More Management, Better Management: A Recurring Theme

Beginning as far back as 1866, there have been more than 200 different studies and planning initiatives(Partnership for Narragansett Bay 2003)  related to managing the resources of Narragansett Bay and/or its watersheds, including the Taunton and Blackstone watersheds in Massachusetts. Some of the more recent studies include:

•  1992 State of Narragansett Bay characterization and Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, including survey of public perceptions of issues

•  2000 Narragansett Bay Summit

•  2000 State of the Massachusetts Environment report and 2001 update, and comprehensive watershed action plans for the Blackstone and Taunton Rivers

•  2003 reports to the Partnership for Narragansett Bay: Planning History of Narragansett Bay and Coastal Rhode Island Watersheds

•  Developing a Collective Vision, Core Principles and Goals for Narragansett Bay, Coastal Rhode Island and Their Watersheds in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut

•  2004 Phase I Strategic Work Plan and Short-Term Recommendations from the Governor’s Narragansett Bay and Watershed Planning Commission; Governor Carcieri’s Response

•  2006 CRMC Marine Resources Development Plan

•  2008 Rhode Island Bays, Rivers, and Watersheds Systems Level Plan

Spanning decades, these studies consistently highlight the same concerns:

• Substantive and well-considered recommendations lack champions and the political will for implementation

• Rhode Island and Massachusetts need, but have been unable to establish, a viable and ongoing interstate mechanism for joint action, especially for addressing broad ecological issues, even though 60 percent of the Narragansett Bay watershed is in Massachusetts, and the watershed includes three of Massachusetts’ 10 largest cities (Worcester, Brockton, and Fall River) and dozens of its towns

• Both states’ strong tradition of home rule hampers attempts to manage resources at appropriate scales, with few or no regional organizations to overcome problems of overlapping state functions and jurisdictions, lack of coordination among separate entities, and limited planning or technical staff in the municipalities.

• Rhode Island relies heavily on federal funding to support many environmental and infrastructure needs, with a minimum in state funding dedicated to key resource management functions, often only enough to meet match requirements on federal grants.

• Responsibility for mandated programs is devolving to municipalities and watershed groups and other NGOs without regard for their current resources, institutional capacities, and missions

Moreover, in addition to raising the same issues repeatedly, previous analyses also consistently proffer the same general recommendations:

• Give unified direction to environmental policy through common goals and priorities

• Overcome fragmented decision-making

• Ensure accountability through collecting and reporting information

Back        Section-index      Next