2005 California Watershed Forum
Building a Statewide Watershed Program CalEPA Building Welcome and Introduction At 8:29 a.m., Mr. Michael Wellborn, California Watershed Network, called the 2005 California Watershed Forum and welcomed all participants. He noted the outcome of this meeting will be a report that spreads the message of watershed restoration to the administration, legislators, and key organizations around the state. Mr. Wellborn thanked the organizations sponsoring the forum, the guest speakers, volunteers, and staff from the California Watershed Network (CWN) and the Salmonid Restoration Federation for arranging this event. He said the work done in past watershed forums has resulted in action plans and momentum going forward, and he encouraged meeting participants to think about ways to promote collaboration and voluntary local partnerships to work with state agencies. Mr. Wellborn reviewed the proposed agenda. He said speakers will give their remarks and then take questions from audience members, so there will be opportunities for exchanging ideas and information. He noted Dr. A. L. Riley will summarize the key points at the end of the session to identify next steps. California Watersheds: View from Governor Schwarzenegger’s Administration Mr. Wellborn introduced Mr. Terry Tamminen, Cabinet Secretary, and invited him to discuss the administration’s perspectives on watershed management. Mr. Tamminen expressed his appreciation and encouragement to the people and organizations throughout the state that have been working to protect California’s watersheds, and he noted California’s laws reflect many of those values. He urged the people at the forum to find better ways to repair and live within their local watersheds. Mr. Tamminen commented that if the U.S. has a colony on Mars in twenty years, as President Bush has envisioned, the colony could not be planned in a way that requires water and other vital resources to be transported long distances to where people live and work. He advocated a “watershed approach” to restoration, recognizing that attention must be paid to both ends of the funnel, both upstream and downstream. Mr. Tamminen cited the Hopi Indians as an example of a society that has lived well within its environmental constraints for hundreds of years. In contrast, he described the people of Easter Island, who consumed all of their natural resources and suffered a dramatic population decline in only a few hundred years. Mr. Tamminen observed that California appears to be following the example of Easter Island rather than the Hopis. He noted populations of indicator species like salmon are down to less than 5 percent of their historical levels, the ecosystem has been destroyed, the ocean has been polluted, streams and rivers have been dammed, and much of the land has been paved over. Mr. Tamminen expressed his opinion that there are three key ingredients to effective watershed restoration in the future: 1) water self-sufficiency; 2) involvement of stakeholder organizations; and 3) adequate funding. He observed that grassroots environmental efforts take compromise and sacrifice, understanding others’ values, and great perseverance. He urged audience members to become missionaries to the rest of California. Mr. Tamminen suggested that individuals ask what they can do and work to recruit more to the cause. He concluded by saying that everyone can be of service, and each person’s efforts can make a difference. Watershed Restoration in California: Program and Policy History Ms. Cathy Bleier, California Resources Agency, gave a brief overview of recent watershed program and policy history in California. She referred to her paper, “State Watershed Protection: A Review of Policy and Program History, Activities and Continuing Needs,” and its appendices for more details. Ms. Bleier noted that in 1997, Governor Wilson issued an executive order establishing a cabinet-level Watershed Protection and Restoration Council to coordinate state watershed activities. The Council developed an implementation plan calling for watershed assessments, coordination of government policies and programs, technical assistance, regulatory coordination, and information management and sharing. Ms. Bleier said adoption of the Wayne Bill in 2000 required the secretary of the Resources Agency and the State Water Resources Control Board to looking at existing collaborative mechanisms and explore ways of streamlining and improving watershed management. She referred to the report in Appendix 1 detailing their 18 recommendations. Ms. Bleier stated that the watershed management forums held between 1999 and 2000 helped establish consensus on the need for statewide watershed management principles, watershed assessments, state and local accountability, and partnerships. She drew attention to the report, included as Appendix 2. Ms. Bleier noted that with approval of Propositions 40 and 50, and AB 2534, calling for integrated watershed management, 12 state agencies and 8 federal agencies entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) clarifying roles and responsibilities, partnering, technical assistance, financing, and program management. She said the Bay Delta Authority became the primary framework for continued implementation of this program. From 2002 to 2003, Ms. Bleier indicated, state agencies came together to develop a strategic plan with four goals: 1) state agency coordination and collaboration, 2) demonstrating watershed health, 3) collective investment, and 4) local involvement. In 2003, the Resources Agency and CalEPA established an interagency MOU that established the California Watershed Council to provide the required stakeholder advisory process. This