The Report Card

Tuesday, 20 Jan 2004

DENVER, Colo.

I live in the Troublesome Gulch watershed. It helps one’s sense of place to identify with the watershed you live in.

A watershed is the area draining to a common stream, lake, or other body of water. Factoid: The Western explorer John Wesley Powell supported the formation of local governments based on watersheds. It made sense in Powell’s mid-19th century America — and it still does. But if he had a marketing strategy for this plan, it was a total failure.

I work with several watershed groups in Colorado on their water-quality monitoring. I am a liaison between our laboratory and groups who use our lab for microbiological analyses. Recently, I organized a discussion for one group on “toxic algae” in their source water — and potentially in their water supply. In another case, I am coordinating between a watershed group and our lab on macroinvertebrate (“bug”) sampling.

Much of my focus and expertise is used to help groups with their finances. Today, I am assisting the town of Rico, Colo., and the Willow Creek Reclamation Committee in assessing how they might finance their projects and organizations. Financing for these groups ranges from classic nonprofit fundraising to competing for government grants.

Local watershed groups vary dramatically in their objectives, structure, area of coverage, and partnering. They work on scales ranging from a few square miles to thousands. Watershed groups typically bring together diverse local stakeholders to improve communication and collaborative decision-making, and to educate local residents. They are often involved in restoration projects to improve water quality, and they also commonly address fishery, recreational-boating, and environmental issues. A group often begins with volunteer staff and develops the capacity to bring on a paid coordinator. Whereas water quality was initially the main issue for most groups, incorporation of water supply stakeholders is becoming more prevalent, increasing involvement in key watershed issues.

While the EPA is responsible for regulating and enforcing water-quality laws, we also support the “watershed approach” as a strategy for communities to protect and restore aquatic ecosystems and protect human health. The premise is that many water-quality and ecosystem problems are best solved at the watershed level rather than at individual stream or polluter levels.

The EPA’s support of the watershed approach is based on the following factors: 1) local watershed groups, when armed with good information, can often accomplish more to improve water quality than regulatory approaches; 2) many water-quality challenges fall outside of existing regulatory mandates; and 3) solutions developed and embraced by local residents often have the most enduring success. Watershed groups also contribute to increased local leadership, stewardship, participation, and understanding of the issues. According to River Network, there are currently more than 4,000 watershed groups in the U.S. The emergence of these groups is a significant development in the history of citizen participation as a means of protecting our natural resources. Watershed groups confront a wide array of technical, financial, and organizational hurdles, and it is rare for a group coordinator to be skilled in all of these areas. In my support role for these groups, I provide information, advice, coordination, advocacy, and networking. I do most of my work in Colorado and Montana, either with a group itself or with statewide umbrella organizations. My background allows me to be comfortable discussing organizational and partnering issues and providing advice on keeping a group sustainable. I also share knowledge about financial planning, obtaining resources (especially grants) from a wide variety of sources, and the general Clean Water Act regulatory process. My experience has also given me some expertise in managing the impacts of population growth on water resources. I am a generalist who knows a little about a lot. In technical matters of stream restoration or water-quality monitoring, I almost always need to refer people elsewhere.

As an example, I have been involved in the National Watershed Health Project since its inception in 2002. Watershed groups often struggle organizationally and financially. This project will provide groups with direct support in assessing their priorities and developing an action plan to improve. This past week, I have been an intermediary with several Colorado groups (San Miguel, Cherry Creek, Boulder Creek) to discuss the benefits of participating.

From my perspective, environmental protection has evolved away from the original Clean Water Act and other statutory “command and control” approaches wherein the feds and states mandated requirements and locals attempted to comply. Instead, communities have developed the capability to identify their own environmental issues and how they want to address them. Watershed groups have emerged as an effective way for local communities to address important water, land, and even recreation issues. The watershed approach to local water management is an excellent example of doing the right thing (protecting a community’s natural resources) in the right way (a community-based collaborative approach).

I feel fortunate to be supporting and promoting these efforts. My feelings are accentuated when I work directly with watershed groups, as they believe in what they do. One group leader recently described her role as that of a missionary teaching others to care about the place where they live. Local, state, and national watershed meetings inspire me with a sense of passion, fervor, and enjoyment of my work. Just in 2003, I have seen a similar passion expressed across the country: the River Rally in Skamania, Wash.; the Colorado Watershed Assembly; the Cherry Creek Conference; and the Montana Watershed Symposium.

I get to help these true believers. That is why I like my job.