GREATER NEW ORLEANS
WATER COLLABORATIVE
STRATEGIC PLAN
July 2015
Greater New Orleans Water Collaborative
Strategic Plan
July 2015
Table of Contents
Introduction and Background
1
The Challenge: Greater New Orleans and Water
1
The Greater New Orleans Water Collaborative
4
The Urban Water Plan
5
The Strategic Planning Process
7
Water Collaborative Mission and Vision
8
Program Activities
10
Overarching Principles Regarding the Collaborative’s Program Activity
10
Community Education Working Group
12
K-12 Education Working Group
16
Designers & Builders Working Group
19
Advocacy Working Group
23
Research & Policy Working Group
26
Integrating and Connecting the Working Groups
29
Collective Impact Strategy for Programs: The Endorsement Process
32
Organizational Structure of the Collaborative
35
Core Components of the Structure
35
Membership
36
Steering Committee
37
Authority and Accountability
38
Staffing, Workload Distribution, and Organizational Capacity
39
Funding and Financial Sustainability for the Collaborative
40
Appendices
A. Greater New Orleans Water Collaborative membership, as of July 2015
43
B. Summary of Working Group metrics and targets
46
Greater New Orleans Water Collaborative
Strategic Plan
July 2015
Introduction and Background
The Challenge: Greater New Orleans and Water
Between 1932 and 2010, the Greater New Orleans region lost 948 square miles of coastal wetlands,
and now faces significant risks as a subsiding delta region with significant areas situated below sea
level. The average yearly rainfall in the Greater New Orleans region is approximately 63 inches,
much of it occurring in intense, localized rainstorms. Global factors such as climate change will
increase the frequency and intensity of such storms. Because so much of Orleans, Jefferson, and St.
Bernard Parishes is below sea level, these parishes all rely on extensive networks of pipes, culverts,
canals, and advanced pumping systems to remove stormwater from urbanized areas. Because these
systems have finite capacity, severe storms or even bursts of heavy rainfall can overwhelm the
region’s pipes and pumps. This can cause water to back up, thereby flooding streets, homes, and
businesses. Low-lying neighborhoods and roadways are particularly prone to flooding, because
runoff from surrounding neighborhoods typically flows down and into the bowls and lowlands of
the region. Furthermore, the current approach to pumping water out is the primary cause of
subsidence, i.e., the sinking of land, across the region, which exacerbates the difficulties of
removing stormwater from already low-lying areas.
Currently, much of New Orleans is paved, and large portions of the region, including Gentilly,
Lakeview, Metairie, Kenner, and New Orleans East, were swampland that was intentionally drained
so it could be developed. In addition, many of the homes in these newly developed areas were built
slab-on-grade, increasing their exposure to flooding. When water from rainstorms runs off
impervious surfaces instead of naturally soaking into the ground, it pulls pollutants such as
sediment, oil, grease, and bacteria into storm drains and the drainage systems, which are then
pumped along with the untreated stormwater into surrounding water bodies, thereby degrading the
quality of the region’s natural water resources.
Greater New Orleans relies on forced drainage systems to keep dry. Even though this approach to
stormwater is resource-intensive, residential and commercial properties still flood regularly. This
approach contributes to subsidence, which damages roadways and other infrastructure, increases
flood risk, and diminishes the value of the area’s waterways and water bodies as public assets. Key
concerns include:
 Flooding: Flooding is the presence of unmanaged water in streets and properties. The Greater
New Orleans region faces the risk of catastrophic flooding from hurricane and tropical storm
surges, as well as the more common flooding from rainfall. With the heavy rains that are
common to this region, the catch basins, pipes, and pumps of existing drainage systems are
often overwhelmed. In New Orleans, for example, the pumping systems have the capacity to
drain one inch of rain during the first hour of a storm, and a half inch per hour after that, so that
rain falling at greater rates will produce flooding. This results in extensive damage to streets,
1
homes, and businesses throughout Greater New Orleans, resulting in an inordinately high
number of flood insurance claims and correspondingly high insurance rates.
 Subsidence: Subsidence is the sinking of the ground, with the primary cause in this region
being the drying out of clay or organic soils, largely caused by current water management
practices that pump out stormwater as quickly as possible and lower groundwater levels during
dry weather. Subsidence damages buildings, streets, and other infrastructure and makes the
challenge of pumping stormwater out of the region increasingly difficult. The current drainage
regime has developed into a destructive cycle in which pumping and low water levels cause the
land to sink even more. This necessitates increased pumping capacity in order to keep dry,
leading to further subsidence, and so on.
 Water Quality: Water quality is the measure of pollutant loads in surface water bodies. The
region’s storm drains ultimately discharge into Lake Pontchartrain and other local water bodies
and wetlands. A major source of lake pollution is stormwater runoff, which carries oil, gas,
brake fluids, heavy metals, pesticides, fertilizers, and fecal coliform. These pollutants change
the aquatic ecology of the lake, which disturbs or destroys habitat upon which fish and other life
depend. To improve water quality for the region it is critical to filter stormwater runoff before it
enters the drainage system.
 Water Assets Wasted: For a region built on swampland between river and lake, water is
remarkably hard to find. With the notable exceptions of Bayou St. John, the Lake Pontchartrain
Lakefront, Crescent Park along the Mississippi River, and the beloved lakes and lagoons of
Lafreniere Park, Audubon Park, City Park, Joe Brown Park, and Sidney Torres Park, most of the
region’s canals and other waterways provide little value as spaces for public life. The water
infrastructure that exists today is, in many places, unsightly and dangerous. Cheaply constructed
outfall pipes poke out from canal banks, ditches are often dry or smothered with weeds, water
stagnates, and trash-strewn channels block access between neighborhoods.
On the following page, a Brief History of Greater New Orleans and Water provides additional
context for understanding the region’s challenges related to water management.
2
A Brief History of Greater New Orleans and Water
1895: The City of New Orleans passes the city’s first Drainage Master Plan, which leads to the formation of
the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans and marks the advent of modern forced drainage in the City.
1899: The Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans is authorized by the state legislature to construct a
citywide drainage system using pumps to remove water from the City.
1900-1920: New Orleans constructs its existing comprehensive drainage system, while large portions of
lowland cypress swampland are drained to create Mid-City and Lake Pontchartrain neighborhoods.
1928-1931: 1,800 acres are reclaimed from the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain to create New Orleans’s
lakefront neighborhoods.
April 1927: A single storm generates approximately 14 inches of rain, flooding the Uptown, Broadmoor,
and Mid-City neighborhoods with up to 6 feet of water.
May 1978: Storms over a 12-hour period generate 10 inches of rain, at times exceeding two inches per
hour.
April 1988: Storms over a 12-hour period generate over 10 inches at numerous area locations.
November 1989: Rainfall over a 9-hour span generates 8-12 inches causing flash floods citywide.
1992: Oversight of the city’s drainage system is divided between the City of New Orleans and the Sewerage
and Water Board, with pipes larger than 36-inches the responsibility of SWBNO.
May 1995: A storm generates up to 17 inches of rain, causing widespread flooding across much of the city.
The storm damages 44,500 homes and businesses, and is the costliest single non-tropical weather event in
the country’s history.
1996: Congress authorizes the Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Project (SELA) to finance improvements
to the City’s major pumping and large pipe infrastructure to reduce flooding.
September 2002: Tropical Storm Isidore generates 4-8 inches of rainfall in 6 hours, overwhelming the
region’s drainage systems and causing widespread flooding.
April 2004: Rainstorms over fewer than 6 hours generate 12 inches of rain across the region.
August 2005: Hurricane Katrina generates 7-14 inches of rainfall throughout the region over 24 hours.
September 2005: Hurricane Rita makes landfall in Louisiana, worsening the Katrina-related flooding.
October 2005: The Bring New Orleans Back Commission’s Land Use Committee recommends that
investment in protective green space be integrated into the disaster recovery efforts in flood-prone
neighborhoods.
2007: Dutch Dialogues are initiated so that local water management professionals and activists can learn
about best practices from experts in the Netherlands.
September 2008: Hurricane Gustav makes landfall and causes widespread flooding.
2009: City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan is revised to encourage investment in green infrastructure.
2009: Horizon Initiative Water Committee begins convening stakeholders on a monthly basis.
2012: The New Orleans Citizens’ Sewer, Water & Drainage System Reform Task Force recommends that
the City of New Orleans and SWBNO consolidate stormwater management, and expand investment in
green infrastructure.
2013: A number of local collaborations and initiatives are launched to address water management policies
and practices.
2013: Greater New Orleans Urban Water Plan, funded by the State of Louisiana through Greater New
Orleans Inc., is released
September 2014: Formal launch of the Greater New Orleans Water Collaborative
3
Greater New Orleans Water Collaborative
Over the past several years, there has been a significant amount of discussion and activity driven by
a concern about water management and excitement about the related opportunities presented by the
emerging water economy for job creation and economic development in Greater New Orleans.
