1999-07-22_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~E<;OI~1t?};1`]IiATIONi {. ppi~`T €?E6iVVE(~T °iHE VVFiEE~ Suiid an Existing Qptions Minnesota has a variety of successful citizen-led water- shed organizations that are effective in implementing water-quality programs and projects at the local level. Many examples of successfully organized and operated watershed organizations can be found amongst existing Watershed Districts, Joint Powers Boards (JPBs) and nonprofit organizations. The diversity of watershed organizations available to the citizens of Minnesota strengthens our state's efforts to improve water quality. Each organizational type has unique advantages: Watershed Districts have funding stability; JPBs foster cooperative efforts across govern- ments; nonprofit organizations excel in citizen in- volvement. Successful organizations have Learned to draw upon their strengths and use them as the basis for further progress. In general, citizen watershed decision-makers are knowl- edgeable about the water-quality issues facing their watersheds, have access to information and water-quali- ty data, and are both concerned with and actively engaged in implementing water-quality measures. As a result, water-quality improvement efforts are very likely to be driven -both now and in the future - by local and individual efforts to confront nonpoint source-pol- lution efforts. Minnesota has the local capacity and the organizational infrastructure to address water-quality issues. Any efforts to create alternative or new forms of watershed organi- zations must acknowledge and build upon the existing strengths and diversity of organizations already available in Minnesota. Before reorganizing or forming any new types of water- shed organizations, Minnesotans should look to the suc- cessful models that have evolved statewide to address water-quality issues. While no single organizational type is ideal for all situations, between Watershed Districts, JPBs, and nonprofit organizations, successful models can be found. iC~~ rtcomm~n~f: 1. Utilizing and building upon the existing local water- shed-based organizational options; 2. Expanding watershed efforts statewide using the suc- cessful organizational types currently available to Minnesotans (Watershed Districts, JPBs and water- shed-based nonprofit organizations). lI.CQRITiNUE THE TFtFtDiT60N: Ntake the Mast of Loeai, State-Empouvered, t7rganizatians Beginning in the 1950s, the State of Minnesota enacted legislation that empowered watershed organizations with authorities and responsibilities at the local level. This form of local organization has worked to the bene- fit of the people and should be continued and supported. The State has an important role in supporting local watershed organizations. State support for watershed organizations takes many forms, including technical assistance, information, enforcement coordination and financial assistance. While state agencies ranked high as a source of information, one key area for improvement is to devel- op better two-way communication. For the most part, watershed decision-makers are uncertain whether their water-quality findings are known or used at the state Ieve1. It seems evident that watershed organizations can serve as local registers of water-quality efforts in their particular watershed to ensure that efforts are not being duplicated. Et'e rzcorr2merul: An enabling (as opposed to directive) approach toward building local watershed management capacity; 2. Improved communication from local organizations to state agencies; 3. Greater utilization of local watershed organizations as a resource for addressing water-quality issues. 14