partnership created four work groups to address: 1) funding and economics, 2) integrated resource planning, 3) data and information sharing, and 4) outreach, education, and capacity building. Ms. Bleier said these two “plans” successfully converged on several activities, including improving the contracting process, providing early input to agencies on the grant program, development of an information needs survey, design and implementation of the state’s Watershed Portal, and development of a white paper on how groups can work more effectively together to integrate watersheds, land and water use planning, and management. Ms. Bleier observed that certain common themes and areas of consensus emerged, including the need for continued coordination of state programs, the need for long-term reliable funding, the importance of technical assistance, getting scientific information and monitoring in place, and sharing information with others. Stakeholders expressed concern about the lack of a clarity in terms of definition of watersheds, roles and responsibilities, and relationships among various programs; finding a reliable funding source; the difficulty of providing technical assistance and capacity-building support; and addressing issues at the top of the watershed in addition to the bottom. Ms. Bleier concluded by emphasizing the importance of reliable funding, agencies and groups working together, collaborations and partnerships, and a long-term commitment to watershed restoration. Working at the Local Level: Perspectives from Local Watershed Organizations Mr. Sam Ziegler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), introduced the panelists and invited them to make a few remarks before engaging in a discussion. Mr. Chris Coburn, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, explained that his organization has been assisting local groups with capacity building. He said the Sanctuary has found that a top-down approach is ineffective; he advocated a bottom-up, stakeholder-driven approach instead. Ms. Joan Hartman, California Watershed Network, suggested that watershed organizations think in terms of how they will look five years from now. She noted that nonprofit organizations hold a special place in our culture because they tend to fill gaps left by government programs. Independent of both the government and the private sector, nonprofits play an important role in educating the public, advocating for sound policies, and litigating to protect watersheds when necessary. Ms. Hartman observed that nonprofits engage in helpful activities such as charitable land stewardship, research and information dissemination, convening and coordinating and planning, volunteer monitoring, working with landowners, and hands-on restoration activities. Ms. Hartman noted the government’s role is changing as well. Rather than focusing only on command and control functions, government agencies are beginning to facilitate restoration activities and assist local organizations with site-specific solutions to programs. Ms. Hartman said she looks forward to more decisions being made democratically by the people they affect. Mr. Josh Israel, Salmonid Restoration Federation, said his organization works on educational, advocacy, and collaborative programs to restore salmon and steelhead populations. He emphasized the need for planning and programming, and recommended that watershed organizations work with fishery and stewardship programs in a ground-up approach to restoration. In terms of education and outreach, Mr. Israel suggested identifying groups of citizens and working with landowners to develop watershed management plans. He acknowledged the need to develop better metrics to track progress toward goals. He cited the example of a Central Valley program with a goal of double production of salmon within a specified time period. Finally, Mr. Israel talked about the need for greater transparency in grant programs and requests for proposals (RFP’s). He recommended that all application and bid materials be made available for public review on an accessible Website. He noted an alternative would be to establish citizen advisory committees for all grant programs. Mr. Chris Larson, Mattole Restoration Council, said the Mattole River restoration effort started 25 years ago with hands-on restoration of wild salmon. The program expanded to include in-stream habitat, and has now broadened to consideration of land use watershed issues. Mr. Larson stated that he would like to see the state use watersheds as an organizing principle. He noted local groups can address local problems more efficiently than state and federal agencies. Mr. Larson advocated better integration of water supply and land use issues in an overall watershed restoration framework. He recognized that state bonds have limitations, but going to the people can be an effective way to obtain funding for programs they consider important. He suggested looking at some of the mechanisms the education community has used to provide more stable funding for education, and applying those same techniques to watershed restoration funding. Mr. Jan Lowrey, Cache Creek Conservancy, commented that California already has a statutory framework, the CalFed watershed program and accountability in place, coordination, and a funding process. He recommended focusing on sending a unified message to the Governor and Legislature that the work has been done and all these pieces are in place, and what is needed now is a legislative commitment. Mr. Ziegler asked panelists to talk about how state programs can assist grassroots movements and keep them vibrant. Mr. Lowrey responded that the biggest needs are money and consistency. Mr. Coburn agreed, and