Sample activities and initiatives in this area include: regular meetings of the Horizon Initiative’s
Water Committee convened by Grasshopper Mendoza and Steve Picou, a series of reports on water
management commissioned by the Citizen’s Task Force and completed by Jeff Thomas of Thomas
Strategies, a group of organizations and activists convened by Bayou Rebirth to strategize
responding to the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board’s request-for-proposals for green
infrastructure projects, meetings of the key water management specialists and activists convened by
the Greater New Orleans Foundation, the Louisiana Urban Stormwater Coalition convened by
landscape architect Dana Brown of Dana Brown Associates, and the Building Resilience
Workshops convened by Elizabeth English that explored a range of regional resilience issues
including storm water management. In addition, local architecture firm Waggoner & Ball was
coordinated the Dutch Dialogues, an effort to share knowledge and best practices with leading
experts in storm water management from the Netherlands, which was then followed by the
development of the Greater New Orleans Urban Water Plan.
During this time, several local organizations began having regular conversations about how to move
forward on water management in the Greater New Orleans area in a more coordinated and
systematic way. This group included Jonathan Henderson and Cyn Sarthou of the Gulf Restoration
Network, Keith Twitchell of Committee for a Better New Orleans (CBNO), Dana Eness of the
Urban Conservancy, and Jeff Thomas of Thomas Strategies, among others. Working in part under
the rubric of FloodLess New Orleans, there were some initial policy research and community
awareness activities undertaken, but the need for greater cohesion within the growing regional
constituency of individuals and organizations concerned with water management issues became
apparent.
In early 2014, a number of organizations and individuals who had already been meeting in various
venues came together to explore additional ways to address the full range of water management
concerns and opportunities in a unified, coordinated way. Along with several of the individuals
named above, the following additional people were part of those initial discussions: Aron Chang of
Waggoner & Ball, Jen Roberts then of Water Works, Jeff Supak of Global Green, Miriam Beblidia
of Water Works, and Meredith Cherney of the Urban Conservancy. This core group eventually
became known as the Interim Steering Committee (ISC).
Further discussion within the ISC, as well as conversations with additional colleagues, led to a large
convening in May 2014. The ISC proposed a tentative structure of Working Groups and a
permanent Steering Committee, along with a preliminary vision statement for the nascent Greater
New Orleans Water Collaborative. A lively and thoughtful discussion confirmed the essential
direction of the ISC’s initial concepts and approach.
As a follow-up to the May meeting, the ISC refined the vision statement and the overall structure of
the Collaborative. Two follow-up meetings were held in June, leading to a preliminary design for
the Greater New Orleans Water Collaborative. The Collaborative’s formal launch took place in
September 2014 at a press conference by Bayou St. John, followed by a reception at Parkway
4
Bakery and Tavern. This launch came with the understanding that considerably more work was
needed to finalize the organizational structure, fully operationalize the Working Groups, and chart a
course for the sustainability and organizational effectiveness of the Collaborative. In November
2014, Gulf Restoration Network received funding from the Kresge Foundation for a strategic
planning process, described in more detail in the following section. (Note: A list of the full
Collaborative membership as of July 2015 is included with this strategic plan as Appendix A.)
To date, the Water Collaborative and its members have had a number of significant
accomplishments, including:
 Water Collaborative members developed and had adopted an amendment to the City of
New Orleans Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance eliminating possible exemptions from
stormwater management requirements, and successfully advocated for the removal of a
proposed appendix to the CZO that discouraged home elevations;
 Collaborative members spearheaded the analysis of the proposed Federal Flood Risk
Management Standard, established by Executive Order 13690;
 Collaborative members conducted the drainage fee survey and analysis for the Sewerage
and Water Board;
 Collaborative members have led efforts to pilot and promote the use of permeable
paving materials in local business parking lots, including Parkway Bakery in the Bayou
St. John neighborhood;
 Collaborative members convened City of New Orleans officials and community
members for a Community Rating System workshop with national expert French
Wetmore, exploring potential strategies for lowering community flood insurance rates;
 Collaborative members have collectively made dozens of community presentations
throughout the city and the region on stormwater management issues;
 Member organizations have developed and piloted a number of school-based educational
programs targeting students at all levels;
 Collaborative members have piloted a flood mapping initiative in the Claiborne
Corridor.
There is a strong consensus among the members that the Greater New Orleans Water Collaborative
is a critical platform and forum for coordination, collaboration, innovation, and advocacy related to
water management, and that the Water Collaborative is a necessary vehicle for achieving scale and
collective impact.
The Urban Water Plan
In 2010, the State of Louisiana’s Office of Community Development - Disaster Recovery Unit used
federal dollars to fund Greater New Orleans, Inc. (GNO, Inc.) to commission the Greater New
Orleans Urban Water Plan (http://livingwithwater.com) for St. Bernard Parish and the east banks of
Orleans and Jefferson Parishes. New Orleans firm Waggonner & Ball led a team of local and
international water management experts in developing the Urban Water Plan. The Urban Water
Plan team benefited from water management and climate adaptation experience from around the
world, developed through years of working relationships with high-caliber designers and engineers
who have enthusiastically supported the vitality and growth of Greater New Orleans. Partnering
5
institutions, organizations, and individuals from the Netherlands and the United States have played
a critical role, and GNO, Inc. facilitated additional support from regional leaders and institutions
through the Urban Water Plan Advisory Council.
The Urban Water Plan was built on a solid foundation of recent planning work and existing
partnerships. In 2006, Waggonner & Ball worked with H3 Studio on the St. Bernard Parish
Planning Framework for the Citizens Recovery Committee, and in the Unified New Orleans Plan
process. In 2006, Waggonner & Ball also spearheaded the Dutch Dialogues workshops, which
brought together designers, planners, engineers, and policy-makers from the Netherlands and
Louisiana to learn from each other and to place water issues at the forefront of planning and design
for the Greater New Orleans region. The process that led to the Urban Water Plan included
meetings with systems operators and the Advisory Council of key stakeholders, design and planning
workshops, technical sessions on specific topics such as financing, geomorphology and subsidence,
and outreach efforts that included presentations to community leaders and the public.
The current approach to managing stormwater focuses disproportionally on pumping water as
quickly as possible, leading to water and soil imbalances. Intelligent retrofits and a new approach to
stormwater and groundwater management will provide measurably higher levels of safety, reduce
the rates at which the region is sinking, and restore the identity of Greater New Orleans as a region
rich in public assets, industry, and innovation. In addition, water management policies and practices
that align with the principles in the Urban Water Plan will have significant economic, health, and
recreational benefits for the region. The core principles of the Urban Water Plan are summarized
below:
Water
• When it rains, slow and store: Stormwater moving fast is hard to manage. Holding it
where it falls, slowing the flow of water across the landscape, and storing large volumes of
rainfall for infiltration and other uses are fundamental strategies for managing stormwater.
Pump stations are activated when necessary, rather than as a default every time it rains.
• When it’s dry, circulate and recharge: Surface waters and groundwater move naturally
across and within every delta. Incorporating surface water flows and higher water levels
into everyday water management improves groundwater balance, water quality, and the
region’s ecological health.
Ecology
• Live with Water: Water is a fact of life on the delta. Making space for water and making
it visible across the urban landscape allows it once again to be an asset to the region.
• Work with Nature: The region’s diverse flora and fauna already store, filter, and grow
with water. Integrating these natural processes with mechanical systems enhances the
function, beauty, and resilience of the region’s water infrastructure and landscape.
People
• Work Together: Water knows no boundaries. Collaborations across neighborhood,
cultural, and political boundaries and developing solutions at all scales—from individual
properties to regional networks— are prerequisites for building a stronger future.
6
• Design for Adaptation: Change is constant on the delta. Designing systems for dynamic
conditions, and to support diverse uses, economic development, and environmental
restoration maximizes the value of necessary water infrastructure investments.
It is important to note that, while the Urban Water Plan provides a comprehensive framework for
planning and implementation of water management and green infrastructure policies and practices,
this framework directly complements Louisiana’s Coastal Master Plan, which addresses storm
surge, flood risk, and other water-related issues along the entire Louisiana coastline, as well as
numerous additional examples of important work already underway. These existing efforts include:
a wide range of educational programs, professional development workshops, and green
infrastructure projects on city-owned properties funded through the New Orleans Sewerage and
Water Board and the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority; numerous neighborhood-based green
infrastructure educational programs and implementation projects throughout the city and the region
managed collaboratively by community-based organizations and landscape architecture firms; and
active advocacy campaigns around issues including the water management provisions in New
Orleans’ Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, coastal restoration, environmental protection, and
urban green space preservation.
