CHAPTER 17 GOVERNANCE
This chapter describes the structures and framework for governing the IRWM Program and Plan within the region, describes how communication and collaboration are fostered with both the public and specific stakeholder groups, Not a sentence. Add something else?
The following section describes both the initial governance structure developed during preparation of the 2009 IRWMP document and process (known as the Management Group/MG) and the refined governance structure developed for preparation of the 2014 Plan Update (Regional Water Management Group /RWMG) as well as the structure identified for ongoing Plan implementation.
1.1 Governance, Adoption and Implementation – 2009 IRWMP
1.1.1 Governance Structure Established During 2009 IRWMP
In March 2005, Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA) and other water interests in the county formed the Management Group (MG) to develop the Yuba County IRWM Plan. The MG was the collective body of the project proponents. The group was responsible for developing the IRWM Plan, including the project prioritization criteria, and applying the criteria to the projects in the region to rank and prioritize the projects. The group met monthly throughout 2006 – 2008.
Initial stakeholder outreach was accomplished largely through direct notification of key agencies (e.g., North Yuba Water District, Yuba County RCD, and City of Wheatland). MG meetings were designed and conducted as public meetings and included posting the agenda for the meetings on the YCWA Website in advance of the meetings. Interested parties and the public were invited to participate in the meetings, which focused on discussion of regional water management issues. The MG participating agencies also used these meetings to provide comments on development of the Plan.
In the early MG meetings, a list of stakeholders was developed, with the potential stakeholders for this planning process organized into three categories:
1. Members of the Management Group (listed in Section 1.3.2);
2. Regional stakeholders located in Yuba County; and
3. Statewide stakeholders, including local, state, and federal agencies.
Table 17 – 1 Stakeholders in Management Group – 2009 IRWMPRegional Stakeholders include:
Brophy Water District
Cordua Irrigation District
Dry Creek MWD
Hallwood Irrigation Company
Ramirez Water District
South Yuba Water District
North Yuba Water District
Wheatland Water District
City of Wheatland
Yuba County Resource Conservation District
Conservation Districts include:
Reclamation District 10
Reclamation District 817
Reclamation District 2103
California Water Service Company
South Yuba River Citizens League
Statewide Stakeholders include:
Northern California Water Association
California Department of Water Resources
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1.1.2 Process for Adoption of 2009 IRWMP
On February 7, 2006, the Management Group held a public hearing to brief the community on IRWM Plan requirements, the proposed planning process, opportunities for public involvement, and to discuss the intention to prepare the Yuba County IRWM Plan. Members of the MG also participated in the meeting. At the end of the meeting, staff was directed to prepare a draft Yuba County IRWM Plan.
When the public draft of the IRWM Plan became available in January 2008, notice was provided in the (Appeal Democrat newspaper) and on the YCWA Website to inform the public about its availability. Written comments on the draft plan were collected at the public hearing and accepted directly by YCWA until February 12, 2008. After the close of the comment period, the Yuba County IRWM Plan Project Team reviewed all the comments and the draft Yuba County IRWM Plan was updated to address the comments as needed.
A public hearing was held on February 26, 2008, for YCWA to receive further public comment on the final draft of the plan and, acting as the lead agency, to adopt the Yuba County IRWM Plan. A notice was published regarding the hearing date, time, and agenda; summary of the plan; and the means for obtaining copies. Once adopted by YCWA, the plan was adopted by the Boards of the other members of the MG.
1.1.3 Activities after Adoption of 2009 Plan
The 2008 Yuba County IRWMP was adopted shortly before the “Great Recession” and its subsequent economic decline. The impacts of the recession were strongly felt across the region: staff was laid off, budgets were constrained and already disadvantaged communities experienced a decline in capacity. As a result of this, and the fatigue engendered by a lengthy Plan development process, the Yuba Management Group (MG) began to meet less frequently and with diminished attendance. Throughout the years 2009 – 2013, the RWMG met on only XX occasions. The focus of the meetings was largely on deciding to apply for planning grant funds to update the Plan, preparing the Prop 84 Planning Grant application, and discussing strategies for advancing the funding of projects.