said funding programs need to be flexible and appropriate for local organizations. Mr. Israel recommended streamlining the permitting process. Ms. Hartman expressed her opinion that the government should provide guidance, funding, and technical assistance. In terms of structure, she said regional organization is the key, and she emphasized the need to provide science and context for the work being done. Ms. Hartman advocated dividing the state into about ten regions, with regional agencies assigned to create partnerships and provide training. She noted New Zealand has organized its political districts based on watersheds. Mr. Lowrey cited the Bay Delta Authority as an example of a successful regional partnership. Ms. Hartman said regionalism can provide a better sense of priorities and consensus. Mr. Ziegler commented that a regional board structure is already in place for water quality. Mr. Larson noted there are nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards, and many are engaged in voluntary projects with landowners. He added that the state would be more effective if private landowners can be recognized for their voluntary efforts. Mr. Lowrey agreed, and recommended developing a system of incentives for landowners. Mr. Larson commented that California is becoming very urbanized, and local organizations should work with land trusts to protect private land from rural-residential sprawl. Mr. Ziegler invited questions from audience members. Mr. John Mills, Columbia, noted that many of these same issues were mentioned in the state water plan, and California already has many regions established, although land use and planning boundaries are not always well defined. He cautioned that land-based regionalism may undermine efforts to encourage greater statewide integration and planning. Mr. Mills asked how watershed regions would be established and coordinated. Ms. Hartman said the boundaries do not matter as much as long as the regions are defined and efforts proceed. She noted problems differ by region, and local organizations need to be involved in planning activities and programs. She urged people to find issues to work on that will result in immediate successes rather than waiting for others to develop plans. Ms. Hartman added that the important thing is just starting, and progress will be made. Mr. Mike Jackson, Quincy, commented that 50 percent of the land in California is owned by federal agencies, but they do not provide 50 percent of watershed restoration funding. He asked whether watershed organizations felt the federal management approach was being implemented consistently. Mr. Lowrey responded that the federal government is an active partner with the Cache Creek Conservancy. He said projects are funded mostly by state funds, with some federal contributions. He added that in his area, the federal government and private landowners are working together to address source protection issues. Mr. Coburn commented that federal agencies are also participants in Central Coast projects, but they do not provide 50 percent of the funding. Ms. Hartman noted the U.S. Forest Service, Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. EPA are at the table and can help facilitate projects, but increased federal funding is unlikely. Mr. Larson said 12 percent of the watershed in the Mattole area is managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and they have been a strong partner in restoration efforts, much further ahead of local organizations. Mr. Israel observed that federal agencies embraced the watershed approach much earlier than state agencies. He added that the Salmonid Restoration Federation actively works with federal agencies. Mr. David Keller, Friends of Eel River, noted that California has a long history of moving water from one place to another. He asked panelists to describe how success would look in 150 years. Mr. Lowrey said that within fifty years, he would like to have a functioning watershed forum and a plan for addressing species, erosion, water quality, and other issues. Mr. Coburn stated that he would hope for an engaged community, public understanding of watershed concepts, streamlined implementation and effective use of resources, and trust among local, state, and federal organizations. Ms. Hartman advocated sustainability, and starting immediately. She noted Orange County developed a “green” map showing areas of open space, publicly owned land, and privately owned land. She suggested developing this kind of objective standard as a baseline to put restoration efforts in a realistic context. Ms. Hartman recommended bottom-up and regional collaborations. Mr. Larson said that his organization’s long-term vision is healthy and self-sustaining salmon populations, a goal that can be achieved through a healthy natural-resources-based local economy. He emphasized the importance of recognizing landowners and valuing the resources they contribute. For the state, Mr. Larson expressed his opinion that local water self-sufficiency should be a goal. He advocated a network of local watershed organizations working on their own areas, and citizens having a better understanding of the importance of watersheds. Mr. Israel agreed, and observed that educated citizens are the best classrooms to demonstrate the importance of healthy watersheds. Ms. Juliet Christian-Smith, UC Berkeley, emphasized the need to dovetail watershed restoration efforts with local planning and land use issues. She noted inter-basin water transfers and setting up land trusts are expensive. She recommended requiring county general plans to address watershed issues. Mr. Larson agreed, and said mandating a water element in county general plans would be a good