The Strategic Planning Process
In 2014, the Gulf Restoration Network (GRN), as a member of the Interim Steering Committee,
received a grant from the Kresge Foundation to support a strategic planning process. GRN hired
Harry Lowenburg to staff the process, and the ISC selected independent consultant Alan Brickman
of Brickman Nonprofit Solutions, on the basis of a competitive process, to serve as the planning
facilitator. The Collaborative convened a Core Planning Committee to work with the facilitator to
design the process and deliberate the critical programmatic and organizational issues that would
yield the substance of the Collaborative’s strategic plan. The Core Planning Committee included the
following individuals (listed alphabetically):
Miriam Belblidia, Water Works
Dana Brown, Dana Brown & Associates
Aron Chang, Waggonner & Ball
Meredith Cherney, Urban Conservancy
Dana Eness, Urban Conservancy
Jonathan Henderson, Gulf Restoration Network
Harry Lowenburg, Gulf Restoration Network (staff for the planning process)
Rachel Pickens, Center for Sustainable Engagement and Development
Jennifer Roberts, independent environmental scientist
Amy Stelly, independent designer
Jeff Supak, Global Green
Jeffrey Thomas, Thomas Strategies
Keith Twitchell, Committee for a Better New Orleans
The steps and timetable in the process were as follows:
7
Initial meeting of Core Planning Committee
March 4, 2015
Joint meeting of Core Planning Committee and Advisory Committee March 20, 2015
Core Planning Committee working session
April 2, 2015
Half-day retreat of full Collaborative
April 15, 2015
Core Planning Committee meetings to address the following topics:
Programming (K-12, Community Ed., Designers & Builders)
April 23, 2015
Advocacy (Advocacy, Research & Policy)
May 7, 2015
Organizational structure
May 20, 2015
Funding and financial sustainability
May 28, 2015
(In addition, various subcommittees met to provide additional detail on selected topics.)
2nd retreat of the full Collaborative
June 10, 2015
Core Planning Committee working session
June 18, 2015
Meeting of the Interim Steering Committee to review progress
June 22, 2015
Core Planning Committee working session
June 29, 2015
Core Planning Committee working session
July 16, 2015
Interim Steering Committee meeting to adopt the plan
July 27, 2015
Presentation of plan to the Collaborative and the community
July 27, 2015
This strategic plan document is intended to serve as a programmatic and organizational roadmap for
the Greater New Orleans Water Collaborative, and as a resource and reference to inform future
planning and decision making about programs, policy advocacy, partner engagement, public
communication, and organizational development. At the same time, the plan is intended as a living
document that will evolve and adapt. Progress on implementation will be assessed on an annual
basis and modifications to the plan will be developed on the basis of that assessment as well as
emerging realities and opportunities relevant to the mission of the Collaborative.
Water Collaborative Mission and Vision
Mission Statement
The Greater New Orleans Water Collaborative is a diverse, multi-sector regional partnership
actively working towards implementation of the principles of the Urban Water Plan and other
water management best practices. The Collaborative and its members integrate education,
research, policy development, advocacy, and state-of-the-art green infrastructure projects to
ensure that the region sustainably lives and thrives with water.
Vision
Successfully achieving the mission of the Water Collaborative will create the following future for
our region. This ideal vision of the future is presented in two categories: the region’s relationship to
water, and the role of the Water Collaborative. This vision also represents the beginning of a set of
core messages that will inform and shape the Collaborative’s external communication regarding all
its activities.
Greater New Orleans’ Relationship with Water: All segments of the Greater New Orleans
community appreciate the vital importance of water management best practices to the collective
8
future of the region, and have a productive, sustainable relationship with water. All private
development and public infrastructure projects conform to the principles in the Urban Water Plan.
Building on the principles in the Urban Water Plan, the region continues to access and implement
new water management best practices and innovations emerging nationally and internationally.
Water management is a powerful cornerstone of workforce and economic development throughout
the Greater New Orleans region. Finally, New Orleans is nationally recognized as America’s Water
City, and provides global leadership with respect to water management policies, practices, and
innovation.
Further, the following goals regarding the embrace and implementation of water management in the
Greater New Orleans region are aspects of an ideal future vision that will inform and shape all of
the Collaborative’s programming and advocacy activities and initiatives:
a) All private development (residential, commercial, and institutional) conforms to the
principles in the Urban Water Plan with regard to water management and green
infrastructure;
b) All public infrastructure (streets, parks, and public buildings) conforms to the principles
in the Urban Water Plan with regard to water management and green infrastructure;
c) Water literacy, i.e., understanding and awareness regarding water management, water
quality, and water safety, is an institutionalized part of the curriculum for all students in
school in the region;
d) Similarly, water literacy is valued and embraced by all segments of the community
throughout the region, including residents, businesses, government, academia, etc.;
e) All local designers, landscape architects, builders, and other professionals in fields
related to the built environment are knowledgeable and proficient in approaches to
integrate water management and green infrastructure best practices into their work;
f) Sustainable water management and green infrastructure projects and initiatives are at the
center of a major new economic sector, i.e., the water economy, that will significantly
drive job creation, economic development, and investment in the Greater New Orleans
region;
g) All those who live, work, or study in Greater New Orleans have a positive and
sustainable relationship with the region’s many water-related assets.
The Role of the Collaborative: The Greater New Orleans Water Collaborative is an essential and
effective vehicle for the active involvement of all segments of the community in implementing the
principles of the Urban Water Plan. The Water Collaborative is a highly regarded, sought after, and
responsive source of information, expertise, and leadership to government, business, academic and
community-based institutions, neighborhoods, and residents regarding water management issues.
The Water Collaborative consistently informs and empowers its members, enhances their individual
efforts, and links and integrates those efforts within a shared framework aimed at advancing
regional water management best practices. The Collaborative serves as a leader and focal point for
revisiting and updating the Urban Water Plan, and plays a major role in identifying, advocating for,
and implementing emerging and innovative approaches to water management. Finally, the
Collaborative sustains meaningful linkages with all water-related initiatives and partnerships
addressing connected issues such as coastal restoration, environmental protection, and hazard
mitigation.
9
Program Activities
Overarching Principles Regarding the Collaborative’s Program Activity
The Greater New Orleans Water Collaborative has a multi-faceted and integrated approach to
promoting and advocating for the principles in the Urban Water Plan and other water management
best practices. Each of the five current Working Groups has specific directions outlined in this
strategic plan, and the Steering Committee will ensure that there is coordination and collaboration
among the Working Groups. There are several overarching principles and strategies that the
Working Groups share, and that represent a strategic and consistent approach across the
Collaborative. These are:
 Add value to members and partners: The ultimate success of the Collaborative comes from
the collective impact of the programs and initiatives of member organizations as well as the
joint activities developed under the auspices of the Collaborative and its Working Groups. It is
critical that the Collaborative provide support, resources, and expertise that enhances and adds
value to the efforts of the member organizations in terms of program quality and best practices,
outreach and visibility, and alignment with other efforts in ways that achieve impact at a
significant scale. In this context, the Collaborative can also ensure that the principles in the
Urban Water Plan are front and center, and consistently inform and drive members’
programming and advocacy. It is essential that member and partner organizations realize a
significant return on investment for the time and energy they put into the Collaborative.
 Identify, support, and champion best practices: There is a significant amount of important
work in water management and green infrastructure currently being done by many individuals,
organizations, and businesses throughout the region. A major role for the Collaborative is to
ensure these efforts get the support (in terms of expertise and resources) and visibility that can
enhance their effectiveness, reach, and sustainability.
 Identify and strategically fill gaps: The Collaborative is uniquely positioned, once it has
identified existing efforts and linked them for maximum collective impact, to then identify gaps
in knowledge, policy, research, and service (e.g., underserved populations or geographic areas,
especially low-income communities, best-practice approaches not yet implemented locally,
etc.), and then, through collaboration, to facilitate and support member and partner
organizations to develop responses to fill those gaps.
 Develop effective vehicles to engage stakeholders: The Water Collaborative can only achieve
long-term impact if it engages a diverse and expanding network of stakeholders to understand,
implement, and champion effective water management policies and practices. The Collaborative
as a whole and each Working Group will create effective vehicles to involve those stakeholders
in community-based, action-oriented approaches to improving water management in the region.
Each Working Group will be focused on engaging, convening, and mobilizing the community
constituencies relevant to their work, potentially including residents, businesses, activists and
advocates, community leaders and educators, professional in the design and construction
industries, etc. These stakeholders will provide the Collaborative with the capacity and personpower to fully implement the directions in the strategic plan, and will serve as the broad base of
community support for the Collaborative’s advocacy efforts.
10
 Assemble informational resources and act as a clearinghouse: All the Working Groups will
focus on building and continuously updating an accessible library or database of informational
materials regarding water management and green infrastructure practices, curricula, policies,
and/or research. This continuously growing clearinghouse of informational materials will
support all the programmatic activities of the Collaborative and its Working Groups, and will
position the Water Collaborative as the preeminent source of water management information for
community groups, the business community, government, the design and construction
industries, and all others interested in creating real systemic change with regard to water
management.
 Serve as a resource to the community: All Working Groups will create and maintain the
capacity to respond to requests for expert consultation and assistance from residents, businesses,
community-based organizations, government agencies, and/or others. Through this capacity to
respond to community requests, the Collaborative will be positioned as the leading resource in
the region on issues related to water management.
 Collaboration and integration of efforts: The Working Groups do not function in isolation.
