Executive Summary: The State Role in Western Watersheds H-AMINDIAN

        Anyone know of literatures or researchers planning to look at these
areas, in a social movement context? From below: 

        " Section III describes state 
>legislative and agency strategies for encouraging and supporting watershed 
>initiatives in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, 
>New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming."


Regards,


Mark Whitaker
University of Wisconsin-Madison

>Return-Path: notes@igc.org
>Date: 20 Apr 1999 16:01:21
>Reply-To: Conference "rivernet.info" <rivernet-info@igc.apc.org>
>From: Rivernetw@aol.com
>Subject: Executive Summary: The State Role in Western Watersheds
>To: Recipients of rivernet-info <rivernet-info@igc.apc.org>
>X-Gateway: conf2mail@igc.apc.org
>Lines: 216
>
>
>Although this executive summary report focuses on Western watersheds, it 
>might be of interest to organizations in other regions too as the topics
>discussed apply to many states. The report also provides general policy
>recommendations for designing new state programs or improving existing
>state programs to encourage and support watershed initiatives (see end of
>document). Enjoy! 
>
>The Natural Resources Law Center (located at the University of Colorado at 
>Boulder) has recently completed a report on the modern watershed management 
>movement in the West. "The State Role in Western Watershed Initiatives" 
>describes efforts by western states to implement watershed initiatives for 
>resource management and discusses the socio-political context of the western 
>watershed movement. The major ideas presented in the report follow the 
>dominant themes drawn from diverse opinions representing federal, state, and 
>local governments, academic institutions, interest groups, concerned 
>citizens, watershed coordinators and other interested stakeholders in the 
>"front lines" of the watershed movement. 
>This research was funded by the Ford Foundation. Principal authors of the 
>report are Frank Gregg, Douglass Kenney, Kathryn Mutz, and Teresa Rice. The 
>report's Executive Summary is provided below.
>
>Executive Summary: The State Role in Western Watersheds 
>
>The management of water resources in the American West raises a number of 
>unique and complex challenges. Among these are the difficulty of coordinating 
>diverse public and private interests and promoting water resources governance 
>from a regional and integrated perspective. One of the most striking and 
>innovative characteristics of water management in the 1990s is a renewed 
>interest in local., generally sub-state watersheds as the preferred 
>administrative unit. Also significant is the ad hoc formation  of a large 
>number of "watershed initiatives" to address water management issues through 
>collaborative processes. Many westem states are recognizing the potential of 
>these groups to successfully address a host of water-related problems. This 
>paper reviews the historical and ideological context for state involvement in 
>watershed management, describes current state approaches to supporting the 
>formation or continuation of local watershed groups, and provides general 
>recommendations to policy makers and watershed groups for future actions. 
>
>Section I of the report contends that the current structure of western water 
>management is a result of experimentation and gradual change from the 
>settlement of the "frontier' in the late 1800s through modern times. Although 
>the idea of resource management on a watershed level was first suggested over 
>a century ago; the boundaries of political jurisdictions were instead set up 
>in a checkerboard pattern around land ownership, bearing very little 
>resemblance to natural hydrologic regions. Other important legacies of 19th 
>century western settlement and governance include the lack of coordination 
>between land and water management institutions and the failure to accommodate 
>public interest concerns in resource allocation decisions. Whether these 
>elements of western water management are seen in retrospect as historical 
>mistakes or necessary prerequisites for economic development, they are often 
>at the root of problems modem watershed initiatives try to address. 
>
>Traditionally, the primary state role in western water management has been 
>water allocation under the prior appropriation system. In response to rapidly 
>changing demands, however, the scope of western states' water management has 
>expanded to include broad issues of watershed restoration, instream flow 
>protection, water-use efficiency, and drought management. Broad governmental 
>demands at the federal level have also prompted an expanded state role in 
>water management. For example the Clean Water Act encourages the states and 
>federal government to combine expertise and funding, to address regional 
>water problems. 
>
>As the states position themselves to exert an increasingly strong leadership 
>role in what promises to remain a highly intergovernmental policy area, they 
>are faced with several significant challenges. One of these challenges is 
>that the values and goals shaping water management have evolved overt he past 
>quarter century at a pace which has exceeded the capacity of institutional 
>change. Incorporating the values of the New West institutions designed for 
>traditional western economies and lifestyles in an efficient and equitable 
>manner is a real challenge, which is exacerbated by calls for greater local 
>involvement in resource management decision-making. While greater local 
>control over resource management may yield such advantages as increased 
>accountability between resource managers and affected stakeholders, as well 
>as a more creative, flexible, and efficient approaches to natural resource 
>management, such processes may be difficult to implement and may inadequately 
>satisfy national resource management standards. 
>
>In light of these complex challenges, the modem "watershed movement" 
>constitutes a broad and ambitious experiment in natural resource governance. 
>Watershed initiatives are forcing a reexamination of several fundamental 
>components of resource management, including: who should be involved in 
>making management decisions; at what Geographic locations should the 
>decisions (and decision-making, processes) be based; and which evaluation 
>criteria should be used to determine appropriate water uses and management 
>philosophies? While broad governance issues such as these are at the core of 
>the watershed movement, most individual watershed initiatives are much more 
>pragmatic, concerned with finding and implementing solutions to localized 
>problems. In fact, one of the strengths of watershed initiatives is their 
>ability to focus their activities directly at the most pressing natural 
>resource problem of particular watersheds, often operating outside of normal 
>governmental processes and free from the constraints of inflexible mandates 
