Native American Participation in Collaborative Watershed Planning: A Comparison Between the Southwest and Pacific Northwest United States

Principal Investigator: Amanda Cronin
Graduate Student
M.S Environmental Science and Policy Program
Northern Arizona University
 

In Fall of 2005 I completed my graduate studies (M.S in Environmental Science and Policy) at Northern Arizona University. My advisor was Dr. David Ostergren and my committee members were Dr. David Schlosberg and Dr. Rod Parnell. This research was supported by the Watershed Research and Education Program, the Bill Morrall Conservation Scholarship Fund and the Arizona Garden Club.  A link to a copy of my thesis and a summary of my research project follow.   A list of presentations appears below.

Amanda Cronin's Thesis

Research Project:
Over the past decade there has been a fundamental shift in the way natural resource management decisions are made in the United States. Traditionally, the process was characterized by top-down, agency oriented planning and decision making that often resulted in conflict. Tired of conflict and stalemate communities, nongovernmental organizations, land management agencies, and landowners are turning to collaborative decision-making. This change is reflected in increased public participation in land management, a result of agency emphasis on local voices and a corresponding greater interest from citizens. One form of collaborative decision-making is manifested in thousands of small watershed planning groups across the United States, each group specific to place and unique in approach. Within the collaborative conservation movement, there is tremendous variability in focus, objectives, and breadth of participants.

Much has been written about the techniques, pitfalls, and successes of collaborative watershed groups; however, few attempts have been made to examine the stakeholders, actual or potential as the case may be. Typical participants include: agency personnel, elected officials, industry representatives, large landowners, and environmental groups. The participation of Native American tribes is less common, who in many cases have considerable stake in the watersheds on the table. The success of collaborative planning groups relies on representative stakeholder participation. Because the planning process is often initiated at the community or agency level, watershed collaboratives are often at a loss as to how to include Native American tribes. Leaving people out of the process necessarily limits accomplishments and this is particularly evident when major watershed landowners, such as Native American tribes do not partake. My research will consider Native American tribal participation in the Pacific Northwest and in the Southwest.

In the Southwest, I am particularly interested in Central Arizona’s Verde River Watershed. The Verde has a tumultuous history of conflict over water resources, and collaborative approaches aimed at addressing water quantity are emerging. In addition to the county sponsored, Yavapai County Water Advisory Group, there are several other citizen-initiated efforts with varying objectives, including: the Verde Watershed Alliance, the Open Space Alliance of Central Yavapai County, Keep Sedona Beautiful, Citizens Water Advocacy Group, Verde River Citizens Alliance, the Upper Agua Fria Watershed Partnership, and the Central Arizona Land Trust. Participants include, federal, state and local agencies, universities, private landowners, city governments, non-government organizations and individuals. However, there is a noticeable lack of participation in these groups from the three tribes that live in the watershed, which include: the Yavapai-Prescott, Yavapai Apache and Tonto Apache tribes. My research will explore the reasons behind this trend.

Western collaborative watershed planning is perhaps most developed in the Pacific Northwest where driving concerns are of water quality and the fate of the Northwest’s signature species, the Pacific Salmon. Within the Pacific Northwest, there are dozens of watershed groups, some of which have benefited from a prominent tribal participation. Two case studies will be conducted in this region they include, the Dungeness River Management Team, and the Walla Walla River Watershed Council both of which have enjoyed a strong tribal presence.

Utilizing case study methodology, guided by Robert Yin’s “Case Study Research: Design and Methods” 2003, I will examine watershed planning groups that have enjoyed tribal participation and those that have not. Selected case studies of groups lacking tribal participation will be limited to those in which there is an affiliated tribal presence in the watershed. Case study methodology (Yin, 2003) is appropriate where one or just a few organizations are investigated and the organizations cannot be separated from outside forces, current events or internal decisions and personalities. At a workshop on community-based collaboratives sponsored by the Udall Center for Public Policy, it was noted that, “At a minimum, [research] should involve on-site work, so that all the information is not gathered from answers to written questionnaires or telephone inquires by long distance researchers” (Moote, et.al 2000).

My research questions include:

• Under what conditions do Native American tribes participate in collaborative watershed planning?
• How can tribal involvement be encouraged in collaborative watershed planning?
• How does science inform the collaborative planning process?
• How do differing notions of governance between Native American tribes and non-Native Americans influence the collaborative process?

