Sequim’s Dungeness River Management Team (DRMT) reports that the Dungeness River is constricted at the Ward Road Bridge. This condition contributes to a dysfunctional river according to a DRMT subcommittee. Widening the bridge’s span will allow for a greater flow of water.

A representative from the Clallam County Road Department has said that the task could be done. However, his department lacks the $350K to pay for the project. Here’s a solution.

Take the funds from DRMT’s budget. Let the committee that so gallantly labors to change property owners lives share the sacrifice. The community can be brought together by this gesture: The Team’s grant will be depleted.

As it stands, a small clique is developing rules for governing water resources. Tribal employees choose the participants, control the agenda, and run the meetings. Department of Ecology (DOE) provides the funds.

Over the past few years, the Tribe has received well over a million dollars in watershed planning grants. A symbiotic relationship has been created. The Tribe gets taxpayer’s money. In return, DOE is given greater authority over property owners through implementation of the Tribe’s watershed proposals.

We, the people, are the losers. Our freedoms are eroded. Because DOE’s translating the Tribe’s watershed proposals into law is administrative, accountability to the citizens is non-existent. No checks or balances are in place.

Not surprisingly, the DRMT committee is dominated by individuals from government agencies and folks sympathetic to bigger government. Complaints about the process are directed to DOE. Foxes watch the hen house.

Certainly, those whose lives are invaded have a right to representation in the watershed process. When all stakeholders are included in the process of proposing public policy, disinformation and misconceptions can be challenged. All sides are educated. Truth and fairness are more apt to flourish.

With key players locked out of the process, necessary inputs are omitted. An incomplete process results in a flawed outcome. The DRMT does not have a mission statement, and demonstrates a lack of commitment to confining itself to any watershed boundaries. Its scope is only limited by the end of the ink on the facilitator’s agenda.

In contrast, the Discovery Bay Watershed Committee allowed everyone who walked through the door to participate. Involvement was encouraged from people who showed enough interest to turn out. Discussion occurred.

One such discussion revolved around potential consequences of an exclusive committee. Energy invested developing rules detrimental to adversaries will result in the adversaries investing an equal amount of energy over turning those rules. The good of the watershed remains unaddressed.

On the other hand, citizens who become involved develop knowledge and a stake in the decisions. They are more apt to assume responsibilities of stewardship. Getting as many people as possible involved only makes sense.

If stewardship of the watershed is truly the goal, facilitators would insist on a more inclusive formula for watershed management. But turning control of water resources over to government requires a controlled process.

The Biodiversity Treaty calls for watershed councils to become the new form of local government. Dungeness River Management Team offers a tyrant’s approach to watershed management. Let’s put citizens back in charge.