Over the years, I have worked with LOTS of citizen committees whose purpose was to give feedback, input, and guidance to watershed and stream projects. They have numbered in size from 45 members to three members. The members are leaders in some form, and most are helpful in some way. These projects often involve a large public investment in terms of time and money, so it makes some sense that they include citizen oversight.
However, I often hear from community leaders (both elected and professional staff) something along the lines of "geez, these people want what they want, they don’t listen to reality, and they’re a pain in the posterior!" Yes, it can be more cumbersome and less-streamlined if you’re working with an active committee or larger constituency.
While that may be true, let’s think about what a good, active constituency can do for an urban watershed project:
- Nothing provides better "cover" to a project’s political champion like a committee that is tied into the community.
- They can provide a 501c3 foundation to raise private funds or work real estate deals for the purposes of the project.
- They can form the voter’s voice for the ongoing O&M of the project over time. These are usually people who frequently use or realize some benefit from the project.
- They are the glue between the community-at-large and the project. These are the folks who make sure that the project is context-appropriate and iconic for the community.
- They can overcome opposition to a project, whether from electeds or other organizations.
Frankly, most of the worthwhile projects I’m aware of were not created by elected officials or other local government officials sitting up in bed and saying "we need to do __________ with the river." The project may start there, but without active support from some constituency somewhere, it won’t get anywhere. An active constituency can start a project on its own; it just takes more time. One of the towns close to where I live, Seguin, has a group called the Walnut Branch Committee which has labored for seven years to get a stream and park restoration project moving (and they just reached the large milestone of their first design project funding).
Therefore, it makes sense to foster an active constituency and create a "big tent" for inclusion. It might resemble sausage making in its messiness from time to time, but the grassroots leadership makes for long-term continuity through the inevitable changes in local elected leadership.
Active committees/constituencies aren’t perfect, because they’re made up of people, but their benefits generally outweigh their detriments.
Here are some links regarding constituencies and rivers. Note that several of these examples come from abroad:
"How a river helped Seoul reclaim its heart and soul"
"Israeli-Palestinian team cleaning up regional rivers"
"Linking rivers and economic development"
"Pajaro River leevee concerns remain"
"Town brings back the good old days of swimming in the river"
posted by KEVIN CONNER
I noted with interest that one of the links you furnished was for the Fossil Creek project in Yavapai County Arizona. There are several river related community/grass roots organizations just in Arizona (seems a bit odd given that most of Arizona is a desert), including Friends of the West Valley Recreation Corridors (Agua Fria River), Friends of Prescott Creeks (Granite Creek), Friends of the San Pedro (San Pedro River), and a very active Friends of the Verde (Verde River which Fossil Creek is a tributary to). All of these groups are actively reaching out to different interest groups within their respective communities but it takes a very long time to build critical mass.
Your point that all of the really successful river projects have some sort of "active constituency" is well taken. There is a website that provides a clearinghouse and "support central" for these citizen groups - it is www.rivernetwork.org
Posted by: Burke Lokey | February 16, 2007 at 09:54 AM