California Biodiversity Council
Regional Meeting with the Regional Council of Rural Counties

September 20, 2000
DoubleTree Hotel
Rohnert Park, California

Topic II: Watershed Management

Secretary Nichols introduced the panel moderator Diane Holcomb, NRCS Watershed Planning Services Director. In March of 1999, the Council created the Watershed Work Group (WWG).  Ms. Holcomb noted that the Biodiversity Council charged the WWG with a mission to facilitate watershed restoration and coordinate the funding and support of local projects.  The WWG has held a series of six meetings and determined that the initial focus of the group should be funding.  In this state, the level of funding has increased dramatically and there are over 40 funding sources and programs.  This created a confusing web of information that is difficult to comprehend.  In the year since its inception, the WWG established several guiding principles related to funding.  Broadly, these best funding practices are: 1) Streamline the Application and Project Selection Process; 2) Administer Funds More Efficiently; 3) Improve Reporting and Accountability; 4) Provide Technical Assistance and Outreach; 5) Address Regional and Economic Differences; 6) Ensure Funding Decisions are Based on Sound Science; 7) Leverage Multiple Funding Sources; 8) Educate Policy Makers; and 9) Fill Funding Gaps.  Maria Rea, Watershed Specialist for the Resources Agency, explained all nine of the best funding practices and introduced the panelists.

Jonathan Berkey first thanked Maria Rea, Nina Gordon, and Diane Holcomb for being integral part of the process and bringing it to the attention of the Council.  Mr. Berkey noted that recently people at a local level have begun to get involved in resource issues.  A survey showed that over 300 watershed groups exist in California, they are very action oriented, but lack funding and lack the expertise needed for paperwork.  Jonathan emphasized the importance of keeping every aspect of the funding process simple.  It is imperative to leave out the acronyms and jargon that agencies see and use every day.  These watershed groups also need technical assistance, not only engineering/technical assistance but also help in determining the full scope of the project.  The grant writing process is extremely difficult and confusing for the layman.  Jonathan suggested a ‘pre-proposal’ process to see if a project is even eligible for that particular grant.  Jonathan is a watershed coordinator for the Elkhorn Slough.  His group received a 319 grant and did not receive the money until 18 months later.   This lag in timing cannot only drive a group to bankruptcy, but is also detrimental to seasonal projects. 

Nettie Drake, Panoche/Silver Creek CRMP Coordinator, discussed similar issues occurring in eastern Fresno County.  The relevant issues in this situation are erosion, water quality, and sediment transport.  Ms. Drake noted that when she started as Coordinator the group involved 60 agency personnel, 2 landowners, and had no projects underway.  Now, five years later, there are over 200 landowners involved and eleven projects moving on the ground.  There are spectacular relationships between the public agencies (state, federal, and local) and the implementation of the CRMP’s projects.  Streamlining, organizing, focusing the funding is the key to helping smaller watershed programs.  If the goal is identified, you have to have folks on the ground doing the work.  These volunteers live in the region, care about the land, and will do their best to finish the job.  By making the funding process easier, you can engage these people and get projects done.    

Dennis Bowker, Sacramento River Watershed Program coordinator, spoke about his experiences in the Sacramento Valley.  Mr. Bowker’s first point was that we need to make the transition from the historical project-oriented focus to providing local coordination which includes training, technical assistance, and even software programs to help track funding.  The fragmentation of the funding process is deleterious to watershed programs.  It is very important to support the principles discussed today.  The difference between principles and finite rules is extremely important in this situation.  With a principle, you can translate the ideas to a local level.  If you are bound with specific rules from the state and federal levels, they become less appropriate at smaller scales.  It is very important that you not only permit, but also support the capacity of the local level to develop some long term plans.  Watershed management includes projects, restoration, and sometimes just keeping a tiny watershed in good shape.  Mr. Bowker supports and encourages the use of regional implementation with regional knowledge accumulated.  Regional NGOs can serve as the translators between the highest levels of an agency and the volunteers doing on-the-ground work. 

Martha Davis, co-chair of the CALFED watershed workgroup, shared her thoughts and ideas about the WWG funding principles.  Martha noted that these “Best Funding Principles” shaped the foundation of the watershed program recently approved by the CALFED Record of Decision.  That group is currently testing several of these programs, specifically, the pre-proposal program.  The RFP should be out by the end of the year 2000.  CALFED is working with 70 people from various watershed groups to figure out how to put together the request for the concept, in conjunction with a team of agency representatives to evaluate the concept.  The benefits of this type of approach are vitally important in terms of providing good customer service back to the public.  This will help to identify proposals that are “diamonds in the rough,” helping to provide good service in working with the local communities, and finding ways to take good proposals and make sure they are matched with appropriate funding sources.  The watershed program is the most powerful way to take the good work done by agencies and bring it home at a local level.

The WWG conducted stakeholder meetings over the last year in order to flush out these problem areas and find solutions.  These meetings were well attended not only by agency staff but local, private stakeholders as well.  There are over seventy participants in the Work Group. 

Maria Rea noted that the document titled, Best Funding Practices for Watershed Management, has been finalized. The WWG is currently working on joint promotions and field assistance to develop proposals.  The Group would like to propose that the Council endorse these issues and recommendations and further refine where necessary.  The WWG is also requesting assistance of specific department staff to follow-up when and where necessary. 

Mary Nichols reinforced that she understands the serious implications of these endorsements for participating departments.  Agency staff has worked long and hard to craft these proposals and they now need you to take them home and give them further attention and the necessary refinements and incorporate them into your agency.  Only a year has passed since the Council established the WWG and Secretary Nichols believes that this is an amazing accomplishment.  

Secretary Nichols turned the discussion over to Art Baggett, Board Chairman of the State Water Resources Control Board.  Mr. Baggett noted that he is certainly committed to working with the Resources Agency and by streamlining the process and coordinating our programs, we can accomplish these well-thought-out goals.  Mr. Baggett further committed the nine regional boards and their respective watershed coordinators to work with the WWG with the goal of tangible results in the end. 

Amy Edelen, California Conservation Corps, noted that the Corps also applies for grants.  Ms. Edelen wanted to encourage folks to look at the California Coastal Commission “Whale Tail” grant plan.  They implemented a great template for the pre-proposal process.

Bob Meacher, CALFED watershed workgroup co-chair, noted that on several occasions he was asked, “If CALFED is already doing this type of program, why are we starting a whole other process with the WWG?”  His response is that they are not redundancies, but parallel tracks that are complimentary to each other.  The CALFED program is for a specific geographical area while the WWG encompasses the whole state.  It is fantastic that these concepts have merged.  Supervisor Meacher encouraged the agencies to endorse this process.

Jeff Vonk, State Conservationist for USDA NRCS, wanted to second the work that the WWG has done.  Mr. Vonk also wished to compliment the WWG on their one-page summarization of the 45-page “Best Funding Practices” document.  Mr. Vonk personally endorsed the principles and noted that all federal and state agencies need to wholeheartedly endorse these ideas in order for the program to be effective.

Secretary Nichols asked the Council for an unofficial endorsement of the principles by a wave of hands.  The Secretary reiterated that this endorsement does mean the dedication of staff and resources to implement these principles.  Lots of enthusiastic hand waves ensued.