In the West,
water is a resource worth fighting about and an important
underpinning to the economy. Most people don’t
think about it much though; they expect to turn on the
tap and receive abundant, clean water. However, the
future of that water is far from certain in much of
Montana and the West. Without an intelligent approach
to watershed management, water use could become the
stumbling block to future development.
During the recent 2006 Watershed Symposium in Great
Falls, the Montana Watershed Coordination Council and
nearly 200 participants explored what it means to collaborate
on watershed management and what the future holds for
watershed approaches to local problem-solving. Water
quality and quantity affect quality of life, economic
development and a host of other socio-economic issues.
Conversely, economic, demographic and social decisions
that extend far beyond a single watershed affect local
water resources as well.
In Montana and the Interior West, changes in settlement
patterns and economic development are exacerbating existing
schisms along ecosystem divides.
The Rocky Mountains and Southwest are attaining the
status of a third coast, acting as a relief valve and
economic boom area for the country. This growth is touted
as an example of the growing “amenity” economy.
Meanwhile, the Great Plains and other, more isolated
areas of the Interior West are suffering from depopulation,
aging populations, and lessening influence on state
and national economics and politics.
In 1893, Frederick Jackson Turner declared that the
frontier in the United States was closed, based on settlement
of two people per square mile. Harry Fritz, chair of
the Department of History at University of Montana,
pointed out that in much of eastern Montana, the frontier
is open again, based on that definition.
At first glance, these factors may seem to have little
to do with watershed management. However, water and
natural resources management has always been a delicate
interplay between the natural capacity of ecological
systems and human decisions and responses to those limitations
and opportunities.
Historically, Western responses to seasonal or absolute
scarcity of water has been a mix of clever conservation,
technical fixes including dams and inter-basin water
transfers, a complex system of water rights and ignorance.
Perhaps surprisingly from current vantage points, this
approach has worked much more of the time than it has
not.
However, the problems have grown more complex. The
United States is a highly integrated country of 300
million people, with growing demands for food, shelter,
economic wealth, education and a continued high standard
of living. With this increased pressure, the West’s
patchwork system of water regulation, infrastructure
and law is showing some cracks. Conflicting interests
between people, threats to water quality, water availability
and increasing problems with invasive species are all
potential brakes to the kind of quality of life that
communities want to maintain and enhance.
One approach to solving these complex problems would
be to try more top-down solutions, such as national
or state laws, increased state and national resources
for infrastructure and changes in national economic
and natural resource policies.
The other approach is a much more organic one, based
on the local needs and collaborative, voluntary approaches.
Watershed groups are the prime example of this approach,
focusing on watersheds with boundaries ranging from
a few square miles to thousands of square miles. In
every case, the emphasis is on inclusive participation
of all stakeholders.
Watershed groups have been springing up around the
country, particularly within the last ten years. Montana
has roughly 50 groups that have been organized anywhere
from within the past two months to more than two decades
ago.
Central to all groups is this conviction that people
can get together, sort out their differences and come
up with solutions that are better than they would have
come up with alone or by dealing with one another in
a more adversarial way. Several of the speakers at the
Symposium indicated that these groups are a voluntary
form of homegrown democracy.
The results of such an approach can be
impressive. Projects include the significant (and continuing)
cleanup of Muddy Creek near Great Falls, one of the
most damaged streams in Montana. Drought plan in watersheds
like the Big Hole and the Jefferson River are the result
of agreements between farmers, ranchers, and anglers.
The Madison Valley Ranchlands Group is
being tapped as a community voice in discussions on
growth policies. On Sage Creek, careful studies of the
interactions between groundwater, surface water and
farming practices are forming the basis for better salinity
management in the water and soil. These projects and
many more are the result of a focus on common problems
and the results are solutions that are accepted by the
stakeholders.
These collaborative approaches aren’t necessarily
easy or a cure-all. Forming and keeping a group together
can be difficult: there are often genuine and deep differences
between stakeholders on some issues, and it takes time
and courage to build a relationship of trust.
Outside influences, whether large economic and demographic
trends or very specific, targeted events such as energy
extraction or endangered species listings also can and
do affect what a watershed group can accomplish.
Interestingly, crises often have had a long-term positive
effect on watershed group development because it focuses
attention in a way that more subtle, long-term problems
do not.
Governments, from local conservation districts and
counties up to federal agencies, are also acknowledged
to have important roles. Working partnerships are cited
as vital to watershed group success. At this point,
much of the funding for Montana watershed efforts does
come from sources outside the watershed, typically from
state or federal government grants. This makes groups
more vulnerable to changes in state and federal policy,
but the government entities also indicate that they
often can’t do their work effectively without
local partners. The funding and technical help provided
by governments is part of the bridge between the grassroots
efforts of local citizens and stakeholders and the top-down
state and national interests expressed through representative
government.
Watershed groups are here to stay, the latest in a
long line of local associations that have flourished
in the United States. They do not take the place of
governments, but can act as an important way for local
communities of interest to focus attention on natural
resource improvement, tie it to local economic and social
interests and shape local responses to larger socio-economic
changes. The true lesson of watershed groups is that
local, focused response to change and challenges can
make a difference now and for future generations.
A summary and presentations at the Montana
Watershed Symposium will be posted here by the middle of January.
For more information about the Montana
Watershed Coordination Council, please visit the council's
web
site or request more information via email at
mtwatercourse@montana.edu
Karen
Filipovich is the Symposium Director for
the Montana Watershed Coordination Council. |
