to that.
§ We’re going to make mistakes. We need to allow professional judgment and some flexibility in there. Misuse of funds need to be dealt with individually but the whole system shouldn’t be structurally changed like we have done to the welfare system; avoiding waste, fraud and abuse costs about 3 times as much as would have been wasted.
§
Question #4: Does ACWA think that there should be an independent evaluation of how well funds were spent, or whether the projects were a success?
§ One of the things that’s missing is a reliable comparison system. We’ve got a lot of value judgments going on right now as to the merits of one project over another. We need watershed groups in those watersheds that are not in as bad a shape to use as a benchmark for evaluating the condition of the rest of the watersheds. Once we have some kind of reliable system for comparing them, we should attack the high priority ones. It is not yet apparent to me that we have any kind of system to do that, to prioritize the watersheds that really need some attention now and get the best bang for the buck.
§ We don’t need another layer of government but one way we could evaluate the success of the funds would be to revisit a project so many years later as a part of the initial grant. Right now, there’s really no evaluation built into the original grant.
§ I agree with the need for defining what a watershed is and what we are trying to achieve with the work and dollars that we have available to us out there. That’s got to be the common framework , that everybody has to sign off or buy into in order to eventually produce a product. Then you have the ability to start measuring successes based on what it is you want to do, where you want to go, and how you want to achieve it.
Question #5: Dr. Mount, is there common ground between science and politics for accountability?
§ Science informs, guides, maybe even disciplines policy - there’s a feedback loop between science and policy. Everything we’ve discussed this morning is social science, not at all guided, as far as I can tell, by science. One of my deepest concerns is there’s just simply not enough science in watershed science or management these days. On the other hand, maybe we’re not ready for the science, that in fact the social structure of watershed management has to be worked out before science can be effectively integrated. At the university level, there’s a disciplinary disconnect and we often don’t communicate between disciplines. I think the same thing is going on in watershed management. As Prof. Sabatier points out, the politics of conflict in watershed management self-selects against people who don’t like conflict. And the university is still a long way from structuring that kind of research support to feed into what you guys need. Lastly, accountability is part of the feedback loop between science and policy and it flows both ways.
Question #6: For Bob Franzoia, when the agencies hand out this money and get the reports back or not, who are they accountable to?
§ Anyone who depends upon the General Fund is going to expect the Legislature to make sure that those monies were spend wisely. The Committee Chair keeps asking me how do I know that these projects are going to be around in 20 years? I’m not sure we can show that kind of permanence or benefits after 20 years for these sorts of projects. It’s going to lead to a higher level of scrutiny on the bond monies if the bonds are passed. We should not use this money to postpone regulatory reforms that are maybe the root of the watershed problems to begin with. - that’s a fair and realistic concern. There’s going to be a real push to get this bond money out the door, which puts a lot of pressure on the state agencies. To get funding success in the Legislature, you’ll need the issues to be concise and with some unanimity.
Audience Written Feedback:
§ 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.
§ Needed fewer questions or more time. Could have engaged audience for another hour- there is great interest in talking about accountability. Panelists listened to each other.
PANEL ON GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE AND FLEXIBILITY
Moderator: Martha Davis, Californians and the Land
Panel Members: Art Baggett (SWRCB), Catriona Black (California CRMP), Mary Ellen Dick (City of San Jose), Michael Wellborn (County of Orange), Supervisor Charles Willard ( Tehama County and RCRC Water Committee), and Sam Ziegler (USEPA).
Question #1: From your perspective, what do you think are the one or top two issues about what is working and what is not working with the present state policy and approach to the support of watershed efforts by local groups in California?
§ This is a socio-economic experiment - we’re looking at a whole new process. We need to allow for those failures that are going to happen. To facilitate that kind of governance, we need to maintain local control because local control is what’s going to bring about local involvement. When you have local involvement, programs get taken care of. If we together can set some goals, and then have the locals be able to choose how to implement them. Incentives and flexibility are ways to help.
