NM Water Connections- Notes 7-00

Water Mapping Project Planning Meeting July 13, 2000 NRCS Conference Room, 6200 Jefferson, Albuquerque
Welcome and introductions:
Lucy Moore welcomed the group on behalf of other organizers of this meeting, including Michael Benson, Conci Bokum, Steve Harris, Sharon Hausam, Adrian Oglesby, Judy Stevens, and Nicasio Romero. Those present introduced themselves.
Purpose of the Meeting:
Organizers explained that the "Water Mapping" project was initiated in response to complaints from the foundation world that New Mexico was a confusing and frustrating place to fund when it comes to water issues. It is hard to tell where the real need is, they say, when they are flooded by proposals which are often duplicative, or contradictory. They also fear that they may be ignoring pockets of need because of the confusion of the total water picture. A small group with experience writing proposals and dealing with foundations proposed to try to clarify the picture of the water groups and the water-related needs in the state - for the foundations, and for themselves. They began by gathering a list of 165 water groups of all kinds and developing a draft survey to be used to gather information about these groups. They anticipate holding a large meeting or workshop to bring together all the groups for the purpose of "mapping" themselves, thereby creating a big picture of water issues and projects in New Mexico. Eventually, the group hopes to create a forum for dialogue with foundations who fund water issues in the state where the potential grantees and the foundations could exchange information about scope, interest, history, resources, capacity, etc. The General Service Foundation has granted $ 4,900 to help the effort get started. Some of that money has been spent gathering the lists of water groups, designing the survey and holding this and previous meetings. 1000 Friends of New Mexico is acting as the fiscal agent for that grant. This meeting was to enlarge the planning group and move forward, if the group decided it was worthwhile to try to create this "big picture." Original organizers emphasized that they wanted to create a larger and more representative group to guide the project.
What do we need to know about each other?
The group identified the things that they thought would be useful to be "mapped." geographic scope (community-based, statewide, etc.) activities/what do you do? (legal, community organizing, research, testing, etc.) legal/fiscal status program areas (surface, ground, quality, wildlife, agriculture, etc.) goals time frame of specific projects (long-term and short-term) budget and funding sources organizational structure (membership, board, etc.) relationships with other organizations values and principles ethnic diversity transparency of the organization to community members whether the group needs technical assistance or provides technical assistance (e.g., an organization needing a lawyer, or an environmental law firm)
What should the product look like?
The group discussed possible ways of presenting the information, once it is gathered. an event where "maps" and other graphic representations are produced a directory where information from the survey is presented a directory where groups offer themselves in any way they want, create an "ad" for themselves a website, update-able, with webmaster a clearinghouse - electronic or otherwise The group also thought a list of key words, or some other indexing system, might be useful, especially for a web site. A sheet of paper was sent around for people to list the key words that they associated with their organization.
What do we need to work together better?
Whether maps are developed, or conferences held, or a website created, water groups identified what they need in order to collaborate more effectively. Perhaps these needs can be satisfied by this project; perhaps there are other ways to meet some of the needs. Basic information about each other (see "What do we need to know about each other?" above) so that we know what we have to offer each other More information, both basic and sophisticated, about foundations and how to work with them. This needs to include information about their philosophies and principles. Support for collaboration. Collaboration can take considerable time and effort. Foundations, or other resources, could be very helpful in supporting the collaboration process itself, through funding of facilitation, research, meetings, etc. A foundation world that is well-educated about water issues and trends in New Mexico A calendar of events and publications, so we don't miss something, and so we don't step on each other's toes Potential fiscal agents, for groups without 501(c)(3) status
Review of the Survey Instrument:
The group tested the survey and offered suggestions and reactions. Some felt frustrated that there was not more space, and more invitation, to write more descriptively about the nature of the organization, its principles, values, activities, programs. Others worried about the challenging of translating narratives into a product which is consistent and searchable. It was understood that the more detail, and the more latitude in ways of answering, the more difficult the results will be to present in a clear and consistent way. Some favored the opportunity for groups to describe themselves, narratively, and to deal with subjective issues like accountability to constituents, diversity, etc. Others favored a more concise, limited set of questions that would be easier to deal with. Additional comments included the following: Many found it difficult to fill out because their organization has many parts or branches, and there was no way to distinguish answers for one of the parts or for the whole. Others pointed out that it may important who fills out the survey, and that some organizations may need review of the survey by a board or staff. It was suggested that urban and rural program distinctions might be useful distinctions, and that a category for "water development" is needed. Perhaps it would be possible to ask on the survey in what areas collaboration would be attractive, or what collaborations exist at this time. Some felt it would be useful to ask "Who is your client?" or "Whom do you serve?" The survey should explain its purpose. Perhaps a raffle or some other incentive for returning the survey would help bring in a good return.