For example: built water management projects will be accompanied by an educational
component; educational activities with students will be integrated with related educational
activities for their parents; designers and builders creating awareness and interest in water
management careers will work with educators to recruit students; and all community
engagement achieved through the Working Groups will feed into advocacy, and, as a related
matter, will be based on solid and current research. Therefore, all Working Groups will
maximize the extent to which their activities are coordinated and integrated with the efforts of
the other Working Groups.
The following sections present the key components of the overall approach for each of the Working
Groups. This articulation of the overall approach will give a sense of how each Working Group will
marshal the resources of Collaborative members to achieve significant impact, and will provide a
planning framework for developing specific activities and initiatives. Also, there is additional detail
on each Working Group’s specific strategies, activities, and partners. Finally, the following sections
also include specific targets for the levels of activity of the Working Groups, as well as the key
metrics the Working Groups will track and report to document their activity and impact.
The metrics tracked by the Working Groups will address both levels of activity (i.e., outputs) and
the impact of those activities (i.e., outcomes). They are intended to include the activities of the
Collaborative as a whole as well as the cumulative efforts of the member organizations. An
essential role for the Collaborative is the documentation of the collective impact of the members,
and at least annually, the Working Groups will report to the full Collaborative their progress relative
to their designated metrics. These reports will ideally also include detailed case studies of important
and/or illustrative activities or initiatives. Note: Although the metrics are primarily quantitative
(e.g., the numbers of workshop, the number of new green infrastructure projects, etc.), the
Collaborative will also maintain a strong focus on documenting and evaluating these events,
materials, and other Working Group activities for quality and effectiveness. Over time, as the
Collaborative expands its capacity, particularly related to data management, the Working Groups
will develop additional quantitative and qualitative metrics to assess their impact.
11
Community Education Working Group
Overall Approach
The Community Education Working Group is the initial point of contact within the Water
Collaborative for residents, neighborhood groups, local businesses, community leaders, and
activists concerned about water management. Fundamentally, the Community Education Working
Group is focused on engaging a diverse range of stakeholders, growing the number of neighborhood
champions and leaders knowledgeable about water issues, and fostering the community’s
understanding and embrace of water management best practices and general water literacy. In that
context, the overall approach of this Working Group is as follows:
a) Identify, document, publicize, and champion existing water-related community education
programs and initiatives;
b) Identify gaps (content, populations, etc.) and support the development of programs by members
(or groups of members) to fill the identified gaps;
c) Engage water issue community educators in a community of practice to share information; build
expertise and capacity; ensure the quality, accuracy, and currency of community education
content; and align messaging about water issues;
d) Build and regularly convene a formal network of neighborhood champions (potentially
including: residents, organizations, and businesses) that embrace the principles of the Urban
Water Plan, and provide opportunities for those neighborhood champions to link to the
Collaborative’s advocacy and advocacy training activities;
e) Develop and maintain a rapid response capability and process to disseminate information after
storms or other water events that result in street flooding that can increase awareness among
neighborhood residents about water management policies and practices;
f) Build water literacy in the community by educating residents, both proactively and in response
to specific requests, about the principles in the Urban Water Plan, what they can implement in
their homes and neighborhoods, and what are the relevant opportunities for advocacy at the
local and state level;
g) Develop and maintain relationships with City Council members, regional planners, and other
public officials who work with community groups and otherwise respond to resident requests
for information and assistance to ensure residents have complete, accurate, and current
information on regional/municipal water policy and projects, as well as the steps they can take
to reduce stormwater runoff and flooding.
h) Maintain ongoing contact and share information with local businesses, developers, etc. around
water issues.
12
Specific Strategies, Activities, and Partners
The Community Education Working Group will continue to develop the core topics that need to be
part of the programs and initiatives sponsored by the Working Group and its member organizations.
A useful framework for thinking about these core topics is: global issues such as climate change,
regional issues related to the multiple lines of defense against storm surge, etc., and local issues
related to the principles in the Urban Water Plan. A preliminary list of those core topics is presented
below:
• The role of climate change in creating new challenges to local water management (i.e.,
more frequent and severe storms);
• The natural environment at the regional level and the related issues of coastal protection
and restoration, the multiple lines of defense, and the relationship of storm surge
protection to local water management approaches;
• Subsidence, and the need to move beyond simply increasing drainage and pumping
capacity to address storm water flooding;
• The inter-relatedness and regional nature of effective storm water management strategies,
and the importance of green infrastructure even in neighborhoods that have not shown
themselves to be relatively flood-prone;
• On-site permeability, the capacity of effective green infrastructure to hold water, and the
various materials and design features of green infrastructure;
• The challenges to maintaining water quality, and role of various policies and practices
that protect water quality;
• The philosophy and related strategies for living with water, including the impact of these
strategies on neighborhood beautification, quality of life, etc.;
• Answers to the many standard questions and concerns residents have about water
management approaches, including planting trees, mosquito control, etc.
A central role of the Community Education Working Group is to support and enhance existing
water-related community education and awareness programs. The Working Group adds value in the
areas of program content quality and completeness, outreach leading to scale, and alignment with
other existing community education and awareness efforts. Going forward, the Community
Education Working Group will explore with each current provider of water-related community
education what that provider’s vision for their program is, and what specific support and resources
they need to further that vision, again, in terms of quality, scale, and alignment. Specific examples
of existing programs or initiatives and they ways in which the Community Education Working
Group can add value are presented below:
• A number of the member organizations have been involved in walk-and-learns at various
green infrastructure sites in the community. The Working Group can support outreach
and expand publicity for these events, and can expand the topics addressed and the
number of community-based sites.
• Global Green is planning to implement a green building resource center, based on a
model program now operating in Houston. The Community Education Working Group
can help vet the educational and building-materials-related content, and can help staff the
center.
• Water Works developed “The Joy of Water,” a do-it-yourself guide about basic green
infrastructure projects that property owners can implement. The Working Group can
13
•
•
•
•
•
augment this guide with additional online information (including videos) that show
model implementation sites, and more in-depth information about building materials,
native plants, mulches, etc.
The Urban Conservancy sponsors the Front Yard Initiative (FYI) that encourages and
supports homeowners to replace concrete driveways and other such property features
with green infrastructure that will reduce runoff and thereby also reduce localized
flooding. Urban Conservancy’s vision of this initiative is to scale it citywide and embed
the subsidies, incentives, and other supports in an appropriate city agency. The
Community Education Working Group members can expand the capacity for technical
assistance to homeowners, support publicity and visibility for the program, and support
the ultimate expansion of the project beyond residential property to a more broad effort to
maximize pavement permeability throughout the city and region.
Center for Sustainable Engagement and Development (CSED) sponsors “By Land, By
Water, By Air” tours that focus on coastal areas and issues. The Working Group can
support the expansion of this program to include selected urban green infrastructure sites.
The Water Collaborative’s Designers & Builders Working Group members are involved
in numerous green infrastructure projects throughout the city and the region. While
Designers & Builders create educational opportunities related to these projects for
professional in the design, planning, and construction fields, the Community Education
Working Group can integrate a community awareness and education component into
these projects targeting neighborhood residents, businesses, and community-based
organizations.
Several Collaborative members have been involved in preliminary discussions about
implementing the FEMA-funded High Water Mark Initiative to bring flood risk
awareness to neighborhoods throughout the city. Greater New Orleans would be the first
community in FEMA Region 6 to participate and the effort here would be the first to be
lead by a group of community-based organizations. Given the timeline for the initiative
and the funding, there would likely be a launch in October 2015. The Community
Education Working Group can support and add value to this activity through active
outreach and publicity, and can work with the Research & Policy Working Group to
ensure the accuracy educational value of the neighborhood-specific information about
flood risk.
LUSC, Global Green, Water Works, and others are conducting Neighborhood Water
Wise workshops and tabling events, funded by the New Orleans Sewerage and Water
board and the EPA, in eight neighborhoods across New Orleans, reaching and engaging
hundreds of citizens. The Community Education Working Group can facilitate linkages
with additional community groups to broaden the reach of these efforts, and expand the
number of community-based water educators in these outreach and awareness activities.
The rapid response aspect of the overall approach is fundamentally an opportunity to take advantage
of teachable moments that occur when there is storm-related flooding and/or property damage in
local neighborhoods. The dissemination of information about why there is flooding and what
residents can do is a critical, but not sole, aspect of this strategy. The Community Education
Working Group will encourage residents (and have the related templates with specific instructions)
to take photographs and/or water-depth measurements, and report this information to the Sewerage
and Water Board. This activity will also have a social media component so that the information
being reported by residents can be aggregated for greater impact. The Working Group will also
14
develop partnerships with print and electronic media outlets to disseminate information and
generate accurate reporting on severe storms and other water events, modeling on current activities
regarding hurricane tracking and preparedness.
The Community Education Working Group will make a special effort to reach out to property
owners and developers considering construction projects. This may include working with building
supplies retailers to provide information about green infrastructure and the other resources available
through the Collaborative. Similarly, the Working Group will collaborate with local government
officials in relevant licensing and permitting departments to provide information and advice to
property owners seeking permits for pending construction projects.
