California Watershed Management Forums
FORUM #3 FEEDBACK
Number of Responses = 6 (out of 52 participants)
OVERVIEW FEEDBACK
§ Good, especially report by Maria Rea
SESSION TOPIC #1 – PRINCIPLES
§ It was difficult to understand what was being asked for and how it will be used. There was clarification and good discussion ensued
§ Valuable discussions which should be fleshed out to synthesize
§ Much work needed to define this area.
§ Potentially useful for a number of purposes, as explained by Martha Turner. Two items of note: 1) watershed groups need organizational skills building; 2) government should apply to itself the watershed protection standards it applies to others (“no double standards!”).
§ Not organized in a manner that elicited a forward-looking conversation. Not clear whether we were supposed to pull out our favorites or what; final result looked like it came together.
SESSION TOPIC #2 – DEFINITIONS & SCALES
§ Needed more time to discuss each issue separately
§ Scale should be part of all definitions, i.e., Watershed definition not necessarily consistent with watershed group definition
§ Adequate session and again the broad perspective makes it hard to define
§ Somewhat academic exercise, and ran out of time in discussion of “watershed councils” in Oregon law. Focus should be whatever management area is appropriate for the voluntary association of affected parties. Natural and historical circumstances make each area unique.
§ God discussion about definitions which was interesting and helpful and should give guidance. Final result looks good.
SESSION TOPIC #3: ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
§ Good discussion and it appeared to be real diverse discussion
§ Huge topic. Could be a whole day brainstorming. Need paradigm shift from regulation to incentive.
§ Need state framework for scientific (neutral and uniform) assessment. “Governance” is not the right term. “Organization” or “association” might be better, to be defined by legislative drafting.
§ Built on previous 2 conversations – was helpful. Saw the group rise to the challenge of thinking in a bigger picture. Conversation focused a lot on accountability for both agency and local watershed group.
SESSION TOPIC #4: INTEGRATION OF WATERSHED APPROACHES
§ Good discussion of local integration and regional scale integration. Some good new ideas that need to be explored more.
§ Coordination needs to provide assistance as much as coordination. NGO needs a strong role for group that may not fit definition of watershed group but has valuable role.
§ A good focus on local government side of the watershed program
§ Good facilitation by Dennis Pendleton and Mary Madison! Best discussion involved expanding role of SWRCB coordination. They are internal now – but could become more external with dollars and contracted employees or consultants to assist coordination involving local watershed groups. “Coordination” is better term than “integration”.
§ Integration / coordination – good follow-up on governance and accountability - built on that. Developed a number of integration ideas.
OVERALL FORUM EVALUATION
§ This format was much more helpful in getting lots of good discussion from everyone about the issues. Also, this is a good way to get everyone’s perspective and input from all participants.
§ Good format, but I am interested in seeing the results of assimilation of the information acquired.
§ Good groupings – good topics. Lots of ideas.
§ The 4 topics were well designed and there was a commonality across them. The broad perspective illustrating the issues is educational and a good mix.
§ I have been to 4 all day meetings for the past 4 work days. I would choose this one as the single meeting if I only went to one. Well done.
§ Good. Useful and productive. Great networking opportunities. I get sense that California should modify the Oregon model and make it a little more flexible due to California diversity.
§ Smaller group was good for breakout groups. Would have been hard with more people. The overall result looks very good. The group staying together for the day had an interesting dynamic: we learned each other’s issues and were able to build off that as the day progressed.
1. Was the Forum worthwhile? On a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high), rate its value: Ave. rating=4.5
§ Well organized – all small group leaders were good.
2. What were the highlights?
§ Discussion – from various organizations, agencies
§ Good mix of perspectives
§ Participants were so good
§ Governance and Accountability. Presentations at end were good. “Mishearing words” at beginning were fun!
3. What didn’t work?
§ Time for topics
§ Too many meetings with a “foundation building” process. Need NMFS and a few additional landowner types.
§ Focus drifted sometimes
4. What should be done differently next time?
§ Keep up the good work – This is needed to carry the working , decision-making process at the watershed level
§ Keep focus on developing a framework statewide
§ Get Intro to focus on topic
Rate the following (1 = don’t agree to 5= highly agree):
1. Sufficient time was provided for session topics. = 3.2
2. Sufficient time was provided for feedback and discussion by participants = 4.0
3. Sufficient time was provided for networking during breaks and lunch = 4.5
4. I came away with new ideas that might be worth trying = 4.0
5. I feel that we found significant areas of agreement among the participants today = 4.2
SUGGESTIONS FOR FORUM #4:
§ Spend the time on what and how the 3 previous forums provided information and how a plan can be developed
§ Assessments / Strategies / Governance and Coordination of watershed groups / Watershed Infrastructure / All-Party Monitoring / Restoration potential
§ Examples of scale: i.e., a watershed group 5 min. presentation; Local gov’t; Resources Agency “blueprint” plan, and federal value of local, state efforts (such as 4D, funding, etc.)
§ Could use a forum entitled “Legislative Initiatives – Oregon Model”. I would like to see more focus on adopting Oregon model to California, and to expanding role of coordination of SWRCB as the statewide agency leader. We need to translate the academic-type discussions into concrete proposals to put more qualified people into the field, to assist local groups as more funding becomes available. Can also see where federal role would fit as well as local government.