NM Water Connections- Notes 2-00

Summary of Discussion Proposed Project to "Map" New Mexico Water Initiatives Seeking Grants February 23, 2000 Inn at the Alameda, Santa Fe
Presentation of the Mapping Group:
The mapping group (Michael Benson, Conci Bokum, Paula Garcia, Lucy Moore, Nicasio Romero, Judy Stevens) presented an idea designed to address some of the confusion among both funders and grantees about water initiatives in the State. The Mapping Project would bring together non-profits and other grant-seeking organizations to create a process for clarifying the water landscape. The project would answer the questions: Who is doing what? What is the organizational size and structure? What is the geographic scope? What problems are they addressing? Who are the beneficiaries? The product - large maps, or other graphic presentations of the information, and/or perhaps a directory or report - would provide a badly-needed picture of water initiatives in the state. Organizers hope that the complexity of the picture will be captured and honored. This project, said the mapping group, could set the stage for later prioritizing, coordination of efforts, and addressing the gaps. The mapping group offered the following planning timeline for the project: March Build comprehensive list of groups Design survey March 27 Planning Meeting (Albuquerque) Finalize list and survey Begin discussion of mapping event April-May Send out survey Gather and collate results Draft initial maps, or skeletons of maps June Planning Meeting: Finalize plans for Mapping Event July Mapping Event Groups gather, map selves Discussion of conclusions Discussion of next steps: Possible "mapping exchange" with foundations and agencies Other uses for the "product"
Discussion:
Usefulness of Project: The group discussed the usefulness of this project. Many felt the clarity and exchange of information would be very valuable, for grantees and funders alike. Some also saw it as a way of furthering trust among grantees and funders, and moving closer to the desired "equal partners" relationship. The product of the project, whether a "mapping exchange" or a directory or other format would be invaluable for funders - like 75 site visits, offered a foundation representative. Funders wondered if the project would be useful for grantees, without an actual event to interact with the funding sources. Project proponents felt it would be useful, for grantees themselves, with or without foundation participation. Others wondered how this project would promote on-the-ground results in terms of protecting the environment. There was also frustration with the number of forums on water in recent years, and the seeming lack of results in the policy arena. There were caveats not to make this project yet another forum and nothing more. Product: During the morning many spoke of a variety of products that could result from the mapping project, including the maps themselves, a directory or report, a website, a large mapping exchange session with foundations and other grantees, or a series of smaller roundtables or working groups which could evolve after the mapping had occurred and the information was available. A participant suggested that eventually overlays could be made for the maps, showing a great variety of information - congressional districts, contaminated sites, numbers of voters, endangered species, etc. Scope of Project: Some felt the project should expand beyond its original scope to include grantees of federal funding program. Some suggested expanding the foundation list to include those interested in water in broader terms than environmental - such as public health, historical and cultural preservation, etc. The group acknowledged that every effort should be made to include those who are not yet part of the grantmaking world, like the many small watershed protection and restoration groups that are springing up. Challenges: The group spoke of the pitfalls possible in any gathering of foundations and potential grantees. Expectations can be raised, and grantees can be disappointed that all their needs (or even most of their needs) cannot be met by the few foundations granting in the state. The event can also run the risk of become a "trade show," where potential grantees compete to sell themselves to the potential funders. The group also discussed the meaning of the word "environmental" in New Mexico, where environmental priorities can be seen as a threat to traditional land uses. Environmental priorities can achieve their goals through the marketplace, where traditional water users are vulnerable. There was discussion about the relationship between environmental and water, and which is the sub-set of the other. The mapping group chooses to see water as the topic, and the environment as one of many priorities under that topic, along with health, wildlife, culture, etc. Both mapping group members and funders spoke of the need to democratize the environmental movement, to build support in traditional and rural areas by offering badly needed help for environment-related needs, like drinking water, or contamination clean up.