The Community Education Working Group has an important role within the larger Water
Collaborative. First, the Working Group will take the lead in facilitating cross training and
information sharing between Working Groups in the Collaborative, including regularly surveying
Collaborative members about topics of interest. Further, the Working Group’s water educator
community of practice will maintain active links with the Designers & Builders Working Group to
coordinate the establishment of educational components to green infrastructure projects, and with
the Advocacy Working Group to ensure that residents are well informed about water-related
advocacy opportunities and initiatives.
Finally, the Community Education Working Group will take the lead in creating and coordinating a
Collaborative-wide, region-wide Living With Water Festival each November. The selection of
November is intended to commemorate residents’ return to the city and the region after Hurricane
Katrina, rather than the many Katrina remembrance events typically scheduled in August on the
anniversary of the storm. This Festival will be strongly branded as sponsored by the Water
Collaborative, will be a multi-day and multi-site event, and will include active, participatory,
educational, and fun activities related to the many aspects of water: water management, recreation,
wetland and coastal protection, etc. (Note: There may be additional opportunities to coordinate the
Collaborative’s public awareness activities with other community events related to the beginning
and end of each year’s hurricane season.)
Metrics and Targets
The Community Education Working Group has developed preliminary goals for the level of activity
over which the Working Group has proactive control. In that context, the Working Group and its
members will implement:
• 200 community presentations and events per year;
• Community of practice convening quarterly;
• Direct technical assistance with 100 property owners about green infrastructure annually;
• Living With Water Festival annually (each November).
Further, the Community Education Working Group will track and regularly report the following
data as documentation of its activity and impact:
a) # of linkages with government and community-based civic engagement organizations and
initiatives;
b) # of neighborhood presentations or events;
c) # of participants in community education activities;
15
d) # of resource guides and other informational materials developed;
e) # of participants in the water educators community of practice;
f) # of new community-based green infrastructure projects catalyzed by the efforts of the
Working Group.
K-12 Education Working Group
Overall Approach
The K-12 Education Working Group is the Collaborative’s vehicle for working with schools,
teachers, and youth-serving organizations and their staffs to increase water literacy, increase
awareness about water as a critical community asset, and create an understanding of the importance
of effective water management among children and youth. In that context, the overall approach of
this Working Group is as follows:
a) Identify, document, publicize, and champion existing water-related programs, activities, and
curricula targeting children and youth (including water careers awareness), and the related
teacher professional development;
b) Identify gaps (content, populations, …) and support the development by members (or groups of
members) of programs to fill gaps;
c) Build and actively publicize a resource center or clearinghouse of materials, models, lesson
plans, and resources, with the related training and professional development, that can be
accessed by schools and youth-serving organizations interested in developing or improving their
educational programming on water issues;
d) Build a formal network of water educators targeting children and youth (including teachers,
administrators, representatives of community-based organizations, and providers of related
teacher training) that will function as a community of practice that can share ideas and
resources, provide input to vet and improve program content, function as a train-the-trainer
resource, and keep each other informed about new and emerging trends in educational
programming related to water management;
e) Establish and maintain the capacity for Collaborative members to be available to assist teachers
and students with expert consultant, advice, and support related to specific water-related
educational, service learning, and green infrastructure projects
f) Articulate the core components that define water literacy, and advocate with school leaders and
administrators, as well as state level educational policy makers, for institutionalizing water
literacy curriculum in their schools. (Note: The process of defining water literacy also informs
other elements of the overall approach, including identifying gaps in service and developing the
clearinghouse of the resources for K-12 educators.)
Specific Strategies, Activities, and Partners
16
A central component of the K-12 Education Working Group’s strategy is to support and enhance the
efforts of member organizations already involved in water-related activities with students and
teachers. The Collaborative’s added value to these existing efforts will focus on the quality and
currency of program content; outreach, visibility, and scale; and alignment with other activities in a
way that maximizes their collective impact. A sample of the existing K-12 providers and activities
are presented below:
• Groundwork New Orleans’s Green Team and its job training program;
• UNO’s Pontchartrain Institute for Environmental Resources coastal and environmental
science programs and related school field trips;
• Ripple Effect, a teacher training and curriculum development project for reshaping
environmental education around place- and design-based, standards-aligned water
curriculum;
• Urban Conservancy’s Building Active Stewardship in New Orleans (BASIN) program
for third graders at Dibert Elementary;
• Rivers Institute, an ongoing teacher-training initiative focused on experiential learning
based out of Hamline University in Minnesota, with a three-year commitment to
engaging educators in St. Bernard Parish and elsewhere in the Mississippi River Delta.
The K-12 Education Working Group has identified an important gap in water-related curriculum
and other resources for schools: the lack of curriculum that is place-specific, i.e., focused on the
unique features of the Greater New Orleans region. Much of the available water-related curriculum
can be relatively generic, and doesn’t maximize the use of specific references and examples from
Greater New Orleans. Maximizing student learning objectives can be better achieved through
curriculum that furthers students’ understanding of their regional geography, ecology, hydrology,
etc., and this approach enhances learning by making the subject matter more immediate, personally
relevant, and accessible through local site visits. The Collaborative, through the K-12 Education
Working Group, will play a significant role in developing materials and programs that integrate this
local perspective, and then advocate with educational decision-makers to access and utilize these
materials.
The K-12 Working Group will gather information about existing programming and will map all the
relevant programs, assets, programming sites, field trip opportunities, etc. The mapping will include
information about the existing programs’ water-related content, staffing, materials, scheduling, and
links to state curriculum standards. In addition, the Working Group will partner with organizations
that offer teacher professional development to sponsor twice-annual seminars for educators that
provide a broad overview of water issues, which will then be followed by a series of more focused
topic-specific workshops.
The educational advocacy efforts of the Working Group will begin with individual teachers and
classrooms, as well as staff at the school and school network/district level, with the longer-term
objective of engaging educational policy makers at the state level. It will be important for the K-12
Education Working Group to further define water literacy and to develop a set of core competencies
that cover topics including geology, history, geography, hydrology, ecology, policy, and
stewardship. In addition, the Working Group will advocate for the integration of appropriate
physical sites and locations into educational planning, as well as support the incorporation of
educationally valuable design elements into infrastructure and green space development planning
17
throughout the region. As a longer-term objective, the Working Group will begin to identify and/or
develop metrics for assessing student learning with respect to water literacy, and position itself as a
thought leader related to defining and assessing water literacy.
The K-12 Working Group will implement student activities, teacher training, and educational
advocacy in collaboration with a wide range of partners in the community. These partnerships will
enable the Collaborative to access a wide range of models and approaches. A preliminary list of
potential partners includes:
 Youth programming partners:
• UNO Coastal Environmental Research Facility (CERF);
• Maumus Science Center (St. Bernard);
• Arlene Meraux River Observation Center at Docville Farms;
• Center for Sustainable Engagement and Development Community Center;
• Edible School Yard;
• Kids Rethink;
• Louisiana Children’s Museum.
 Teacher training partners:
• Teach for America (TFA);
• New Schools for New Orleans (NSNO);
• Teach NOLA;
• New Teacher Project;
• Orleans Parish School Board;
• St. Bernard Parish School Board;
• Jefferson Parish School Board;
• Communities in Schools (CIS);
• Various charter management organizations.
 Partners in advocacy for water literacy (as well as potential related funding):
• Brown Foundation;
• Walton Foundation;
• Trust for Public Land;
• Meraux Foundation;
• National Science Foundation;
• Cowen Institute;
• Environmental Protection Agency;
• National Fish and Wildlife Federation;
• Louisiana Environmental Education Commission.
Metrics and Targets
The K-12 Education Working Group has developed preliminary goals for the level of activity over
which the Working Group has proactive control. In that context, the Working Group and its
members will implement:
• 2 introductory/overview seminars annually
18
• 4 -6 Collaborative-sponsored topic-specific workshops annually
• 3-5 new service learning projects annually
Further, the K-12 Education Working Group will track and regularly report the following data as
documentation of its activity and impact:
a) # of schools with water education programs and/or green infrastructure projects;
b) # of teachers involved in professional development and/or curriculum implementation;
c) # of students exposed to water-related curriculum and/or other learning activities;
d) # of programs, curricula, guides, and other resources in the resource library.
e) # of educational sites/locations identified and publicized;
f) # of successful educational policy reforms;
g) # of national presentations/conferences about the Water Collaborative’s educational
programs and curriculum.
Note: In future years, the K-12 Education Working Group may identify additional youth
outcome metrics related to student learning gains (in both water-related topics and other
academic subjects), water-related career aspirations, etc.