start. He noted Californians should not have to buy water rights from private owners. He suggested thinking more in terms of water catchment systems to control runoff and save more water. Ms. Hartman observed that revising general plans takes money. She suggested that watershed organizations work with local governments to get the funds to address watershed issues. She added that local agencies already have legal authority, but they need a process and tools, such as accurate maps of rivers and wetlands. Mr. Lowrey advocated building partnerships between local organizations and local businesses. He added that this will entail an educational process and a change in perspective, but helping source protection and enlisting agriculture as a partner benefits everyone. Mr. Lowrey observed that California has a framework, a program, accountability, coordination, and funding processes. He said what is needed now is a consolidated message for the Capitol. Mr. Coburn emphasized the importance of giving credit and recognition to private landowners for their efforts. He advocated bioeconomic solutions, better reporting requirements, and grassroots involvement in planning. Ms. Hartman added that water sustainability should be the ultimate goal, going beyond watershed restoration. Mr. Ziegler thanked panelists and participants, and a short recess was taken. The Big Picture: How the State Could Envision a Watershed Program for California Mr. Wellborn invited former State Senator Bill Craven, Senate Natural Resources & Water Committee Principal, to discuss the statewide perspective. Mr. Craven introduced the panelists and asked each to make a few introductory remarks. Mr. F. T. Butch Hodgkins, Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, said he has been working on Sacramento River watershed programs for the past ten years, functioning as a liaison between local organizations, state agencies, and federal agencies, and usually focusing on water quality. He remarked that the first panel did an outstanding job pointing out the potential benefits of citizen stewardship, and he expressed his opinion that community-based efforts are the state’s best hope for long-term improvement. Mr. Hodgkins noted many watershed organizations are reliant now on state and federal agencies for funding. He urged agencies to do a better job enunciating the goals they want local organizations to achieve. Mr. John Lowrie, California Bay-Delta Authority, advocated watershed management at a local rather than state level. He noted the goal of land and water use planning and activities should be to improve watershed management and provide long-term sustainability. Mr. Lowrie said the state should do a better job articulating its interest in particular watershed partnerships between state and federal agencies and local organizations. He stated that managing effectively depends on sharing a common vision. He added that what the state can do is nurture communities and provide better information and science to guide restoration activities. Mr. Patrick Wright, California Resources Agency, noted that California has made a tremendous effort already, with a number of plans, legislation in place, MOU’s for better coordination, funding, and technical assistance. He said the watershed community needs to be better organized, and he suggested that participants focus on ways of bringing organizations together. Mr. Wright added that the best model is a regional approach, with stakeholders and agencies working together, and he noted broad-based community and agency support are required to make this work. Mr. Wright acknowledged that the concept of regionalism may frighten many people, and reorganizing the tremendous balkanization that exists in this field will be a major challenge for California. He advocated recognizing and respecting diversity, and learning to work together more effectively. Ms. Tam Doduc, State Water Resources Control Board, identified three important things that need to be done in California: 1) adopting a watershed approach to preserve, protect, and restore; 2) addressing water quality issues with watershed issues, and 3) supporting broad-based stakeholder restoration efforts. She agreed that watershed restoration needs a source a long-term, stable financing, and state agencies need to better articulate their interests. She pointed out that Proposition 40 calls for an integrated program. Mr. Craven stated that as one of the authors of AB 2117, he was not happy about its implementation because state agency collaboration has not really happened, and the legislation failed to spell out how this would occur. He complimented members of watershed organizations for their willingness to work together, and noted that these people are the best ambassadors to promote watershed restoration and management for the state. Mr. Craven observed that there are regulatory agencies, non-regulatory agencies, and watershed groups in California that are supposed to be working together. He welcomed comments from panelists about whether the current structure was working well enough, or whether a consolidated approach would be better. Mr. Craven also emphasized the need for measurable performance objectives to assess progress. He advocated a watershed approach, but recognized that California may not have an appropriate structure yet to achieve that goal. Mr. Wright stated that the state tried a consolidated approach that worked well, with each agency focusing on its core competencies. However, a consolidated approach to funding at the state water board created problems because there was no single statewide blueprint, and projects were sometimes patched together from several plans, each with different