§ One thing that’s working is that watersheds are the way to go. We’ve got to do this locally, people need buy-in or nothing is going to happen. What isn’t working well is that science is not the basis. The money is sitting out there for implementation and not for the basic assessment. Science needs to be the basis for implementation. Seat-of-the-pants analysis causes us to fight on how to make this work. The assessment helps people to really understand what the problem is rather than their definition of what they think the problem is.
§ State agency people are coming to our local watershed meetings, not because they’re told to, but because they want to do this stuff. We have really great people on the local level in the state agencies that really want to be involved and do some good work. It’s at the management level that this is going to hit the road. We need a lot of responsibility and credibility assigned to those experts out in the field so they have support all the way up to Sacramento. I don’t know if we really need the Legislature to micro-manage programs for the state by stepping into the watershed business, but we sure need their support.
§ I’m playing the devil’s advocate role. Yes, local participation and control and support is important and needs to be encouraged. It’s great that these groups are getting going and doing a lot of great work on the ground and getting local awareness. But part of the reason some of these groups started is because of a void that they perceived in how resources were being managed by government agencies. The discussion shouldn’t be entirely focused on the role of local groups, but should also include the role of the federal and state agencies in managing the resources responsibly in the first place.
§ One of the things working is a growing awareness of community based efforts and how together we can do a much better job overall in protecting the environment. Forces working against that effort include a lack of support for planning. I don’t see any funds earmarked for supporting local or community based planning processes. We need to look at ways to overcome the lack of support for planning and do it in a way that promotes implementation for communities that have plans in place. We need to back up to a larger statewide sense of how we are doing, being able to track implementation in the bigger picture with some credibility and some commonality among us and ask, how are we doing? How far have we gone, how much further do we need to go in 5, 10, 20 years?
§ Three things are working well: Calif. Biodiversity Council bringing people together, the Legislature and Governor showing significant leadership and foresight with the park and water bonds, and the SWRCB contracting process, which has been very creative recently. On the lacking side is a traditional lack of a comprehensive approach across agencies between the State Board and CAL/EPA and the Resources Agency and its agencies, but this is improving. The Board is trying to overcome that with new liaison positions with other agencies. Lack of planning funds is also a problem, as is the need for dollars for the contract part of the grants. We have less than 3% of the money to administer these contracts. You have to make sure that these funds are prudently spent and that takes people.
Question #2: As you look at the State, what’s your expectation out of the State? What’s the most important thing that should be done?
§ From the agency policy providers, we need to have policies that are scientifically based, and resource policies that provide standards for performance in the field. For agency staff, we need to have paid professionals with technical education and an understanding of the related policies and the data. From local government, we need planning staff and information on local economies. From local groups, we need the intimate knowledge of the local resources and conditions that are going to be affected by however we apply these standards and guidelines. Local groups need help from paid staff with time and money to go to these meetings.
§ She’s right on target. In some cases, staff volunteer their own time to show up. The State has the biggest budget and should be up front on this and it’s time for the State to step forward with direction to all the departments and be a part of this activity.
§ I agree with these two but would also like to add that we need help with protocols and models for our data. It’s time consuming but thoughtful input that we need from the regulatory agencies to craft protocols and models so that we can go forward and use them.
§ One of the real advantages on a state or federal level is the accumulation of information. I’d like to see the protocols you are referring to be extended on a standard basis and format so we can compare different watersheds. The informational clearinghouse and repository is the kind of areaI’d like to see the State commit to. Also, that they commit staff time and actually work.
§ We can do a lot better job with standards and protocols and a much better job in terms of providing technical assistance. I think the state nonpoint source policy, which is a three-tiered approach, is a really good one because it focuses on encouraging stewardship, but having that backed up with the use of enforcement authorities. Those authorities haven’t been used and I think to more effectively. This is controversial but I’ll throw that out for discussion.
§ It’s a really important issue. When we talk about structure of a watershed program, some people do have an expectation that it’s working within the existent context of enforcement or lack of enforcement. Some people have an expectation that the enforcement is going to be stronger. How do we approach designing a program that bounces between the two extremes?