Designers & Builders Working Group
Overall Approach
The Designers & Builders Working Group is the Collaborative’s core group of professionals
knowledgeable and experienced with the technical details of implementing best practices in water
management and green infrastructure. In that context, the overall approach of this Working Group
is as follows:
a) Identify, document, publicize, and champion green infrastructure and other projects consistent
with the principles of the Urban Water Plan, undertaken by GNOWC members and others;
b) Create a pool of pro-bono hours for expert consultation to residents, organizations, and
businesses in the region that have a demonstrated need but not the commensurate capacity or
resources regarding their water management and green infrastructure needs, and identify and
follow-through on opportunities to build green infrastructure models or approaches consistent
with best practice and current trends in the field;
c) Create and regularly convene a formal network of designers and builders (from private firms
and government agencies, as well as CDCs and other rebuild organizations) with expertise and
experience in green infrastructure;
d) Develop informational materials and related training on water management best practices for
architects, urban planners, landscape architects, developers, etc. (Note: The informational
materials and related training will focus on several audiences, including: preprofessionals/university students as well as emerging and veteran practitioners.);
19
e) Share information about potential funding sources for green infrastructure projects, and
coordinate efforts to seek funding for implementation, monitoring, and/or experimental research
projects by GNOWC members and/or groups of members (Note: All Working Groups will, to
one degree or another, focus on funding; the financial resources necessary for effective and
meaningful green infrastructure design and construction increases the importance of this activity
within the Designers & Builders Working Group);
f) Provide technical expertise to other Working Groups and Collaborative members to inform
policy development, advocacy campaigns, and educational programming;
g) Seek funding to conduct science-based experimental research on alternative green infrastructure
design materials and configurations in local soils, slopes, rainfall conditions, groundwater
monitoring wells, etc., as well as expanded monitoring of water quality and quantity in built
green infrastructure sites, and disseminate the results.
h) Develop internship programs and other career awareness activities that link students with
professionals working on water management policy, systems management and operations,
planning, ecology, and other related fields that address water management issues at project and
systems levels.
Specific Strategies, Activities, and Partners
There are a number of Collaborative members currently engaged in the design and implementation
of green infrastructure, as well as various organizations that provide training and other resources for
professionals in the design, planning, and construction fields, that the Designers & Builders
Working Group can support and extend. The Working Group can support existing efforts by
providing consultation to ensure all content reflects current and emerging best practice, adding
addition training and professional development topics, and supporting policies that require or
provide incentives for best practice green infrastructure design and construction. Sample existing
programs and ways in which the Designers & Builders Working Group can add value are presented
below.
• Several Collaborative members conduct educational and awareness activities regarding
green infrastructure projects for professionals in the field. The Working Group can
broaden the impact of these walking tours/trainings by more systematically capturing and
documenting the information, and then actively disseminating and publicizing this
information.
• The Louisiana Urban Stormwater Coalition (LUSC) is currently conducting training for
designers and builders. The Collaborative can expand the range of technical presentations
by adding modules on topics such as green roofs, rainwater harvesting, water retention
calculations when there are multiple green infrastructure components, etc.
• LUSC is also conducting training for planners and policy makers, funded by the New
Orleans Sewerage and Water Board. The Collaborative can support this training series by
developing additional topics as described above. Over time, this can lead to a process for
certifying designers and builders in green infrastructure. (Note: Such a program could be
developed on the model of the existing certification process for storm water pollution
inspectors.)
20
• There is a Compendium of Green Infrastructure Development in Greater New Orleans
developed under the auspices of the Louisiana Urban Stormwater Coalition and funded
by EPA. The Working Group can play a significant role in updating of the Compendium
(twice a year at first, perhaps increasing to quarterly), disseminating it, and developing
walk-and-learns or other activities that highlight important green infrastructure projects to
professionals in the field.
• GNO, Inc. funded Water Works to create the Water Index, which will include an
inventory of companies implementing green infrastructure. The Designer & Builders
Working Group can support the creation and regular updating of this listing, and can
ensure that the content is detailed and specific in ways that educate designers, planners,
and builders about effective green infrastructure development.
• A consortium of organizations including Dana Brown and Associates, the Lake
Ponchartrain Basin Foundation, LUSC, and the New Orleans Department of Parks and
Parkways has submitted a proposal for a research project about the effectiveness of
bioswales under controlled conditions. The Designers & Builders Working Group can
help publicize the project and disseminate the findings in ways that engage the
professionals in the design, planning, and construction fields.
Just as this strategic plan positions the Research & Policy Working Group as the think tank for the
Collaborative, the Designers & Builders Working Group is the source of expert consultation and
advice related to the technical details of water management and green infrastructure. In that context,
there are number of ways in which the Designers & Builders will collaborate with other Working
Groups on specific projects and initiatives. Examples include:
• The Designers & Builders Working Group will collaborate with the Research & Policy
and Advocacy Working Groups to ensure that the existing regulatory frameworks, such
as New Orleans’ Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, function in ways that provide
incentives and facilitate resources dedicated to green infrastructure development.
• The Designers & Builders Working Group will routinely solicit input from the
Community Education and Advocacy Working Groups on the most pressing and
persistent questions among residents, businesses, policy makers, and others regarding
water management and green infrastructure, and then generate and disseminate fact
sheets/FAQs that respond to these issues and concerns.
• The Designers & Builders Working Group will collaborate with Research & Policy to
develop a research plan on the market conditions, development codes, and engineering
standards that can effectively mandate and/or provide meaningful incentives for green
infrastructure development and other water management best practices.
As part of this technical expert role within the Collaborative, the Designers & Builders Working
Group also functions as the Collaborative’s link to a number of national organizations and
associations that can be ongoing sources of information about best practices and emerging trends.
These include:
• American Society of Landscape Architects;
• Water Environment Federation;
• Landscape Architecture Foundation
• US Green Building Council;
• American Institute of Architects;
• Urban Land Institute;
21
• American Society of Civil Engineers;
• American Planning Association;
• Rockefeller Foundation (specifically, the Foundation’s initiatives driving research and
practice around resiliency).
With regard to workforce development activities intended to attract people to the field of green
infrastructure design and development, the Designers & Builders Working Group has a number of
important collaborative partners, including:
• Propeller, the New Orleans-based social venture incubator;
• Groundwork New Orleans’s Green Team and recently-created job training program;
• Greater New Orleans, Inc.
• Greater New Orleans Foundation;
• Common Ground’s wetland activities and native plant nursery;
• Various youth empowerment and workforce development providers;
• Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans;
• Jefferson Parish Economic Development Commission;
• Meraux Foundation;
• Local colleges and universities;
• The City of New Orleans, especially in the context of the development of the city’s
Resilience Strategy as part of its involvement in 100 Resilient Cities, as well as its
ongoing participation in the National Disaster Resilience Competition process, both of
which speak to the potential for workforce development, job creation, and new
technologies related to urban water systems and coastal restoration.
Finally, there are two additional tracks of activity related to monitoring and documenting green
infrastructure impact that the Designers & Builders Working Group will address. These are:
• The Designers & Builders Working Group will support and promote the development of
groundwater monitoring so as to track ongoing needs as well as the effectiveness of green
infrastructure development on balancing ground water throughout the region. The
working group will also support and promote the implementation of effective strategies
for managing groundwater as part of infrastructure projects on both public and private
development sites.
• The Designers & Builders Working Group, in collaboration with universities and
research institutions, will use the systems analyses from the Urban Water Plan as the
basis for conceptualizing and developing a process to monitor the region’s progress in
addressing the water assignment for each neighborhood, i.e., the volume of water that
cannot currently be managed by existing systems. For example, the Working Group will
work toward the capacity and systems to calculate the total capacity of green
infrastructure throughout the region to retain and filter water, and thereby establish
benchmarks that can be used to assess the impact of the region’s water management
policies and practices.
Metrics and Targets
22
The Designers & Builders Working Group has developed preliminary goals for the level of activity
over which the Working Group has proactive control. In that context, the Working Group and its
members will:
• Engage 100 professionals annually in training and professional development activities;
• Sponsor 12 major professional development activities (approximately monthly) in the
form of walk-and-learns, seminar, technical workshops, training sessions, or other related
activity per year;
• Generate and disseminate 12 fact sheets/FAQs (approximately monthly) per year.
Further, the Designers & Builders Working Group will track and regularly report the following data
as documentation of its activity and impact:
a) # of university-based and professional development workshops or presentations;
b) # of participants in professional educational and/or training activities;
c) # of informational resources, manuals, and guides for professionals in the design,
construction, and planning fields;
d) # of new green infrastructure projects in the community;
e) # of green infrastructure experimental research projects completed and disseminated;
f) # of existing green infrastructure projects monitored, with results disseminated.
Advocacy Working Group
Overall Approach
The Advocacy Working Group is the focal point for the Collaborative’s efforts to secure policy
changes necessary for the effective implementation of the principles of the Urban Water Plan and
other water management best practices, and to ensure their enforcement. In that context, the overall
approach of this Working Group is as follows:
a) Inform GNOWC members about water-related advocacy issues and opportunities;
b) Identify issues requiring advocacy by the Collaborative (at the state and local level), develop the
related positions and messaging, and coordinate advocacy activities and all advocacy-related
communication;
c) Solicit input and information from other Collaborative Working Groups, members, and partners
about issues or concerns requiring advocacy by the Collaborative and develop the related
advocacy campaigns;
d) Define and coordinate a process for engaging GNOWC members in advocacy, and supporting
the Working Groups to engage their constituencies in advocacy;
e) Develop and disseminate messages and materials designed to increase public awareness of the
key water management policy issues;
f) Serve as a resource to GNOWC members with regard to their water-related advocacy efforts
and campaigns;
23
g) Coordinate community capacity building and the related training regarding advocacy on water
issues, and identifying and accessing training resources and opportunities;
h) Maintain ongoing communication with relevant public officials to identify and collaborate on
advocacy opportunities, and to monitor enforcement of existing policies.
