Whither

Whither the Russian River Watershed Council?

Some Opinions:

The erstwhile (still "Interim") Russian River Watershed Council, which has been a gleam in the eye of some and a curse to many hardworking and unpaid volunteers, last met in Cloverdale on Saturday, January 23. Members attending the often raucous sessions have included representatives with various conflicting interests: gravel-mining, political, wine-growing, broadly environmental concerns, and watershed restoration.

The fractious and divided Council has yet to adopt a Mission Statement satisfactory to all groups, and has not yet defined its operating rules and final membership conditions. At its last meeting the Interim Council, unable to reach any consensus, referred discussion of these questions to subcommittees. The Council has, however, approved an Army Corps of Engineers' Project Study Plan which proposes to spend $6.5 million dollars on the Russian River Watershed over six years. For what purposes the money would be spent has yet to be spelled out in any detail and it is still unclear whether the State, under the new Davis' administration, will continue to participate in this presently ill-defined process.

On Sunday, January 24th, the Press Democrat ran a story on the Watershed Council. That story has elicited amplification and dissent among some environmentalists familiar with the history of the Watershed Council.

A letter to the editors of various papers, from four Council members:

We have attended most of the meetings of the Russian River Watershed Council and have a very different viewpoint from a story presented in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat (run on Sunday, January 24, 1999).

Federal and state officials created this council and, to date, it has served their purposes only. The community has had little to say about the process, the budget, or the substance of the council. In the year of meetings which have occurred, deciding on the council's mission, goals and membership have persistently been relegated to a lower order of importance than allocating funds to the federal government. For example, the $6.6 million the Corps of Engineers claims is set aside for restoration of the Russian River is in fact a budget request to Congress and the State of California for money to fund the Corps. The Project Study Plan, or PSP, written by the Corps to justify this budget request focuses on providing funds for itself to bring the operation of its own Warm Springs and Coyote dams into compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act. This is not community-based watershed restoration. Since half of the $6.6 million must be provided by the people of the State of California, is in fact a subsidy of state money to the federal government to comply with its own laws.

A very small percentage (less than 5%) of the $6.6 million would go to fund meetings of the council. Moreover, most of even this funding goes to state and federal bureaucrats at a rate of over $20,000 per meeting. This is scandalous: for the past year the Corps and State have expended nearly
$140,000 with the only product being a request to provide themselves with $6.6 million more dollars and no commitment to complete any actual restoration projects! The many local efforts focusing on the health of the Russian River and its watershed have been excluded from the process, presumably because they do not serve the Corps need for funds.

The Russian River Watershed Council is no more than big government wasting your tax dollars and taking advantage of the good intentions of local people to protect and restore the Russian River. We encourage the residents of our watershed to write their state and federal representatives to oppose the Corp's grand waste of your money.

We support a truly local council run by local people for the benefit - not further exploitation - of the river.

Beverly Wasson
Laurel Marcus
Moira Chatton
Joan Vilms

And a follow-up opinion from another local environmental maven:

Amen to the above. But I see the Corps of Engineers -- not my favorite guys and gals -- as being an add-on, hitching onto the efforts of the state's Conservation Department. It's *their* gig. Pete Wilson/Doug Wheeler started it --and here are all these worthy environmentalists carrying the water for the very guys they loved to hate for eight years. And whose game plan is being carried forward under the new administration. And of course our own Water Agency, also a frequent villain to many environmentalists, also hitched on early.

Hilarious.

As to costs: maybe a few sums smaller than the $6.6 million ( which is separate) will provide some amusement for these rainy days:

For six of the PUBLIC meetings ( who knows WHAT the costs were for the private ones, or even when and where they were held, and THOSE are where the real decisions were and are made):

Mailings: $9,440
Facilitation : $27,614
Coffee/snacks/facilities: $5,230
Total : $42,284
Average per meeting: $ 7,047

And that does not include a mere $108,000 for the regular staff -- presumably the two women who arrange things, though this figure may be for a longer period of time; I doubt if it includes the Army officers, or SCWA. (The cost figures are from the Conservation Department.)

A long-standing pet peeve: facilitators- - the people with the pads of newsprint on stands, and the wick pens. When such persons arrive at a meeting I attend, and when they are clearly nudging the group into a desired pre-determined set of opinions, I USE the exit door.

Helen Libeu

The January 24th Press Democrat article quoted Lt.-Colonel Pete Grass of the Army Corps of Engineers as stating optimistically but vaguely that: "This is good news for everyone in the watershed; it means that this council will have the opportunity to directly participate in the management and restoration of the river.'' But to date the ill-defined and divided Council has accomplished nothing which directly affects the river, nor does it have the legal standing necessary to compel any governmental agencies or private interests to alter their practices in any manner regarding the Russian River, for good or ill. Unless it is able to find some substantial footing among those who presently have jurisdiction over the River, the Council will continue to function as an expensive cosmetic for the bureaucracy -- a waste of public funds and private energies.

Jay Halcomb (2/8/99)