As water becomes more limited and water quality decreases in western states, understanding these issues is becoming critical for people of the Pacific Northwest as well as the Southwest. Collaborative planning assumes that public participation is essential for democracy. In a time when the American public is increasingly “bowling alone” and community involvement is diminishing (Putnam, 2000), collaborative planning represents a trend in the opposite direction. Collaborative planning performs the double duty of connecting people with their community and as well as local watersheds. Collaboration is a tool for holistically addressing watershed health and has the ability to tackle issues on both private and public land. In the best instances, collaboration has the power to bring a group of non-allies together to embrace a common vision for their watershed. This translates into a shared sense of responsibility and feeling that “we are all in it together” and can ultimately lead to healthier watersheds (Wondolleck and Yafee, 2000).

With this in mind, the goals for my research are multifaceted. I hope to contribute to our understanding of how and when tribes are involved in collaborative watershed planning. Putting my findings to use, I intend increase broad stakeholder participation in watershed planning. Most western watersheds are characterized by a patchwork of landownership each with the potential to impact local water supplies. Irregular patterns of ownership have often forced a random approach to implementation, in which only willing landowners participate. Increasing the number of people involved in planning has the potential to lead to more widespread implementation efforts.

In a summary of the Udall Center’s workshop on community-based collaboratives, participants placed emphasis on the question: “Who participates in community-based collaborative groups, who doesn’t, and why or why not? How can participation be encouraged and sustained?” (Moote, et.al 2000). Identifying who does and does not participate and the reasons driving involvement are crucial to achieving the goals of collaborative watershed planning. Native American tribes have long been recognized as essential partners for land management in the western United States, at the same time cultural barriers are often acknowledged that impede potential partnerships (Varela, in Brick et al, 2001). This disconnect was echoed by Luther Propst and Susan Culp, “American Indian Nations …profoundly affected by and concerned with environmental quality, are…often alienated by the mainstream of the environmental movement” (in Brick et al, 2001). There is a concerted voice among those who study collaboration to further research participation in these efforts.

The proposed timeline for research is two years, with the following significant dates. Design of case study research will occur in February-May 2004. Data collection and fieldwork will occur August-December 2004. Followed by interpretation and analysis of case study data and in Spring 2005, I intend to present my research at: the Annual Western Social Science Association and Conference and the International Symposium on Society and Resource Management. I aim to publish at least one paper on this subject by Fall 2005. My master’s thesis will be complete during fall semester 2005. Beyond graduation, I will be available as a resource for those wishing to promote broader inclusion on collaborative planning efforts. I anticipate using the results of my graduate research to increase community participation in watershed planning and implementation.

The outcome of my work has the potential to promote broader inclusion in watershed planning and provide much needed documentation on building bridges across cultural barriers to involve tribes in the collaborative planning process. This research is particularly timely in the context of water rights in Arizona, as the State prepares to negotiate with the Navajo Tribe in regards to the main-stem Colorado River and Little Colorado River water allocations. My research on cooperative partnerships with Arizona tribes has the potential to positively inform this process. In a broader sense agency staff, the public, tribes, and communities throughout the country stand to benefit by bringing more voices to the table of watershed planning. The ultimate goal of this research will be to increase public understanding of water resources and develop better stewardship from all stakeholders in the watersheds of the American West.

Literature Cited (for further reading):

Brick, Philip D., Donald, Snow, and Sarah B. Van de Wetering, eds. 2001. Across the Great Divide: Explorations in Collaborative Conservation in the American West. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Kenney, Douglas, S., Sean T. McAllister, William H. Caile and Jason S. Peckam, 2000. The New Watershed Source Book: A Directory and Review of Watershed Initiatives in the Western United States. Boulder, Colorado: Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law.

Moote, Ann, Alex Conley, Karen Firehock, and Frank Dukes, 2000. Assessing Research Needs: A Summary of a Workshop on Community-Based Collaboratives. Tuscon, Arizona: Udall Center Publications.

Putnam, Robert D., 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster

Wondolleck, Julia M. and Steven L. Yaffee, 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Washington D.C: Island Press.

Yin, Robert K., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
 

Presentations:

International Symposium for Society and Resource Management, Ostersund, Sweden, June 2005.

Western Social Science Association Meeting, Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 2005.

Watershed Management Council Annual Biennial Meeting, San Diego, California, November 2004.