Success and Watershed Group Formation within Michigan and the United States

1
Success and Watershed Group Formation within
Michigan and the United States
Julia Kalloz (REU, Villanova University)
Faculty Advisors K. Halvorsen and A. Mayer
(Michigan Technological U), Graduate Student
Advisor Gerald Greer (MTU)
Introduction
Researchers define success as
Why Michigan?
Over the past 15 years the number of local
watershed management partnerships in the United
States have increased significantly. This is
because of increased government support and the
recognition that partnerships are efficient in
not only reducing non-point source pollution, but
addressing unique local concerns. Partnerships
are voluntary organizations that include
citizens, landowners, governmental leaders,
agency representatives, business leaders, and
environmental groups. They define problems by
geographical boundaries instead of political and
provide an alternative to regulation. Researchers
have defined partnership success, but the
literature does not explain how the participants
define success. The literature also does not
explain the importance of state policy in
partnership formation. Our question is What
role does the context of Michigans policy play
in not only why groups form, but how groups
define success?
Environmental Success -The implementation of
management plans (Browning-Aiken
et al., 2004 Webler et al., 2003) -
Improving the watershed (Bentrup, 2001
Imperial, 2005 Merrick and Garcia,
2004) The Creation of a Management Plan The
Existence of a High Quality Group Process
(Michaels, 2001) Social Success -
Increased social capital (Adams et al.,
2005) - Increased public awareness (Dakins
et al., 2005) - Economic Impacts (Johnson
and Campbell, 1999)
The EPA gives authority to states to distribute
Clean Water Act Section 319 grants, which are
designated for non-point source management
programs. Because of this, there is significant
variability in the priority each state gives to
watershed management planning. In Oregon there
are multiple state funding opportunities, a
centralized state agency in charge of watersheds,
and accessible information. Michigan has limited
funding, decentralized authority and out of date
information.
Why do Groups Succeed?
Biophysical Context - Problem Severity
(Wooley and McGinnis,
1999 Browning-Aiken 2004) - Geographic
Scale (Cheng and Daniels, 2003) High Quality
Group Process (Michaels, 2001) Community Trust
(Adams et al., 2005) Policy Context (Michaels,
2001) Access to Information and Funding
Methods
We conducted a literature review of the relevant
sociological research and now are interviewing
approximately 70 individuals who run/ran
watershed groups in MI. 16 have been completed.
To determine the number and contact information
of Michigan watershed groups we used the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the
Purdue University CTIC Know Your Watershed, and
the River Network watershed group databases. Our
response rate is not yet determined. We
interviewed each contact using a set group of
questions designed to determine why watershed
groups form in Michigan and how they define
success.
Preliminary Results
Of the 16 interviewed individuals, all said that
the group formed because of an environmental
problem. However, while 9 out of 16 also define
success environmentally, 14 out of 16 now define
success by high quality group process or social
impact. Three significant parts of group process
and social success are group longevity, public
participation, and increased community watershed
awareness. These individuals may see group
process and social impacts as important successes
because work on the watershed is never finished,
there are more people to tell about the watershed
and more problems to address. The community and
its members are very important. This is why
sustainability is not only about the environment.
Its about people.
Why the focus on public participation?
References

• Adams, J., S. Kraft., J. Ruhl., C. Lant., T.
  Loftus., and L. Duram. 2005. Watershed planning
  Pseudo-democracy and its
• alternativesthe case of the Cache River
  Watershed, Illinois. Agriculture and Human Values
  22(3)327-338.
• Bentrup, G. 2001. Evaluation of a Collaborative
  Model a Case Study Analysis of Watershed
  Planning in the Intermountain
• West. Environmental Management
  27(5)739-748.
• Blomquist, W. and E. Schlager. 2005. Political
  Pitfalls of Integrated Watershed Management.
  Society and Natural Resources 18 (2) 101-117.
• Browning-Aiken, A., H. Richter., D. Goodrich., B.
  Strain., and R. Varady. 2004. Upper San Pedro
  Basin Fostering
• Collaborative Binational Watershed
  Management. Water Resources Development
  20(3)354-367
• Cheng. A.S., and S.E. Daniels. 2003. Examining
  the Interaction Between Geographic Scale and Ways
  of Knowing in Ecosystem
• Management A Case Study of PlaceBased
  Collaborative Planning. Forest Science. 49 (6)
  841-854.
• Dakins, Maxine E., J.D.Long, and M.Hart. 2005.
  Collaborative Environmental Decision Making in
  Oregon Watershed
• Groups Perceptions of Effectiveness.
  Journal of the American Water Resources
  Association 41 (1) 171-180.
• Duram, L.A., and K.G. Brown. 1999. Assessing
  Public Participation in U.S. Watershed Planning
  Initiatives. Society and
• Natural Resources 12(5)455-467
• Merrick, J. R.W., and M.W. Garcia. Summer 2004.
  Using ValueFocused Thinking to Improve
  Watersheds. Journal of American
• Planning Association. 70 (3) 313-327.
• Michaels, S. 2001. Making Collaborative Watershed
  Management Work The Confluence of State and
  Regional Initiatives.
• Environmental Management 27(1)27-35
• Milich, L. Varady, R. G. 1999. Openness,
  Sustainability, and Public Participation New
  Designs for Transboundary River
• Basin Initiatives. Journal of Environment
  and Development8(3)258-306

Reduces conflict, increases consensus (Bentrup
2001 Duram and Brown, 1997) Increases community
awareness (Konisky and Beierle,
2001) Addresses important social goals and
community values
(Blomquist and Schlager, 2005 Milich and
Varady, 2001)
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Kathleen Halvorsen, Alex Mayer, Gerald
Greer, Jim Milhelcic, Shalini Suryanarayana The
Sustainability REU project is sponsored by the
National Science Foundation under Grant No. EEC
0453174.