18
entities varied widely. A formal organization served as the main contractor, but the
participants in the WMA’s activities included government (e.g., local agencies) and
numerous and varied volunteer organizations—e.g., existing watershed management
associations, environmental groups, and civic groups.
32
The variation in composition of
the participants in WMAs reflects the unevenness of interest in the WMA program and in
watershed management across the state. The DEP is responsible for administering the
WMA program, and it offers technical information and support for watershed
management associations in addition to helping communities create them.
33
New Jersey’s WMA program has not met with enormous success. The intent was
to decentralize further responsibility for water quality and related issues, assuming that
this would foster innovation and efficiency in these programs along with producing better
outcomes. The program also intended to foster collaboration in dealing with
environmental problems. As indicated by the lists of participants in the WMAs’ projects,
there was an effort to draw together government, business, civic groups, environmental
groups, and activist to work out solutions.
34
The program encountered at least two major
problems. First, organizations were relatively easily formed in areas where there was an
established commitment to watershed management, as evidenced by the existence of a
healthy watershed management association. In north-central New Jersey, for example,
WMA 6 included the Passaic River Coalition and the Great Swamp Watershed
Association, among others. These watershed management associations had had
considerable experience dealing with a range of environment issues at the time the WMA
program was created.
35
In areas where there had been little watershed management
activity—mainly the southeastern and far northwestern parts of the state—the WMAs did
Convention