Sierra Water Workgroup | Strategic Planning Meeting | October 10, 2013 | 2-5:30pm

Attending: Pat Garcia (Yosemite-Mariposa), Ken Vang (Madera), Lindsay Rae Mattos (T-Stan), Jeannie Habben (madera), Alissa Brown (SNC), Chris Alford (AR), Liz Mansfield, Kristin Honeycutt, Dave Eggerton (CABY), Bob Dean (MAC), Danny Lapin (Alliance), Lynn Nolan (Tahoe-Sierra), Elizabeth Betancourt (Fosgren Associates), Mary Randall (DWR), Kathy McLaughlin, John Shelton (DFW, Southern Sierra), Mary Randall (DWR)

Background

Meeting with Kamyar at DWR

SWWG wanted to know what Kamyar thought, strategically, about where the SWWG is headed and where we might align with DWR’s IRWM strategy. Kamyar was enthusiastic and supportive of SWWG and noted we are very much in line with the direction DWR is taking. Kamyar encouraged us to keep doing the Summit.

Meeting with Traci at DWR

SWWG wanted to know what current IRWM guidelines and activities might be aligned with SWWG efforts. Could SWWG help IRWM Groups meet DWR requirements (e.g. regional coordination through SWWG Summit). DWR didn’t give us anything official, but essentially encouraged larger regional coordination. If SWWG could help multiple IRWMPs check off tasks, the individual IRWMPs could possibly get credit for it.

Funding

Liz is funded through December, Gavin is currently unfunded. Liz and Gavin put in an application to DWR for facilitation services, which would fund Liz and Gavin January-June, 2014.

More on funding later in the meeting.

Workgroup Activities

  1. Summit/Conference – we seem to have a lot of interest in continuing this annually
  2. Raising the profile of the Sierra: advocacy is necessary for funding/resources. We need to elevate the voice of the region with coordinated voices – must show that it is worth investing in the Sierra for multiple reasons. We should work with all of the Sierra groups (Sierra Fund, SNC, CTC, SBC, Alliance, Mountain Counties, etc.).

There is currently no process for Liz and this group to speak on behalf of the SWWG because we are not an official entity, we do not have a board.

  1. IRWM requirements: how can we help Sierra IRWMs meet their DWR requirements

Discussion on workgroup activities

Summit

  • Summit is great – keep doing it. Especially if it can help individual IRWMPs meet DWR guidelines.
  • Why attendance from IRWMs is not as high as we want: no money, IRWMPs like to send one person and have them bring info back. Well worth it.
  • Summit content idea: Tahoe is an example of a number of things that the Sierra needs (even though water goes to Nevada) – such as federal investment.
  • Networking and workshops are great and necessary.
  • Also helps raise the profile of the Sierra – bring in state-level speakers, we can make this even better.
  • Need to get the water agencies involved and bring Mountain Counties back in.
  • It’s a great opportunity to engage Sierra IRWMPs in a positive way. There are a lot of challenges right now with funding and proposals and this positive forum is great.
  • The SWWG both acts as a forum for collective messaging about the Sierra, but also builds the capacity of the individual SWWG members to be good advocates.
  • Need quantifiable results to help raise funds and show value
  • Summit content idea: Alissa: Sierra IRWMPs need really good cost-benefit analyses to be able to compete for implementation grants – Round 3 (last round) of implementation will come out with schedule summer 2014, probably open winter 2014
  • Preventing floods is one of the highest scoring on CBA and need a way to make our projects (e.g. forest and meadow restoration, green infrastructure) compete
  • SNC is doing a lot of research on ecosystem benefits (e.g. Moke project)
  • Conference does raise profile of the Sierra – let’s think about how we can use the conference to raise our voice.
  • Maybe SWWG could come up with recommendations on a topic (IRWM investment, headwaters policy/principles – see “advocacy” below) out of the Summit

Advocacy

  • Policy lays the groundwork for funding and attention – we really need to work on this.
  • IRWMP staff does not have time to be in Sacramento and advocate for the Sierra, would be great if SWWG would do this on a high level
  • IRWMPs do not have money/time to hire lobbyists, do state-wide lobbying
  • Maybe we can come up with a page of specific bullets that anyone can advocate for on behalf of the SWWG. Would be great to have multiple people asking for same things on behalf of SWWG.
  • Maybe go through goals and objectives in each IRWMP and find common ones as a starting point.
  • Important things are happening right now (Bond, water plan) – would be a good time for Sierra-wide advocacy
  • SWWG could vet/sign-off on ACWA headwaters principles and upcoming framing document. Mountain Counties is also creating headwaters policy document – our additional voice could make this more powerful
  • It would be great if we could comment on the State Action Plan and Water Bond
  • Just getting information and Sierra-specific needs, qualities, science to decision-makers, people working to draft policies and bonds.
  • Track legislation, advise stakeholders, provide talking points and draft letters that IRWMPs, IRWMP stakeholders, and other stakeholders can submit.