1.2 Yuba County IRWMP Update (2013 – 2014) Governance Process
The Yuba County IRWMP update began in 2013, with the receipt of a DWR Prop 84 IRWM Planning Grant. The goal of the effort was to bring the 2009 Plan into compliance with the 2012 DWR IRWM guidelines. YCWA acted as the applicant and grantee for this effort.
The work effort was initiated with receipt of the commitment letter in February 2013.
1.2.1 Recruitment Process to Increase and Diversify Participation
A key focus of the update effort was the recruitment of a more diverse stakeholder group to integrate into the existing MG. A parallel effort was focused on involving agencies and stakeholders that had participated in the initial Plan development, but whose involvement had lessened over time.
The list of MG members from the initial effort served as the starting point for developing a recruitment list. The initial recruitment list included 21 agencies, groups, and entities. An outreach system of phone calls, emails and one-on-one visits (which came to be called circuit riding) was initiated. By June of 2013, a total of 81 stakeholders had been identified and contacted. These groups or entities included: 41 agencies, jurisdictions or departments, 12 non-governmental organizations, 18 Tribal entities, four Hispanic community groups and three Hmong community groups. See Table 17 – 1. Each group that responded to initial calls or emails was interviewed or visited. Follow-up contacts were made with groups that did not initially respond.
For this update process the former Management Group (MG) was renamed as the Regional Water Management Group (RWMG).
Of the groups recruited, 20 began to regularly attend the Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) meetings, the first of which was held in June 2013. Subsequent meetings were held as follows: October 16, 2013, January 15, 2014, April XX, 2014, May XX, 2014, June XX, 2014, and September XX, 2014.
Early in the stakeholder recruitment process, it became clear that the reduction in regional capacity and length of time separating the two Plan development work efforts had resulted in diminished capacity for many of the groups to attend regular monthly meetings.
At that time the group agreed that RWMG meetings would be limited to as few meetings as possible, but that the meetings would last longer and have comprehensive agendas to enable focused and intensive work. The RWMG also agreed that recruitment would continue through the October 2013 meeting with a final round of outreach completed by December 2013, at which point the entities that had chosen to participate would become the RWMG. Three exceptions were made in this cutoff of recruitment: Latino, Hmong and Tribal participation was deemed important and the process for involvement of these constituencies would continue for the life of Plan preparation and implementation.
1.2.2 Governance Structure Revisited and Refined
Beginning with the first RWMG meeting, in June of 2013, the issue of decision-making in the context pf Plan preparation and subsequent governance during Plan implementation was discussed. It was determined by the group (and reaffirmed at three subsequent meetings) that:
1. The RWMG would act in a decision-making role for the duration of Plan preparation and would be replaced by a new governance entity upon Plan adoption (See Figure 17-1, Governance Structure)
2. Attendance at RWMG meetings during Plan preparation would be a determinant of ability to participate in formal decisions; participation in two out of three meetings was the minimum for eligibility to vote. No attendance limit was placed on participating in discussions and debate about Plan content or process.
3. All decisions would be by consensus or, if consensus could not be reached, then by a 75% supermajority vote. (See Figure 17 - 2, Decision-making Process)
1.2.3 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
The RWMG determined that, for the purposes of Plan adoption and implementation, the new governing body would need to be developed based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This MOU was developed and reviewed by the RWMG and is attached in Appendix XX. It covers such topics as: representation, decision-making process, formation of committees, formation of a management committee to ‘run’ the process between RWMG meetings, and budget development and oversight.
Table 17 - 1Entities Contacted and Recruited for Participation in Management Group (MG) in2013
Districts, Agencies and Municipalities
Beale Air Force Base
Brophy Water District
Browns Valley Irrigation District
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
California Water Service
Camp Far West Irrigation District
Camptonville Community Partnership, Inc.