§ Having EPA go forward and help the State do some enforcement will bring some people to the table who haven’t come to the table. But some of the regulatory tools, things like the 303(d) list, just keep on growing on pretty limited data and then TMDLs end up overriding everything else. Then staff doesn’t have the resources for these voluntary efforts if these focuses are going to be forced on us.
§ The TMDL front is definitely forcing coordination, but the challenge is, is it forcing it too fast? You really need a paid professional staff person at the local level. Maybe the direction has been given but the dollars haven’t been committed.
§ TMDLs are also creating a huge cost for just monitoring (e.g., $2 mil./year in Orange Co.) that isn’t fixing anything. We need to reexamine that issue.
§ Audience comment:
§ It’s really wonderful how a lot of the planning processes have moved into a watershed approach but we’re not doing that yet with the land use planning at the county or state levels. The General Plan process and zoning guidelines could be based on watershed principles.
§ Panel Response:
§ We are working on exactly that in Santa Clara County. All of the control for land use planning is at the local level so we’re going to have to be doing it.
§ Orange County cities are very independent spirits and our mantra there is ‘this is not land use planning’. You need to approach it differently in each area. We need that flexibility that’s so critical because a land use planning requirement would cause everybody to start shooting.
§ In small rural counties, the budget for land use planning is less than the budget for office maintenance. We need to secure the funding to allow watershed community based planning.
§ The Regional Water Quality Control Boards are the only watershed-based state agency. County lines create some interesting problems and, for better or worse, the TMDLs are going to start to force some coordination.
§ Is there anyone here who doesn’t think TMDLs are really land use planning? Okay, good.
Question #3: How diverse should the membership and decision-makers of the local watershed group be in order to qualify as a cooperative, collaborative and community-based group? Should groups be self-declared or should they have some official recognition from somebody?
§ Unless the government funds these groups, it doesn’t have any right to say who should be in the groups - that’s a basic tenet. But if the government wants to fund collaborative groups because they think they’re really good, then you get into the issue of defining them. It then becomes the funder’s role to define how collaborative they want the groups that they fund to be.
§ I agree. I think that everyone who’s interested should be allowed to come to the table under open meetings. The state should not pre-define what’s a legitimate group based on who is there. Watershed planning takes years and not having everyone there right away should not invalidate the work of the group that has stayed together.
§ EPA has the responsibility to promote as much diversity and involvement as possible but not to dictate it. That’s where the best solutions can come from, and you can implement or address the issues that you want to.
§ It’s got to be incredibly diverse. The only way it’s really going to work is at the local level. We don’t have enough regional board staff to police. You’ve got to have people you don’t want at the table and try to get to the bottom line, how do we protect water quality?
§ Audience Comment: I’d hate to see us establish a standard of 100% , with no one coming forward with another definition of what collaborative means, is really the standard. One person can torpedo an incredible project. We decided to allow a majority for agreement.
§ Panel Response:
§ Every group is going to define consensus and collaboration in their own way since these groups make their own rules. But if the state is going to be providing funding, they’re going to have their own definition of what’s collaborative so groups can be prepared when they come in for funding. It’s not a bad idea for agencies to ask themselves that question.
§ Definitional creep has come in. As the collaborative process has come about, the 100% definition has come in. Let’s move on with some real parameters to make decisions and not be simply a debating society.
§ It’s never going to be 100%, but you need a majority of the private landowners involved.
§ Audience Comment & Question: I think we all agree that local leadership is vital to make things happen. But when I look at California, the one thing we do not have is an assisted system that addresses and helps the private landowner. Local government is ham-strung to where they can’t really come up with much money. How do we move to that next step where we get some real assistance out there rather than throwing money at grants with rules and regulations on it?
§ Panel Response:
§ In the Santa Clara Basin, the City of San Jose puts up money for participation grants so individuals can come to our meetings and participate. However, we don’t really want to be buying the participants. Measurable outcomes are difficult to measure.
§ I really agree with the comment. There’s too many strings attached to state funding because there isn’t the money to do the types of things that you need to really spend the money on. We need to get the Clean Water Act reauthorized so there’s good federal statutes in place consistent with what we’re doing at a local level.