IRWM Requirements/Support

When we talk about funding SWWG and activities to focus on, it can be hard to quantify benefits. There is a lot of overlapping needs in the Sierra

  • Overlapping requirements based on plan standards:
  • External and internal communication (external = summit, webpage; can help with internal = website)
  • Coordination with other IRWMPs (Summit: report-outs, could add project-specific)
  • ….get list from email (and add mine?)
  • “Reducing dependency on the Delta” - we could come up with a common policy statement that all Sierra IRWMPs could use
  • Headwaters/downstream connection
  • Lots of communication and coordination items
  • Measurable objectives – create a place for all indicators/performance measures across the Sierra
  • Would also raise the profile of the Sierra
  • Tribal connections/outreach
  • DAC outreach/engagement
  • Might be too late for this – August deadline for plan updates. Most IRWMPs have already hired out consultants and made plans to meet requirements and guidelines
  • BUT, we are trying to make SWWG sustainable so most of this should be ongoing (IRWMPs plan on going past August)
  • We should focus on:
  • Internal/external communications
  • Internal example from Kathy McLaughlin in Southern Sierra: BoR funded website for 6-7 IRWMPs on west side.
  • Especially good because not competing with IRWMPs for money
  • Also got PG&E funding
  • Follow up on this
  • Public outreach
  • Data management/website
  • Basically create a portal/hub for IRWMP info and data
  • Coordinate with federal land managers
  • IRWMPs area asking the same question that SWWG is asking – how do we make this organization/effort sustainable
  • Is the IRWMP/SWWG providing benefits that are worth all of the efforts and money?
  • Maybe survey IRWMPs on what they need, what SWWG could help with

Other

  • Keep making the website better:
  • Update IRWMP pages
  • Provide more tools, especially cost-benefit analysis tools/case studies
  • Keeping up on emerging topics (e.g. atmospheric mercury deposition in high alpine lakes)
  • Invite Steve Shackleton to SWWG (just started at UC Sierra Nevada Research Institute, used to be head of national parks/Yosemite)

Consensus: SWWG will go forward as an organization/entity

Funding

  1. Alliance becomes fiscal sponsor of SWWG (will take ~7%)
  2. Apply for Rose Foundation Grassroots grant
  3. Nov. 1 deadline, $5,000 max, supports numerous strategies such as community organizing, policy development, citizen enforcement (litigation), hands-on stewardship, environmental education as well as general support and organizational development. Constituencies served and mobilized are similarly broad, ranging from monolingual farmworkers, native communities, urban and rural youth, recent immigrants, seniors, business owners, and more.
  4. Sierra Nevada Alliance AmeriCorps Member
  5. SWWG full time November – March, full-time just before conference in June
  6. Must work on watershed restoration
  7. Cannot raise money except for their specific project (need to check these requirements re: conference sponsors)
  8. DWR/CCP application
  9. January-June for Liz and Gavin
  10. Can put materials, etc. into task order to cover Alliance costs
  11. Gavin can moonlight and make the hours work out
  12. Consider other grants, largely based on SWWG goals beyond conference
  13. Kenney Brothers (if anyone knows anyone, no unsolicited LOIs)
  14. Pisces Foundation (if anyone knows anyone, no unsolicited LOIs)
  15. Rose Foundation water grant
  16. State grants (319H, stormwater, CalEPA)
  17. Federal grants
  18. In-kind and in-lieu support (grant writing, website/database development, etc.)

Governance

Basically three options:

  1. Operate under and MOU with a fiscal sponsor
  2. Pros: simple, can do it today
  3. Cons: cannot have own bank account (checks/payments/contracts would be with fiscal sponsor), some IRWMPs might like a more formal structure
  4. Become a California Nonprofit with a fiscal sponsor
  5. Pros: easy to do, can open own bank account , would make SWWG more neutral (political issues with aligning with an NGO fiscal sponsor, who checks go to)
  6. Cons: would need a Board (ideally of IRWMP representatives, but not all IRWMPs would be willing to appoint someone to Board), political implications to being a nonprofit
  7. Become a 501(c)(3)
  8. Pros: autonomy, tax exempt status
  9. Cons: takes a long time (6-24 months), need bookkeeping staff, running a whole organization takes full-time, steady staff

Consensus: Sierra Nevada Alliance will be fiscal sponsor and we will apply for Rose Foundation Grassroots grant.

  • “Nature abhors a vacuum” – if we do not form a more official group and prove that we are in the interest of holistic watershed management.
  • Leaning towards MOU with fiscal sponsor. MOU will take a while – need to get all of the IRWMPs to get approval from the RWMGs.
  • Feedback:
  • Seems simple
  • Good idea
  • MOU will have to address decision-making (consensus?)
  • And advocacy – platform, talking points, comment letters, response to requests for more information
  • Consensus could be difficult and if we get to the point of having to overrule an IRWMP, we could lose a whole region.
  • Maybe heavy towards consensus, but a mechanism for moving forward with a single dissenter
  • “consensus-seeking”
  • Advocacy-wise, we can represent both majority and minority views at the same time, or not take a position, but provide avenues for individual IRWMPs to advocate.