Where Are We Now: Status of Key Recommendations
October 7, 2008Give unified direction to environmental policy
through common goals and priorities
preparing the systems level plan required by state legislation, an ad hoc team condensed scores of environmental goals articulated over time for the bay and watershed. These 75 summary goals reflect many more recommendations (Matrix of Goals) found throughout dozens of plans, directives, and reports. They range in scope from overarching (preserve, enhance, and restore the resources and habitats of our bays, rivers, and watersheds) to site-specific (monitor at 20 new points at the Brockton WWTP and expand monitoring from 10 to 20 points at the Taunton WWTP). Few assign responsibility for implementation, although some, particularly those related to habitat, express timelines; even fewer propose interstate actions, and fewer still identify resources for implementation. Many of the timeframes are extremely ambitious, if not highly unrealistic.
But despite these concerns, acceptance of these goals by stakeholders and implementers could serve as the necessary framework to prioritize action and assess the effectiveness of numerous activities underway in the watershed. What is needed is public validation of goals, consensus on their priority, and a clear path to implementation.
Overcome fragmented decision-making
Despite its small size, Rhode Island is home to hundreds of organizations concerned with environmental issues. These include state agencies, quasi-state agencies, special executive and legislative commissions, and non-governmental organizations. Between 1996 and 2006, the number of nonprofit organizations in Rhode Island increased almost 30 percent, from 4,848 to 6,257; of these, 111 classified themselves as concerned with environmental quality, protection, or beautification. (In Massachusetts, 775 nonprofits classify themselves in this category statewide (Reference). At the same time, the relative availability of funding to such groups is shrinking because of economic downturns and the need to support core governmental responsibilities.
The rise in number of local groups attests to the widespread citizen desire for a voice in managing resources. But quantity does not necessarily lead to better management; (Reference) a proliferation of disconnected entities — including state agencies — can lead to duplication of effort, battles for limited funding, and public confusion over responsibility. The Rhode Island Bays, Rivers, and Watersheds Coordination Team, consisting of seven state and quasi-state agencies, was created to better coordinate their work under the umbrella of a systems-level plan. (Reference) The primary mechanism for this coordination is to be an annual workplan, linked to priorities in the plan and recommending allocation of funds among the agencies.
Implementation by the team agencies remains to be seen, since the plan was only released in July, with the first annual workplan to be developed in the fall of 2008. The expectation is that a framework of common goals and shared priorities could compensate strongly for current fragmented decision-making that limits an integrated approach issues. As noted earlier, however, there have been few opportunities for public discussion and input on broad priorities; moreover, the Rhode Island focus of most state plans, including the systems-level plan, allows very little input from and to the Massachusetts portion of the watershed.
Ensure accountability through collecting and reporting information
As discussed above, many different organizations have offered many different goals for Rhode Island and the Bay watershed, but only minimal reporting on whether the goals have been achieved. Some past reports include the 1998 RI DEM water quality status and trends report, the 2000 NBEP/RI DEM State of the Bay report, and Save the Bay’s State of the Bay 2007. From 1998 to 2004, RI DEM reported roughly annually on its activities as an organization, and even provided annual workplans for public comment and input; other organizations have also produced irregular or ad hoc assessments.
The most regular, if limited, report has been the RI “State of the State’s Waters,” released every two years under Section 305(b) of the federal Clean Water Act. This section of the law requires states to assess and report biennially on the attainment of water quality standards in their water bodies, including ground water and wetlands. (See the water quality section of this Status and Trends report for a summary of findings from Rhode Island’s 2008 report.) Federal guidance has recently established reporting and format requirements to ensure consistent data in the future, but until now, each assessment reported information differently, making it difficult to assess changes in water quality, even in the same segments. Furthermore, the state’s limited monitoring capability left many water bodies characterized simply as “unassessed.” And confounding attempts to look comprehensively at the watershed, Rhode Island’s segments and assessment criteria are different from those of Massachusetts — even for shared water bodies — and the two states’ schedules for monitoring are not consistent.
Nevertheless, one major aspect of the situation is changing for the better. Last year, the General Assembly established fees for septage disposal services and for cross-bay cable placements, with the intention of allocating the revenue to support the state’s monitoring program. The Assembly also appropriated funds to support stream gauges on the major river systems, as well as a staff position to chair the coordination team. This is the most basic program infrastructure.
Accountability emerges from a system that reports regularly on key performance measures. These typically include indicators both of management effectiveness and of environmental condition. But neither type of indicator is meaningful without overall goals to set targets for action, without a baseline against which progress from those actions can be assessed, and without robust, regular monitoring to deliver the information. Until these three elements are addressed, we will not be able to know if our programs are making a difference.