Special Tribal Issues:
A tribal member spoke about some considerations needed when funding water projects or asking for foundation funding. Applicant and foundation both should scrutinize the potential impact of the grant activities on any tribal entity, and if there is a question, should ask the tribal government directly. If a tribe is directly involved, the applicant should seek, and the foundation should require, endorsement from that tribe if the project is to be pursued. Finally, in any kind of survey or clearinghouse activity, it is good to remember that tribes may have cultural or legal sensitivities to revealing some kinds of information, particularly in the case of water. In general there is little awareness among tribes about potential funding from private foundations, and those foundations probably have little awareness of tribal needs. Protecting and enhancing tribal water resources often can have a beneficial impact on all, since tribal lands and water are usually less developed than non-Indian property in the same area. There is an opportunity to preserve and conserve for the benefit of wildlife, plant life and humans.
Message to Foundations:
There was some discussion about the relationship between foundations and grantees/applicants. Although a grantee is grateful for the grant, there are stresses that come with the process - probably for the foundation as well as the applicant. Deadlines often seem to fall in the same short period, putting pressure on an organization to try to meet all of them at once. It may be possible to review and revise the entire application and allocation processes in a way that would be less stressful for all involved. It is also important for foundations to recognize that collaboration - which most foundations and most grantees want - can be an expensive proposition, and needs support of its own. Organizations are by nature competitive and turf conscious, and it may take some time and some outside skills to help bring groups together. There are issues of money, bylaws, staff, program work, public perception, constituent support, board support, and more which can be obstacles to good effective collaboration. It is also true that the foundations' need for clarity competes with some of our own project work that needs to be done. Putting energy and time into this project inevitably takes away from another priority.
Announcement:
July 18 - 19 is the mark-up for the Congressional Energy and Natural Resources Committee. A participant urged others to contact Senator Domenici to urge that funding under the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) be made available to improve watershed health. The Act will bring $ 38 million to the states and local government for conservation of natural resources.
Next Steps:
The group discussed four next steps: Revise the survey, based on comments and the new keywords list, and mail out to all organizations Pursue the possibility of having a web page Begin developing a calendar of water-related events, possibly through the survey (including tribal feast days, to allow for tribal participation) Plan and host another meeting Most of the group felt that another meeting, with more attendees, would be useful. Collaboration requires that people meet face to face, not just know each other through a directory. Meeting allows for more discussion, which provides more detail. It also allows other groups to form, to work on their own collaborative efforts. There could also be a future group meeting with funders. The next meeting could utilize the mapping process originally envisioned by the group. Maps are a good tool for visualization. They could show more than geography; there might be a map of "water challenges." The day could be split into morning and afternoon sessions based on location, watershed, type of project, etc. There could be mini-meetings throughout the state. However, most also felt that another large-group meeting strictly for planning purposes would not be necessary. Some participants volunteered to join the smaller planning group. Rachel Farrester, Cynthia Gomez, Doug Meiklejohn, Mary Burton Riseley, Curtis Schrader, and Lynn Sferrazza asked to be kept informed of planning activities, and offered to help with certain aspects, such as the development of a web page.