Specific Strategies, Activities, and Partners
The success of the Collaborative’s advocacy activities will depend on the degree of active
participation by all Working Groups and Collaborative members. The central role of the Advocacy
Working Group is to inform and coordinate the advocacy activities of the Collaborative. In that
context, all other Working Groups will, as part of their overall approach, engage their key
community constituencies in ways that build the capacity of the Collaborative to mobilize the
community around water management advocacy.
At the same time, the Collaborative recognizes the potentially sensitive nature of active
involvement in advocacy for many of its members. In that context, there are three options for the
posture that GNOWC may take with regard to advocacy on any particular issue. Ultimate
responsibility for a determination regarding one of these options belongs to the Steering Committee,
with a great deal of input and consultation with the Advocacy Working Group. The options are:
a) GNOWC takes a position on an issue as the Collaborative, after due diligence by the
Steering Committee regarding an appropriate degree of consensus on the issue among the
membership.
b) GNOWC members choose (or decline) to sign on to an advocacy position, and all public
advocacy-related communication is clear about which specific GNOWC member
organizations are involved in supporting that position.
c) GNOWC decides not to take a position on an issue, but provides relevant information and
analysis to members and to the public.
Once the Collaborative has selected one of the above approaches to any particular advocacy
campaign, the Advocacy Working Group will strategically identify the lead spokesperson(s) that
will be active and visible in the public aspects of the campaign. Further, the Collaborative will be
very intentional about the range of informational resources and other supports provided to the
campaign.
There will be an active, two-way relationship between the Advocacy Working Group and the
Research & Policy Working Group. Research & Policy will bring forth policy models and templates
around which the Advocacy Working Group may develop active campaigns. Similarly, the
Advocacy Working Group may take the lead in requesting such policy models and templates from
Research & Policy, or may ask about existing research demonstrating that selected legislative or
administrative proposals have been proven effective in other locations.
The specific tools that GNOWC will employ in support of advocacy include:
• Clear, complete, and timely communication to members about the emerging issues and the
related advocacy opportunities (hearings, public comment periods, etc.);
24
• Maintaining and regularly updating an inventory of GNOWC member assets, connections,
and other resources that can support advocacy;
• Training in advocacy strategies and approaches;
• Consistently-formatted and effective templates of advocacy-related materials such as press
releases, issue fact sheets or position papers, action alerts, etc.;
• Automated, online processes for members to sign on to advocacy campaigns that then
generate emails, petitions, etc.;
• Public meetings, surveys, and other vehicles by which to solicit public officials’ and (in
election seasons) candidates’ positions on key water-related issues, and then to publish and
disseminate the results;
• Grassroots organizing and mobilization.
As of July 2015, there are a number of current opportunities for advocacy in terms of existing or
prospective legislative or regulatory initiatives. While this list may change over the coming years,
the current advocacy opportunities include:
• New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board drainage fee;
• Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) implementation and enforcement (including the
amendment also passed that eliminated waivers and exemptions from the storm water
management requirements);
• Capital outlay in government budgets;
• Various financial settlements and other legislated funding for coastal restoration related to
the BP oil disaster;
• Hurricane preparedness, protection, and recovery funds from various federal agencies;
• Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit enforcement;
• Historic District landmarks Commission (HDLC) Green Wall policy
• SELA construction and drainage projects;
• Community Rating System (CRS) rating;
• Executive Order 13690;
• Ground water regulations;
• Gray water reuse policies;
• Parking lot paving policies;
• Transportation and street construction policies;
• City’s hazard mitigation plans;
• 100 Resilient Cities Program.
Metrics and Targets
Much advocacy activity is opportunistic and unpredictable, and does not always lend itself to
specific quantifiable objectives or targets. This notwithstanding, the Advocacy Working Group has
developed preliminary goals for the level of activity (including activities undertaken by the
Collaborative as a whole as well as the efforts of member organizations) over which the Working
Group and its members have some level of proactive control. The Advocacy Working Group and its
members will conduct:
• 2 community training and capacity building workshops and/or events per year;
• 1 advocacy training for Collaborative members each year;
25
• 12 public meetings, hearings, public comment events, etc. (approximately monthly) at
which the Water Collaborative has active and visible presence;
• 1 major grassroots mobilization around water issues per year;
• 12 presentations (approximately monthly) to neighborhood organizations or other
advocacy partners as part of the community organizing effort per year.
Further, the Advocacy Working Group will track and regularly report the following data as
documentation of its activity and impact:
a) # of advocacy campaigns related to the adoption and enforcement of water management
policies and practices;
b) # of nonprofits, businesses, and other community-based organizations involved in Water
Collaborative advocacy campaigns;
c) # of community capacity building workshops and training activities conducted;
d) # of neighborhood presentations and other community organizing events;
e) # of grassroots mobilizations in support of water management advocacy;
f) # of new public dollars invested in water management and green infrastructure;
g) # of new water management policies adopted at the state and local levels.
Research & Policy Working Group
Overall Approach
The Research & Policy Working Group is the Collaborative’s think tank that responds to requests
from Collaborative members and partners for current research and best practice models, and also
proactively shapes public discourse on water management issues. The Research & Policy Working
Group is responsible for staying current on the latest science and best practices drawn from national
and international researchers and practitioners, as well as conducting independent research and
sponsoring policy forums on behalf of the Collaborative. In that context, the overall approach of this
Working Group is as follows:
a) Respond to requests from the other Working Groups for policy models, templates, language,
data, etc., and solicit input and information from other Collaborative Working Groups,
members, and partners about issues or concerns requiring research;
b) Proactively conduct research about effective water management policies and practices, and
maintain an inventory/archive of policy models and language for use by GNOWC members;
c) Disseminate research findings and data in order to shape the terms of the public discussion on
water management issues by sponsoring topic-specific forums; publishing policy papers,
abstracts, and/or fact sheets on water-related issues; and presenting papers at appropriate local,
national, and international conferences;
d) Build relationships and maintain active ongoing communication with relevant public officials to
educate them on best practice water management policies and practices.
26
e) Build relationships and maintain active ongoing communication with universities, research
institutions, and relevant professional associations to position the Water Collaborative as an
essential partner in building the body of research supporting implementation of best practice
water management policies and practices.
Specific Strategies, Activities, and Partners
While the Advocacy Working Group is at the center of GNOWC’s efforts to secure policy changes
for the community, the Research & Policy Working Group will position itself as an objective and
credible resource on water issues, and, as a related matter, must maintain a high level of rigor
regarding its presentation of research and best practices drawn from national and international
sources. The Collaborative’s two-pronged approach to its policy efforts, i.e., effective advocacy
informed by rigorous research, is fundamental to its ability to have a lasting impact in the Greater
New Orleans region.
The Research & Policy Working Group will maintain a balance of reactive activities (i.e.,
responding to other Working Groups’ requests, and providing support to advocacy efforts on
existing policy fronts, such as the CZO) and proactive activities (i.e., building an inventory of
policy templates and conducting topic-specific forums). This balance enables the Working Group to
maximize its impact on local policy and to influence the way in which emergent issues are
understood and framed.
With regard to the proactive aspect of its charge, the Research & Policy Working Group has begun
to identify the issues it will explore in greater depth. First, in defining the full scope of this effort, it
is important to clarify that these issues include:
• Local, state, and federal level policies;
• Issues related to both flooding and water quality;
• Issues impacting the entire region, including urban, rural, and coastal areas;
• Immediate, short-term issues as well as those with a longer timeframe.
In that context, the Working Group has developed a preliminary set of issues around which it will
create the public forums/symposia and/or policy papers referenced above. These are:
a) Risk Communication: New Orleans is susceptible to a variety of water-related risks,
including stormwater flooding, catastrophic flooding, and water pollution. While residents
and policy makers in the region have developed a greater awareness of the risk factors in
the last decade, the need remains for ongoing communication about these risks in order to
mitigate exposure and make the region more resilient. This forum will explore the range of
options for risk communication, including the unveiling of the High Water Mark Initiative
in November (a collaboration with FEMA, local governments, and community-based
organizations), which will be coordinated with the Community Education Working Group’s
inaugural Living with Water Festival, also scheduled for November.
b) Funding streams for water management and green infrastructure: In New Orleans,
there has been a good deal of focus on a potential drainage fee for property owners.
However, there are numerous other strategies for generating funds for water management
and green infrastructure projects throughout the region. This forum will explore the range
of options, at the state and local level, potentially including fees, bonds, and other
mechanisms for creating long-term sustained funding for such projects.