§ Audience Comment & Question: I’d like to hear discussion about organizational structure on a statewide basis. The three states we heard from decided to apply a somewhat consistent and formal organization structure across their state to accomplish watershed management. We haven’t done that in California and I don’t see any movement in that direction right now, other than one proposed bill. Will California eventually accomplish our mission in this great social experiment of local watershed management with that kind of an organizational structure?
§ Panel Response:
§ I certainly wouldn’t propose we put together a whole new organization or watershed bureaucracy to manage watersheds. The closest we’ve got is the Regional Board coordinators. Looking at different regulatory models of other states and countries with Winston Hickox, we found incredible diversity. The politics of community is night and day in different areas of California so it would be very hard to set up a government structure this way. I think we need to encourage more partnering with the private sector.
§ Oregon is an example of a statewide structure in a pretty diverse state. It has successful watershed groups in very urban Tualatin watershed outside of Portland and also in eastern rural Owyhee watershed, within the structure that they’ve set up. The structure itself doesn’t preclude the diversity of groups needed in California’s diverse environment. I think it is possible to come up with a statewide structure if we’re relying on local groups to do the resource management. We want it to come from the ground up, so it wouldn’t hurt for us to provide a structure for them to function within or at least rely on when they are looking for funding or agency participation. Nobody wants to make a stand and take a chance and make a proposal for what that structure might look like.
§ In fairness, I think Assemblyman Dickerson has tried to do that.
§ I think we need more people who are willing to stand up and kind of take a risk because there are different models out there.
§ Audience Comments:
§ I think what’s really missing is our information transfer. I don’t think it’s about structure, it’s about management. It’s about the way we gather, store, use and exchange information. It’s about talking with each other. It’s time to talk our way and information exchange our way out of that rut into a different way of doing things.
§ Can we move in that direction? Information is power. How do we get across turf boundaries (between private & public and between public agencies)? That’s a good topic for another afternoon.
§ Panelist: I think making the improvement - the use of information - fits well with suggestions I’ve made about enforcement and things the agencies need to do.
§ You have an existing government structure that is a hodgepodge. While it produces lots of potential innovation, it also produces substantial costs (e.g., nonstandardized information across programs, etc.). If you want to get state money, then there needs to be these reporting requirements, which can be flexible enough not to tick off the locals. If you find some deficiencies in the existing government structure, then you need to propose some solutions. Let’s hope somebody comes out there and proposes something and then we shoot at it.
§ Responses to the Dickerson bill were a full range. We’re hearing that folks at the local level are being successful in their watershed, just want the money, and don’t want any governance, go away, just give us the money. New groups want the money, and some guidance. Statewide level folks representing various groups are investing in this thing and want more governance. Accountability plays into the governance thing. There’s a general unawareness of the neat things going on in watershed efforts and people are not going to trust the current governance system or where their money is going unless we can demonstrate those things. We need a structure to move regular funding to the ground.
Question #4: Giver me your top one or two recommendations about how the state can be creative and flexible, yet consistent and effective, in support of watershed efforts?
§ Do data standards, tell us how to transfer our data from its current form into the form you want. Go for good basic science. Take TMDL money and have State and Regional boards work with local watershed groups to provide local watershed-based solution, so that you’re bringing the funding to do it and you can dole it out.
§ I’d like to see one RWQCB and one DFG staff person making the call on allocating funds for regional projects - at the regional level, not a lot of committees all the way up the ladder. Get away from the old programmatic concept of staying in our own little boxes because watershed integrates a lot of those issues outside of those boxes. We’ve got to get away from the kind of grant applications that 319s and 205s seem to perpetuate. How about 6 open-ended questions, like - what are you going to do with the money?
§ What do we need to do in terms of consistent agency support that allows for flexibility on the ground level? The key thing is executive agency level support for paid funded staff at the local level to participate in these groups. If we want agency viewpoints, then we need to pay them to be there. Agencies need to provide good, scientific policies and standards and essentially safeguards for the plans coming out of the local groups. That allows the state to ensure that the flexible local process is going to produce beneficial environmental effects, or at least benign environmental effects.