Camptonville Community Services District
City of Marysville
City of Wheatland
City of Wheatland
Cordua Irrigation District
District 10 Landowners - C/O Don Schrader
Dry Creek Mutual Water Company
Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe
GEI Consultants
Hallwood Irrigation Company
Hallwood Irrigation Company
Linda County Water District
Marysville Levee Commission
North Yuba Water District
North Yuba Water District / Olivehurst Public Utility District
Plumas Mutual Water District
Ramirez Water District
Reclamation District 10
Reclamation District 784
Reclamation District 784
Reclamation District 817
Reclamation District 2103
Reclamation District 2103
River Highland Community Services District
South Yuba Water District
South Yuba Water District
Sutter County Water Resources Division
Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority (TRLIA)
Wheatland Water District
Wheatland Water District
Yuba County Agricultural Commissioner
Yuba County Planning Division
Yuba County Resource Conservation District
Yuba County Public Works
Yuba County Public Works
Yuba Watershed Protection and Fire Safe Council
Non-profit Organizations
American Rivers
Aqualliance
Bear Yuba Land Trust
California Department of Fish & Wildlife
California Sports Fishing Protection Alliance
Ducks Unlimited / Gold Country Flyfishers
Foothill Water Network
South Yuba River Citizens League
The Sierra Fund
Trout Unlimited
Trust for Public Land (TPL)
Tribal Entities
1. Nevada City Rancheria
2. Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California
3. Tsi Akim Maidu
4. United Auburn Indian Community
5. Concow Maidu Tribe of Mooretown Rancheria
6. Greenville Rancheria Tribe of Maidu Indians
7. Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria
8. Shingle Springs Rancheria
9. Tyme Maidu Tribe of Berry Creek Rancheria / 10. Pakan-Yani Band of Strawberry Valley Rancheria
11. Maidu/Miwok
12. Nisenan/Maidu
13. Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians
14. Maidu Nation
15. Tyrone Gorre
16. Maidu Cultural and Development Group
17. Colfax-Todd Valley Consolidated Tribe
18. Susanville Indian Rancheria
Hispanic Community
Alliance for Hispanic Advancement
La Cooperative Campesina de California / North Valley Hispanic Chamber
Ampla Health
Hmong Community
Hmong American Association
Hmong Women’s Heritage Association / Hmong Cultural Center of Butte County
Yuba IRWMP | UPDATE 2013 1-3
Chapter 17 Governance
Yuba IRWMP | UPDATE 2013 1-3
Chapter 17 GovernanceYuba IRWMP | UPDATE 2013 1-3
Chapter 17 Governance1.2.4 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
For MG members and recruited stakeholders, internal communications during Plan preparation relied heavily on four primary methods: email, phone calls, the IRWMP web site (www.yubairwmp.org), and circuit riding, personal outreach meetings. During the initial months of outreach the method which best suited each individual entity became apparent. While email and phone calls served during the initial recruitment, it was the circuit riding that expanded participation and at the MG level.
External public notices and communications focused on receiving input were initially noticed using legal advertisements. However, the lack of turnout prompted the use of other strategies, including: placing of display ads in local papers, use of community activities sections of local newspapers and wider distribution of the web page contact information (Please see Appendix XX).
1.3 Balanced Opportunities for Access and Participation
The ability to participate in the process by all potential stakeholders resulted in implementation of a variety of strategies: holding all meetings in ADA-accessible locations, providing call-in options wherever feasible, use of circuit riding as a way to carry information and options between stakeholders, use of the Web page to accommodate process tracking and personalized outreach. In general, the opportunities for participation included: MG meetings, committee and sub-committee meetings (which were noticed using both email distribution list and the Web page), participation in circuit riding meetings, use of email and phone, and direct contact by the Project Team.
1.4 Process Used to Develop Objectives
See Chapter 13, Goals, Objectives, Issues and Conflicts for a complete description of the development of goals and objectives for the Plan.
1.5 Coordination with Adjacent IRWM Regions
Reviewers: the outreach coordination is in process – text to come when coordination is complete.
At this point in time, we will need to coordinate with the following IRWM regions: North Sacramento Valley (Vickie Newlin), Upper Feather (Randy Wilson), CABY (Izzie Martin), American River Basin (Rob Swartz). At the next RWMG meeting in April, a process for initiating and integrating this outreach will be presented.
1.6 Long-term Implementation
The RWMG will be replaced by a formal MOU-based governing body after adoption of the Plan by the current MG. Subsequent adoption by individual entities is a prerequisite to membership in the new governing body (name to be determined). This group will oversee all aspects of Plan implementations including: pursuit of funding for projects, updating and revising the Plan, continuing to develop and advance new projects, and continued recruitment of and management of relations with regional stakeholders.
Note to reviewers: the mechanics of these activities will be spelled out in a future group discussion and will be augmented with an implementation actions matrix that specifically identifies all subsequent activities.