Statewide Watershed Management Effects on Local Watershed Groups: A Comparison of Wisconsin, Kentucky, and Virginia

While there are no federal mandates for states to establish watershed managementframeworks, many states see the benefits of doing so and have established suchapproaches. The main advantage of statewide watershed management over traditionalresource management is the cost effectiveness and the formation of integrated solutionsto water quality problems. Statewide watershed frameworks provide a geographic focusand partnerships in order to develop comprehensive solutions to water quality problems.Watershed management depends on the participation of the local community and itsorganizations. Local watershed groups formed within in the community become integralmembers of these partnerships because of their vested interest in the watershed. Federal,state, and local governments recognize the functions that watershed groups serve, andhow important they are in developing guiding principles for the watersheds. However,since watershed management at the state level is relatively new and constantly evolving,the exact roles of where watershed groups fit into this framework and the amount oftechnical, educational, and financial support given to them is not yet fully defined.Because this relationship is not clearly defined, watershed groups often encounterobstacles that may inhibit them from reaching their full potential. There are six commonfactors shown to be effective in fostering the relationship between the states and localwatershed groups. These include: having one central agency in charge of coordinatingwatershed management activities, state funding support for local watershed groups, statesupport for research, experimentation, and pilot projects, state facilitation of technicalassistance and support, state support for public education on water quality issues, openforums where all stakeholders can voice their concerns and opinions.This paper outlines the watershed management framework of three states: Wisconsin,Kentucky, and Virginia. It explores the question: What educational, political, andfinancial assistance do these states offer in order to create a collaborative environment inwhich grassroot watershed groups have the capacity to make informed decisions affectingthe outcome of their watershed? This paper evaluates each state on how well they haveincorporated the six common factors into their watershed frameworks.