mandates, and all competing for the same pot of funds. Mr. Wright stressed the importance of developing an underlying blueprint, a task best done at the regional level. Mr. Lowrie agreed with Mr. Wright, noting that government agencies have specific missions and responsibilities, and defining common objectives and coordinating efforts is difficult. He advocated shifting to a watershed model, with goals and objectives defined at a local level. Mr. Craven welcomed questions from audience members. Ms. Eileen Takata said she was excited to hear the panelists talk about locally-based management, and she described an Orange County model involving three levels of management: an executive level, with local and regional decision-making; a government agency level, with state and federal representatives sitting on an advisory council to address issues of policy and funding; and a foundation or institute level, with nonprofit organizations implementing programs. She offered to provide copies of the program description. Ms. Shahia Farahnak, State Water Board, said she manages the Board’s grant program as part of AB 2117 implementation. She noted the U.S. Fish and Game, other state agencies, and regional boards will all be involved in the next round of 2005-06 grants. Ms. Farahnak recommended identifying the needs that exist, and then developing a consolidated list of priorities that can be made available to applicants and stakeholders on the Web site. Ms. Melanie Winter, The River Project, noted that Mr. Wright was advocating focusing on an integrated and collaborative approach for watershed management, but there are no existing mechanisms or incentives to facilitate interagency cooperation now. She said all state agencies are under-funded, and all want control over how their scarce resources are used. Rather than adding new layers of bureaucracy, Ms. Winter recommended finding incentives to encourage collaboration. Mr. Wright clarified that he supported regional efforts rather than state mandates to manage watersheds because each region is different, and locals can best decide how to organize and what goals to pursue. He noted it is easier for government agencies to coordinate efforts at a regional level rather than statewide. Ms. Joan Clayburgh expressed concern about the possibility that funding for watershed coordinators will be eliminated. She noted there have been many local success stories, but watershed programs could take a step backward if funding for those positions is lost. She recommended securing at least a couple years’ worth of funding. Mr. Clark Anderson, Local Government Commission, commented that the best way to encourage locals would be for the state to clarify its values and present an overall vision. Mr. Hodgkins pointed out the best way to obtain funding would be to address issues that are important for the state. He cited the example of bringing land use planning and transportation organizations together to address both air quality standards and traffic congestion. Mr. Lowrie observed that California has made unprecedented state bond investments for natural resources in recent years, and he emphasized the importance of demonstrating value to the state. He noted watershed coordinators are expensive, and the state’s role should be nurturing and developing local coordinators. He added it is unrealistic to expect state funding to continue for more than about five years. Mr. Mike Jackson asked how panelists thought watershed programs should be funded. Mr. Craven said the state should provide seed money, but not a continuous stream for an indefinite period. Mr. Bill Templin, watershed coordinator, said he viewed his major role as promoting better communication. He noted watershed coordinators submit quarterly reports that include some performance measures. Mr. Craven clarified that he would like to see performance measures above the regulatory thresholds. He added that quarterly reports do not address, for example, working with landowners, CalEPA, and federal agencies to control in-stream flows. Mr. Jackson observed that flood control, water supply, and water quality are treated as separate issues, and they need to be coordinated under an overriding watershed management approach. He emphasized the importance of accountability. He described an incident involving flooding of a degraded meadow area near Oroville that resulted in evacuation of many people. Mr. Hodgkin noted restoring the Valley sponge would improve flood control in that area. Mr. Mark Lancaster, 5 Counties Salmonid Restoration Program, Trinity County, talked about his area’s five-county regional approach. He noted California is already divided into seven major ecological regions. Mr. Lancaster said he viewed the role of state and federal agencies as providing science and seed funding, and watershed coordinators deal with monitoring and reporting requirements. Mr. Lancaster urged participants to think creatively about ways of combining land use planning, affordable housing, and watershed management. He supported the idea of developing statewide objectives and tax incentives to encourage landowners to preserve critical watershed and habitat areas. Mr. Craven thanked audience members and panelists for their remarks. He noted the state currently allocates less than one percent of its general fund for resource projects. He encouraged people to consider other ways of achieving common goals. Mr. Wellborn thanked the panelists and recessed the forum for lunch at 12:07 p.m. How to Support Watershed Management At 1:32 p.m., Mr. Wellborn reconvened the meeting and invited the funding panel to begin. Mr. Dennis Bowker, California Bay-Delta Authority Consultant, introduced the panelists and asked each