>or program requirements. Substantive issues frequently addressed by watershed 
>groups include water quality, habitat protection (including endangered 
>species concerns), and general issues of environmental degradation. 
>
>The majority of watershed groups have a broad, balanced membership composed 
>of representatives from federal, state, and local government agencies, local 
>landowners, and various other stakeholders. Additionally, those watershed 
>groups featuring a predominance of members from a particular sector or 
>special interest frequently establish advisory or technical committees to 
>ensure regular input from other sources. Concerns over inadequate 
>representation do exist, however, especially from national environmental 
>groups who fear some watershed initiatives are dominated by local commodity 
>interests or parties too eager to compromise environmental standards. These 
>concerns, whether accurate or not, are largely alleviated by the fact that 
>watershed initiatives rarely possess independent management authority, 
>instead relying on the coordinated application of powers held by 
>participating entities. The form of decision-making utilized by watershed 
>initiatives varies largely with membership characteristics, although 
>cooperative arrangements such as consensus or super-majority are common. 
>Several additional qualities of watershed initiatives are described in 
>Section 11. 
>
>Most activities of watershed initiatives are directed towards raising the 
>level of understanding about the watershed. Other activities include 
>interagency coordination of expertise and resources, conflict resolution, and 
>on-the-ground restoration projects. Improving communication and the quality 
>of the decision-making environment are often listed by participants as 
>primary successes of these efforts, whether this occurs as a by-product of 
>other activities or as an end in itself. Ultimately, all watershed 
>initiatives should be judged by environmental, on-the-ground performance 
>criteria; however, in the interim, the improvement of working relationships 
>is a worthwhile accomplishment portending future successes. Qualities that 
>appear to be conducive to success include effective leadership, participation 
>by locally respected individuals, an appropriate focus, adequate resources, 
>and a credible and efficient decision-making process.
>
>The most frequently limiting resource of watershed initiatives is funding for 
>both on-the-ground projects and group administrative tasks. Most watershed 
>initiatives are highly dependent on federal grants, congressional 
>appropriations, or state agency assistance. Many watershed initiatives find 
>that governmental support, especially federal support, is essential and often 
>available, but comes at the expense of  restrictions that complicate efforts 
>to efficiently plan and conduct restoration projects. Other sources of 
>funding include membership contributions, private foundations and companies, 
>and conference and publication fees. Donations of in-kind services, such as 
>office space, equipment, and staff time, are also frequently essential to 
>sustaining a watershed initiative. Reliance on in-kind services may help to 
>enhance other goals such as maintaining local control and building group 
>cooperation and trust.
>
>State watershed approaches differ widely and are rapidly evolving. Some 
>states have adopted formal mechanisms and comprehensive water management 
>policies while others use a more ad-hoc approach. Section III describes state 
>legislative and agency strategies for encouraging and supporting watershed 
>initiatives in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, 
>New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
>
>States are frequent and valued participants in many watershed initiatives, 
>bringing an increasing level of technical expertise, management authority, 
>and occasionally financial reserves to a variety of water-management issues. 
>When designing comprehensive policies for water management, however, states 
>should acknowledge that 1) not every watershed initiative is effective or 
>worthy of state support, 2) a program that works well in one state may not 
>necessarily be successful in another state, given each state's unique 
>physical and institutional qualities, and 3) the rigidity and uniformity 
>frequently associated with governmental activities could hinder the progress 
>of watershed initiatives, which normally operate outside of government 
>channels. 
>
>With these observations in mind, Section IV provides seven general policy 
>recommendations for designing new state programs or improving existing state 
>programs to encourage and support watershed initiatives 
>
>Recommendation 1: Legislative and administrative reforms should be pursued to 
>bring integrated geographic focus to all facets of state natural resources 
>planning and management. 
>
>Recommendation 2: State agencies with water- related responsibilities should 
>be vested with mandates and bureaucratic incentives that encourage their 
>participation in, and support of watershed initiatives. 
>
>Recommendation 3: Mechanisms that encourage or facilitate improved channels 
>of communication and coordination among (and within) the various state 
>agencies that interact with watershed initiatives should be provided through 
>legislation or administrative policy.
>
>Recommendation 4: As part of their overall watershed management approach, 
>states should consider providing a legislative and/or administrative 
>framework to encourage, in a broad way, the formation of watershed 
>initiatives. 
>
>Recommendation 5: State funding programs for watershed efforts should be 
>established whenever possible, and should be broad enough to include support 
>for organizational, administrative, educational and on-the ground activities 
>of selected initiatives. 
>
>Recommendation 6: States should establish general criteria and standards that 
>watershed initiatives must meet in order to obtain the participation of state 
>agencies, to compete for state funding, and to achieve state recognition. 
>
>Recommendation 7: Reforms that transfer the authority, responsibility, or 
>accountability for resource management to watershed initiatives should not be 
>pursued.
>
>
>Copies of the full report (RR18) can be purchased for $15 (plus $4 postage) 
>by contacting:
>NRLC, Univ. of CO School of Law
>Campus Box 401
>Boulder, CO 80309-0401
>(303)492-1272, (303)492-1297 (fax)
>NRLC@Colorado.edu  
>
>
>
>
>*************************************************************
>This email  message was brought to you via River Network's listserv,
>rivernet-info.  If you would like to respond to this message, please make
>sure you address it to the appropriate recipient.  The views expressed do
>not necessarily reflect those of River Network, its staff, board, funders
>or supporters.  For more information, please contact River Network at
><rivernet@igc.apc.org> or visit our website: http://www.rivernetwork.org.
>
>