§ Establish a statewide recording process so we could really track implementation and report on it based on environmental conditions on a regular basis in a report produced by the state, say every 2 years. We can set up performance phase goals and get people to focus on the values we’re trying to protect rather than different statutes and different acronyms.
§ Regional boards are where the action is. We need more staff for support, especially to help with grant application process. We also need more DFG people. We need to establish baselines, as we don’t have them. The challenge is going to be in the scientific standards. Lastly, we need better education of the public so they can understand that the watershed is such a beautiful mechanism to fit all these issues into. We need a catch phrase.
Audience Written Feedback:
§ 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.
§ Turf issues exposed. Obvious that this subject could take several hours. Not clear that anyone has a clear idea.
PANEL ON INCENTIVES
Moderator: Dennis Pendleton, UC Davis
Panel Members: Gene Brown (DWR), Conner Everts (Southern California Watershed Alliance), Pam Giacomini (rancher & Calif. Farm Bureau), Dennis Heiman (RWQCB-Central Valley), Sungnome Madrone (Redwood Community Action Agency), and Gary Nakamura (UC Cooperative Extension), David Yardas (Environmental Defense Fund)
Question #1: What do you think are the most critical issues regarding incentives?
§ Private landowners need to have an understanding of the nature and scope of the issues and opportunities that they confront in a watershed and what part of that they have, so they know what’s in it for them. Without that kind of understanding, they’re not going to rise to the bait of either grants or tax incentives or anything else. What kinds of incentive will work depends on what you’re trying to influence (e.g., land use vs. management practices). If you don’t express clear goals as to what you’re trying to accomplish with watershed management, what you’re going to end up dealing with is everybody’s worst fears of what that means.
§ I would prefer that we eliminate disincentives. We need those landowners involved. While maybe some regulation and the threat of a hammer has gotten folks kind of to the table to start them in the process, it’s also a disincentive from keeping use from going forward and doing more. Our local watershed group doesn’t want any money and we’re using our own resources and the resources of the university because we have a good trust level with them. But we don’t want a disincentive. We want to continue doing a good job and be there for four more generations.
§ Disincentives is what it’s really all about. If we wanted to bring a new business into the community, we’d give them incentives because we think it’s a benefit for jobs and the economy. Why can’t we look at watershed restoration as an emerging industry that can create a lot of jobs for people in our communities improving self-worth? We need to identify what incentives might be able to be created to unleash that incredible stewardship potential that we have in our ranchers, logging community, in our land ethic. Taxes are a major category for most landowners, such as tax write-offs. We’re organizing a California Conservation Incentive Summit for Fall 2000. State Senator Wes Chesbro from the North Coast is chair of the Revenue and Taxation Committee and is committed to carrying legislation forward this year to get some incentives on the books.
§ In Southern California, incentives mean making the connection between availability of water and development. Instead of using the water saved from conservation for more development, that water should go back into the environment. It also means integrating agencies with watershed issues that are now done individually (e.g., storm drains, wastewater, water supply and water demand). We’re going to see the restoration of steelhead and salmon in our rivers. Our incentive is to work on incentives like state watershed legislation, the water bond, and parks bond and work together in northern and southern California to get the bonds passed in the election.
§ The really interesting part of this puzzle is where regulation and incentives or financial structures come together. I see them as different sides of the same coin. Markets don’t work without sideboards, which are certain structures and rules. You need some kind of structure. EDF has spent quite a bit of effort trying to address some of the disincentives of the Endangered Species Act, where land managers can get hammered if they manage their land as a refuge. Alternatives to that are needed to internalize the incentives to do the right thing. Incentives are fundamental,, whether they be in direct payments or other forms.
§ Floodplain management by itself is a very coordinated and comprehensive program. It is not just an insurance type of program. Ultimately, DWR is hoping we can integrate all of these various levels of regulation into something of a more cohesive plan. Right now the 8 various agencies have their individual programs, but broad planning will require extensive communication, coordination, cooperation - all those good Cs among all the levels of government and the private sector. We’ve added a flood plain management appendix to the state General Plan Guidelines, an effort that took us about 15-20 years to accomplish. We’re developing an economic framework for evaluating benefits and costs, and also training materials to be able to present the strategies that are developed to local agencies.