person to make a few introductory remarks. Mr. Mark Cowin, California Department of Water Resources (DWR), said he manages DWR’s Division of Planning and Local Assistance, focusing on three programs: 1) the CalFed watershed program, 2) the Proposition 50 integrated regional water management program, and 3) the California Water Plan. He noted the draft Water Plan has been disseminated for public comment, and the document will be finalized later this year. He added that no major changes are expected. Mr. Cowin advised that in order to implement the Water Plan, California needs to 1) use water efficiently; 2) protect water quality and supply, and 3) embrace environmental stewardship. He said the Proposition 50 grant program is intended to push local organizations to think more broadly and raise the bar for watershed programs, and most future funding will follow this model. He added that DWR plans to apply the funding and offer regional incentives. Mr. Sam Ziegler, U.S. EPA, said he has been working with EPA’s non-point-source program since 1994 and oversees 319 grants to California. He stated that the U.S. EPA will not be supporting local capacity in the future. He noted government funding has increased tremendously, but the focus has moved from demonstration projects to measurable environmental results. Mr. Ziegler observed that people in the watershed community need to offer quantified results within a reasonable timeframe. He acknowledged that there is also tremendous pressure from Congress to spend funds as quickly as possible. Mr. Ziegler said the best grant candidates are projects that are sustainable financially. He urged participants to continue working to quantify the results of their activities. He noted there are many public benefits that go beyond the value of money. Mr. Ziegler invited people to come to the upcoming non-point-source conference in Sacramento on November 7. Ms. Barbara Evoy, State Water Board, said funding is a very complex subject, and she encouraged participants to look at state, local, and federal sources. She discussed advantages and disadvantages of standard funding mechanisms such as bonds, local fees, state fees, state general funds, and leveraging of state and federal funds. Mr. Dave Dickson, Moore, Iacofano, and Goltsman, Inc., said his background lies in the fields of affordable housing and community development, and these activities led to work on a Napa River flood control project. Mr. Dickson talked about four local initiatives supported by layered funding sources. He described a system of local fees and taxes adopted by the County of Los Angeles, and noted the county is working on a 2008 bond measure for removing trash, controlling sediment, and other beach issues. Mr. Dickson discussed an integrated planning and implementation grant proposal for flood management in the Pajaro River watershed, a sales tax increase used to fund flood protection and multi-purpose programs for the Napa watershed, and a multi-objective flood protection program developed for Truckee Meadows in Nevada funded with sales tax revenues. Mr. Bowker said CalFed’s watershed program adapts to local watersheds’ needs, and projects are based on principles and outcomes. He noted the state has not done a good job of explaining the functions, services, and values of watersheds to people in California. He suggested thinking in terms of apportioning costs of programs according to benefits. Mr. Chris Coburn, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, observed that the state has made good efforts to administer bond funds effectively, and accountability is part of that system. He asked how local organizations can work to determine what level of detail is necessary. Ms. Evoy responded that most bonds come with a large number of restrictions, and some require demonstrations of water quality improvement or some other measurable result. She added that prudent accounting means verifying that work was actually done and that some benefit was produced. Mr. David Keller, Friends of the Eel River, advocated a restorative economic system, based on the utility of watersheds and their savings in terms of efficiency and energy costs. He proposed using savings as a utility fee to pay for costs of improvements, restorations, and loans. Ms. Darlene Dinn talked about the place for research and development in accountability. She urged state agencies to provide public access to information. Ms. Evoy acknowledged the need for research and development, but said funds are usually directed to specific projects. She said research also raises issues of confidentiality and public disclosure. She recommended putting money aside for research and clarifying confidentiality in advance. Mr. Bowker commented that in order to better align state resources and local needs, it would be helpful to embed the values watershed organizations provide into the state’s organizations. Mr. John Mills asked for more details about how water investment funds could be used for flood control or water quality activities. Mr. Cowin explained that the idea was to establish an investment funds from user fees. The state’s role would be approving regional plans, and regions would develop multi-objective water resource goals. Mr. John Brodie commented that it is like to take ten, fifteen, or twenty years to see results from watershed restoration efforts, so it is frustrating when government agencies want measurable results in two or three years. Mr. Ziegler agreed, and noted too much money is going out too fast now. He expressed his opinion that a ten-year program would have been better. Mr. Ziegler emphasized the need to develop a system of outcome-based performance measures and accountability