Laserfiche WebLink
~11NNESOT~~`S~~}}WATER~S~HED ORGANIZATI~TtiS AT WORK: <br />~d <br />t <br />his chapter examines the capacity of Minnesota's var- <br />ious watershed organizations to address water-quality <br />issues. Research suggests that some of the most significant <br />factors affecting these organizations' effectiveness include: <br />~~t;"~6~i~ 41131~C~~;~~? <br />For the purpose of this <br />study, tine term "watershed <br />decision-makers" refers io <br />the staff and board of <br />citizen-led grassroots <br />watershed organizations. <br />- Motivation to improve water quality <br />-~- Availability of funding and funding strategies <br />- Staff resources <br />Access to information <br />Level of implementation <br />C}~GAiV(ZA71c}NAb CAPAClT'Y <br />The term "organizational capacity" refers to the body of resources, <br />authorities and infrastructure that a given organization has available <br />to implement its water-quality efforts. <br />1. Access to Funding <br />When asked about the stability of funding for their projects and pro- <br />grams, watershed decision-makers' responses tend to vary according <br />to their organizational type. <br />As a rule, nonprofit board and staff members are less likely than <br />other watershed decision-makers to perceive their organizations as <br />having stable funding. This is because nonprofit funding is general- <br />ly driven by grants that have a set time limit and may not be avail- <br />able to the organization on an annual basis. <br />Watershed Districts appear to enjoy the most stable funding -due <br />in large part to their taxing authority. Joint Powers Boards (JPBs) <br />often look to grants to fund their major projects, although they also <br />have a guaranteed (but limited) source of income from member con- <br />tributions. <br />Watershed Management Organizations (WMOs) that are structured <br />as JPBs also have the same guaranteed, but limited, source of income <br />7 <br />