§ How do we get more people involved in local watershed program efforts? Now we’re still reaching a very small percentage of the local community, a pretty select group. #1 is issue of local empowerment: for people to participate, they’re going to have to feel their efforts are of some value. #2, the obvious carrot is funding since many landowners don’t have the capability of doing projects on their own. #3 issue is permit relief or an expedited permit process for projects benefitting the environment.
§ Audience Comment: The whole structure of today is backwards. We should have started with what are the clear goals of watershed management & restoration, then we can talk about how to get there. What do we mean by watershed management, and what are the goals that all of us can agree to in terms of what we want to see accomplished?
§ I don’t know if you can define the goals in a general sense since it depends on who you are and where you’re coming from.
§ Audience Comment: Watershed management means integrating all of these various goals that cut across agencies, media, programs and the whole idea is getting all of those stakeholders around the table so that you can come up with a comprehensive, unified program where all of those concerns and interests are taken into consideration. Not just water quality or just fish.
§ It’s been a long slow process for us in Southern California to look at resource management issues on a broader scale. Most groups say if you’re going to bring us money, we’re interested but otherwise they feel they’re doing what they’re supposed to do. We were asked at a BDAC meeting, what is a watershed, and also what is a legitimate watershed organization?
§ I agree strongly but there are two categories. There are those areas that we don’t know about yet, we don’t have agreement on, and we need to work on those things. The other things are very straightforward, like the issue of keeping soil on the slope. There are some incentives that we know will get right at some of the things that are very clear to most people and we ought to get on with that.
§ We often try to focus on solutions we have in mind instead of clarifying what we’re trying to do and why we’re trying to do it. It would help to reiterate every time you get together why we’re here and what we’re doing specifically. Ex.: Save farms, save soil, save fish, save communities.
§ My watershed council makes the point of reading our mission statement at just about every stakeholder meeting to remind people of those bigger, broader goals that we have.
§ We adopted a vision of what we would like the watershed to look like in 20,30 years from now because we couldn’t agree on what watershed management meant, but we could agree on what we wanted it to look like in the future. And now that has become kind of like our Bible. Looking at the issues statewide, what do we want for our watersheds 50 years from now, 20 years from now? And that should be how this group designs our action plan.
§ A myriad of different state and federal programs provide technical and financial assistance, but most are not understood at the local level. DWR is pulling this information together into a database as a source of incentives.
§ When we’re trying to do positive things, it shouldn’t be 45 hoops to jump through. We need a more streamlined process.
§ Disincentives are the problem. We’re not crediting the folks who have done a good job at stewardship but penalizing them.
§ A lot of landowners are doing good thing out there but they’re not going to tell anybody about it.
§ There’s an externality problem that doesn’t give us a full picture. If the perceived cost is greater that the perceived benefit, people will act accordingly.
§ Tax codes can be barriers. Fixing up your road is a capital improvement, so the expenses can’t be written off until you sell the land but most want to keep their land for their family all their lives. But a bad steward who doesn’t storm proof his road gets a tax break under “maintenance expense” to restore a road that washes out. That’s a disincentive.
§ I think any watershed management program is going to be more successful with a close working relationship between landowners and agencies, even though we may start out with a big distrust in each other.
§ My concern or fear is that the system is built to break at the weakest link whenever a regulation is in black and white. Although I might be able to work fine with one agency person, when he leaves his replacement may have a different set of principles than I do, and that’s when the system breaks down.
§ Ultimately I think we’re talking about the same thing across the state. We need to celebrate the successes we’ve had in overcoming the legal, social, and institutional obstacles to implementing watershed management. I think we can show some of the successes are equal on any grounds.
§ There’s a lot of public lands in the area that I work in and because of the inability to carry out good stewardship on the private lands, it puts a lot more pressure on the public lands. It’s really a question of what sort of help one is looking for and what’s palatable.
§