systems. He recommended that California develop a monitoring program that collects data and shows progress over time. He added that the best way to fight back politically is to have facts and information. Ms. Evoy observed that state agencies are under intense pressure to spend bond money and get projects on the ground as soon as possible. Mr. Rick Rapp commented that it might be helpful to point out the value of waiting for long-term payoffs in some cases. Mr. Mark Horne, consultant, noted that most grant applications require a local match of funds. In order to maximize the value of local resources, he suggested requiring that matching funds come from discretionary income, not from money already allocated to support some program. He proposed using grant funds for projects that educate the public and promote stewardship. Ms. Evoy encouraged Mr. Horne and others to submit comments and suggestions about improvements in the granting process. She said the Water Board is aware of some weaknesses in the match component. Mr. Cowin advocated developing financing plans for broad suites of activities rather than tying funds to specific projects or cost years. Mr. Dan Berman, Morro Bay National Estuary Program, commented that he was pleased to see the move toward greater integration but had concerns about merging funding sources into a single pot. He noted this could result in less money for watershed restoration activities if other issues are considered higher priorities. Mr. Cowin said DWR expects to learn many lessons from the first grant cycle. He added that the overall intent of the grants is to raise the bar in California and make progress toward all objectives. Mr. Bowker encouraged participants to propose solutions. Mr. Richard Dare recommended establishing an endowment fund. Ms. Nettie Drake, B&N Enterprises, San Joaquin Valley, suggested looking at failed models to see what went wrong. She noted there has to be a background of trust and respect among all partners. Ms. Drake said water catchment has become a new interest, and use of that terminology might help people begin to look at the whole picture. She added that agencies and organizations need to communicate and work together, and watersheds should not be treated as a separate category. Mr. Kent Reeves, East Bay Municipal Utility District, expressed his opinion that watershed coordinators should be long-term, full-time state employees. Mr. Lowrie pointed out that watershed coordinators could also be full-time employees of a local entity. Ms. Bonnie Ross, DWR, observed that there was not much diversity represented among forum participants, and she noted this points out the need for reaching out to obtain input from different niches in the state. She said even without any outside funding, the people involved in watershed organizations constitute an extremely valuable in-kind resource. Mr. Bowker observed that communication and trust seem to be underlying issues. He suggested getting past some of the funding concerns and thinking more programmatically about integrating the state’s needs with local management of watersheds. He noted all the parties need a different way of communicating, some long-term functional mechanism that supports both state and local programs and helps reach the desired outcomes. Ms. Evoy commented that this is a good time for watershed organizations because there are many opportunities and changes underway. She noted DWR is having a funding fair on November 4 for the last of the bond funds, and she referred to the Website for additional information. Mr. Ziegler again emphasized the need to think in terms of outcomes. Mr. Dickson observed that the watershed movement is maturing, and organizations should focus on showing why big organizations need small local groups. He recommended developing incentives to reward participation. Mr. Bowker agreed, and noted that successful efforts need to be touted to the public to increase awareness of the importance of watersheds to everyone. He thanked the panelists and audience members. Solution Session: Watershed Groups Develop Effective Policies Mr. Wellborn introduced Dr. A. L. Riley, Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board, and invited her to lead the discussion of solutions. Dr. Riley stated that she has been involved in the watershed movement since the mid-1970’s, worked for DWR, and also spent 13 years in the nonprofit sector. She said she shared a common background and experiences with grassroots organizations. Dr. Riley proposed thinking of solutions in response to three broad questions: 1) How can the watershed community better communicate the value of the watershed approach to state government agencies?; 2) What will a new regulation-based state watershed program look like?; and 3) What does sustainable funding look like? She welcomed comments and suggestions from audience members. The following points were made by forum participants: 1) Ways of communicating value to state:
2) Regulation-based state program:
3) Sustainable funding:
Dr. Riley thanked participants for their ideas and suggestions. Forum Wrap-Up and Next Steps Mr. Wellborn thanked participants for attending. He noted the CWN board will take advantage of the momentum created at this forum to develop a report to market the watershed message to legislators and decision-makers and talk about how watershed restoration benefits the whole state. He invited participants to participate in the Legislative Day next spring. Adjournment Mr. Wellborn expressed his appreciation to Salmonid Restoration Federation, staff, and volunteers. |
ToolsFish-friendly road improvements and culvert replacements Water Conservation Information Watershed and Salmon Education Search |
