SECTION A

The Framework for Citizen Involvement in Planning

When an Advisory Group was selected by Bear River Basin citizens, the public chose individuals who they felt would best represent local water interests. It was the first step in a process of trust building among people who had different views of basin water resources. From the start, it was pretty clear that these Bear River citizens knew who would best represent them in a forum designed to identify local water resource priorities.

As the group began to meet, different styles began to emerge. Some were more outspoken others more reserved. However, the fifteen individuals on the group voiced their opinions and grew to be comfortable with each other. They set rules for their meetings and stuck to them. They were civil to each other and listened to opposing points of view. Criticisms were kept constructive. These mutually acceptable rules and the mutual level of trust among the advisory group lead to consensus recommendations on tough issues like water marketing and TMDLs.

The Bear River Basin Advisory Group provides a testimonial to how local citizens will join with their neighbors and speak to the concerns that are foremost in their minds. Group members and the participating public had a variety of issues on their minds. However all spoke, at one time or another, to the value of the process.

Advisory group member Truman Julian, a local rancher and member of the Wyoming Woolgrowers, perhaps best summed up the intent of this grassroots public participation process. He said, "this will allow us to work from the bottom up instead of the top down".

Basin advisory group members had a lot of other things to say about what the planning process goals should be:

Craig Lowham, Bear River Rancher:

"The best thing the planning process can do is encourage communication among interest groups. We need to put issues on the table locally before outsiders do. If I have to take cows off my allotment, I'd rather hear that from my neighbors than from the federal government."

Mike Martin, proxy for Aaron Martin, Uinta County Commissioner:

"The plan needs to be proactive, we need to get our ducks in a row. We need to have data that allows us to act rather than respond. And we need a group of local citizens organized to set local priorities. The plan should enable a discussion of issues based on facts."

Eric Heltzel, Trout Unlimited:

"The legislative view is likely to be narrow in focus and scope. The water planning proposal should be couched to take a balanced look at all user groups, and not foster an 'us verses them' approach. State interests must come first. The process must allow time for local groups to work, and there must be fair representation by local people."

Gordon Park, Bear River Inc.:

"The plan must be a constructive document, not a road block. It must be an entire package, and not be used by one party against another. I believe we have an acceptable product."

Alan Burton, Mayor of Cokeville:

"The planning process will help create synthesis. Our goal must be to avoid polarization of local people over water and resource issues."

Mike Sims, Rancher:

"The plan should strengthen Wyoming: agriculture, tourism, mining, manufacturing. The interests of all water users groups should be put together in the planning process. We should determine the best possible use of the water we have, and do a better job of managing it. The plan also has to address the influence of the federal government, and help local users meet federal requirements."

Dennis Cornelison, Uinta County Conservation District:

"The plan has to deal with managing shortages. If there isn't any water in the river, there isn't anything for user groups to fight over. The plan should be a tool for law makers to use in sharing a scarce resource."

James Crompton, Bear River Commissioner:

"The plan must be flexible, adaptable and ongoing to respond to changing conditions in the basin."

Brian Honey, Evanston City Engineer, proxy for Mayor Will Davis:

"Laws are set. There are issues and constraints outside of water issues that have be recognized and dealt with. The plan has to recognize those constraints."

Joe Buckley, Smiths Fork Irrigation District (member of the audience):

"The first message must be to support the prior appropriation doctrine and protect existing water rights."

Advisory Group Organization

The Bear River Basin Advisory Group (BAG) was nominated by the Bear River public from a group of interested citizens who attended an organizational meeting in Evanston Wyoming on January 27, 1998. Meeting participants agreed that nine local water related interests should have advisory representation in the planning process:

1. Agriculture
2. Municipalities
3. Counties
4. Industry
5. Recreation
6. Environment
7. Conservation Districts
8. Interstate River Compacts
9. Active River Basin Task Forces

 All group members were nominated as citizens/landowners of the basin or those elected officials with direct local jurisdiction in the Bear River Basin (i.e. Lincoln County). Several interests were designated to have more than one representative due to geography. State and federal agencies were not nominated interests, but served on a technical resource team supporting advisory group deliberations. The 15 member Bear River Basin Advisory Group and interests represented are shown in Appendix A.

Advisory Group Mission

"The Basin Advisory Group assists the State Planning Team by identifying water and related resource issues, problems, and concerns in the designated river Basin. Through public participation, the group advises the WWDC and SEO on local issue priorities, data needs and regional concerns. The Basin advisory Group also assists decision makers through the review of basin planning products."

The function of the Bear River Advisory Group was to provide citizen input to the planning team during preparation of the Bear River Basin Feasibility Study. A 1997 statewide water planning survey had provided broad issue identification. The advisory group was formed to focus on issues and concerns that were unique to the Bear River Basin and provide a forum where local interests would have an opportunity to be heard. The group was asked to provide advice to the Planning Team so future planning efforts could be structured to meet the needs of affected interests. Broad-based support for the water planning process was also sought.

The group also recognized that the purpose of a water basin plan was to provide a descriptive rather than prescriptive tool for local decision makers. It was generally understood that certain constraints existed and could not be changed by the Basin Advisory Group. These "givens" included the Prior Appropriation Doctrine as well as federal legal requirements such as those contained in the Endangered Species Act or Clean Water Act.

Seven meetings were held with the Bear advisory group between January and August 1998. Individuals from the Water Development Commission, Water Resources Data System, State Engineer's Office and Department of Environmental Quality attended each meeting to provide technical assistance to the group. All meetings were facilitated by an independent facilitator to aid with issues identification, prioritization and development of consensus recommendations to the Planning Team.

Meeting records were sent to all persons either attending meetings or indicating an interest in the group's activities. Additionally, all information was posted on the State's web site dedicated to water planning on the Internet. State, county and local officials were also kept apprised of the group's activities through direct mailings and briefings. The consultant conducting the feasibility analysis maintained contact with the group through attendance of at least one of their team members at each meeting.

See Appendix B: "General Guidelines for Basin Advisory Groups", for more information.