27
c) Flood insurance: Community Rating System (CRS): There are numerous specific ways
in which municipalities in the region can positively impact their CRS rating, which would
result in significant reductions in flooding and water related property damage as well as
substantial savings on flood insurance for homeowners. The Research & Policy Working
Group will assemble research on best practices in this area, and provide information,
templates, and support to communities interested in implementation.
d) Funds available through the RESTORE Act: The overwhelming focus of the discussion
to date of uses of the federal clean water act penalties related to the BP oil spill in the Gulf
has been coastal restoration. However, there is a provision of the law that enables funds to
pass through to local communities. This forum will focus on the range of potential uses of
these funds by local municipalities to promote effective water management, water quality,
and economic development in the affected communities, and additionally, how the
definition of nonstructural projects in the 2017 Coastal Master Plan can be expanded to
include water management projects.
e) Mitigation: Executive Order 13690: This Executive Order establishes a Federal Flood
Risk Management Standard. This forum will explore potential local impacts of Executive
Order 13690, including potential federal investments and mitigation of flood risk.
f) Water quality and MS4: Discussions of water management often focus disproportionately
on storm water and flooding, without a commensurate focus on water quality. In the context
of the Water Collaborative, we will focus on non-point source run-off pollution and MS4
permitting. This forum will focus on why water quality is important, what dynamics impact
water quality, what aspects are regulated, and what are the range of strategies and
investments that can have an impact.
g) Opportunities to impact municipal capital improvement processes and projects: There
are numerous departments within municipal government that control capital improvement
and public works dollars. It will be important for the Research and Policy Working Group
to identify these departments and the types of projects they oversee, and to provide
information on strategies for impacting the use of these funds in ways that maximize
alignment with the principles in the Urban Water Plan.
The Research & Policy Working Group will conduct its activities with a strong focus on engaging
and collaborating with partners including government entities, research institutions, and other
thought leaders in the field. A preliminary list of key potential partners is presented below:
 New Orleans city departments involved with water management: Hazard Mitigation
Office, City Planning Commission, Safety and Permits Department, Sewerage and Water
Board, New Orleans Redevelopment Authority, and the City Council;
 Other regional government entities: Jefferson and St. Bernard Parishes;
 State government offices involved with water issues: Office of Homeland Security, Office
of Community Development, Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority;
 Federal agencies: Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency management
Agency (and in particular FEMA’s High Water Mark Initiative);
 Universities and research institutions: UNO Center for Hazard Assessment Response and
Technology (CHART), several Tulane centers and initiatives (Environmental Law Clinic,
28
Water Institute for Law and Policy, Disaster Leadership Academy, and School of
Architecture), LSU Robert Reich School of Landscape Architecture, Delgado Community
College, Loyola University, New Orleans Data Center, Technical University of Delft
(Netherlands);
 Professional associations: Association of State Floodplain Managers, Natural Hazards
Workshop, United States Water Alliance, Association of Public Administration (both the
national office and the southeastern region), Water Environment Federation.
Metrics and Targets
The Research & Policy Working Group has developed preliminary goals for the level of activity
over which the Working Group has proactive control. In that context, the Working Group and its
members will:
• Sponsor 3-to-4 issue forums per year, and generate a major policy paper for each;
• Produce 1 additional major policy research papers or abstracts per year (beyond those
generated for the forums), and 4 basic fact sheets per year;
• Present at 1 major conference per year, building over time to 4 or 5 conference
presentations per year by Year 3.
Further, the Research & Policy Working Group will track and regularly report the following data as
documentation of its activity and impact:
a) # of issue forums;
b) # of attendees/participants in forums;
c) # of policy papers, abstracts, and/or fact sheets produced;
d) # of conference presentations;
e) # of specific policy recommendations developed for advocacy by the Collaborative;
f) # of established ongoing partnerships with public entities and research institutions.
Integrating and Connecting the Work Groups
There is a great deal of overlap and opportunities for collaboration between and among the Working
Groups. Working Group chairs are responsible for proactively identifying those opportunities and
reaching out to the other Working Groups to develop joint and/or coordinated activities. Similarly,
the Steering Committee is responsible for maintaining a Collaborative-wide perspective and
ensuring that collaboration and coordination among the Working Groups is productively
maximized. It is crucial that the Collaborative present itself to the community and to all stakeholder
constituencies as a highly coordinated and integrated array of strategies for addressing water
management issues. For example, a meaningful and multi-layered response to a neighborhood
association that has come to Water Collaborative for support and consultation after they have been
negatively impacted by a storm or other water event might be for a five-person team, representing
each of the Working Groups and lead by a member of the Community Education Working Group,
to meet with the neighborhood leadership to explain all the ways in which education, green
infrastructure implementation, advocacy, and research are meaningful approaches to the challenges
facing the neighborhood. The Collaborative will maximize appropriate opportunities to work with
community stakeholders in ways that demonstrate the inter-relatedness of the Working Groups and
29
the multi-faceted approach necessary for the implementation of the principles in the Urban Water
Plan. The following chart presents a framework for considering and developing these types of crossWorking Group projects and initiatives.
Note: There may be opportunities for the creation of additional Working Groups for programmatic
activities such as workforce development, organizational activities such as communications, or
related focus areas such as arts and culture. As these additional Working Groups emerge, there will
be a systematic planning effort to identify and implement specific strategies for linking them with
the existing Working Groups in ways similar to what is presented in the following charts.
30
Working
Groups
Community
Education
K-12
Education
Designers &
Builders
Types of Collaboration Across Working Groups
Community Education
---
K-12 Education
• Joint schoolcommunity
activities;
• Parent
engagement
• Joint schoolcommunity activities;
• Parent engagement
• Support rapid response
to neighborhoods after
water events
---
• Projects at community
sites;
• Support community
education efforts with
expert consultation;
• Contribute to/vet
water-related;
educational program;
• Support rapid response
to neighborhoods after
water events.
• Contribute to and
vet water-related
curriculum;
• Projects at school
sites;
• Recruitment into
internship and
career awareness
programs.
Designers & Builders
• Build community
education activities
into green
infrastructure
projects;
• Education and
awareness activities
targeting local
developers
• Projects at school
sites;
• Recruitment into
internship programs
---
•
•
•
•
•
Advocacy
Publicize advocacy
information and initiatives
with all community
networks;
Collaborate on community
capacity building as it
relates to advocacy on
water issues
Provide input on potential
advocacy issues and
campaigns
Publicize advocacy
information and initiatives
to educator network;
Advocacy to schools
regarding water literacy
curriculum
Research & Policy
• Disseminate
research and policy
recommendations to
community
networks.
• Disseminate
research and policy
recommendations to
educator network.
• Publicize advocacy
• Disseminate
information and initiatives
research and policy
with designer and builder
recommendations to
network;
designer and builder
network;
• Provide input on issues and
barriers in current policies • Share results of
monitoring and
for potential advocacy
experimental
campaign;
research;
• Provide technical expertise
• Provide technical
in shaping advocacy.
expertise to support
policy development.
31
Working
Groups
Advocacy
Research &
Policy
Types of Collaboration Across Working Groups
Community Education
K-12 Education
Designers & Builders
Advocacy
Research & Policy
• Publicize advocacy
information and
initiatives through all
community networks;
• Collaborate on
community capacity
building as it relates to
advocacy on water
issues
• Solicit input on
potential advocacy
issues and campaigns;
• Support rapid response
to neighborhoods after
water events
• Disseminate research
and policy
recommendations to
community networks
• Respond to requests
for relevant research on
best practices
• Recruit for topicspecific forums
through community
networks.
• Support rapid response
to neighborhoods after
water events
• Publicize
advocacy
information and
initiatives to
educator network;
• Support advocacy
to schools
regarding water
literacy
curriculum
• Solicit input on
potential
advocacy issues
and campaigns
• Publicize advocacy
information and
initiatives with
designer and builder
network;
• Solicit input on issues
and barriers in current
policies for potential
advocacy campaigns;
• Solicit technical
expertise to inform
advocacy.
---
• Disseminate
research and
policy
recommendations
to educator
networks
• Respond to
requests for
relevant research
on best practices
• Recruit for topicspecific forums
through educator
networks.
• Disseminate research
and policy
recommendations to
networks of designers
and builders
• Respond to requests
for relevant research
on best practices
• Recruit for topicspecific forums
through networks of
designers and
builders.
• Provide models, templates,
and language on water
management policies (both
in response to requests, and
proactively);
• Recruit for topic-specific
forums through advocacy
networks and
communication channels.
• Solicit input on
policy languages,
models, and
templates for
advocacy
campaigns;
• Collaborate on
topic-specific
forums;
• Support
dissemination of
research findings
and papers to policy
makers and other
key constituencies.
---
32
Collective Impact Strategy for Programs: The Endorsement Process
GNOWC’s educational and green infrastructure-related activities will include both efforts
undertaken by GNOWC as a collaborative and programs and projects undertaken by member
organizations or others that align with the mission of GNOWC and conform to a set of standards.
The following criteria represent the codification of those standards, and can be used to make
decisions about what projects to endorse and/or support. We have addressed the issue of criteria
separately for education projects and green infrastructure/water management projects. If a project
has both a built and an educational component, it will be subject to both sets of criteria.
Note: The use of these criteria does not involve any sort of numerical ranking system and a related
threshold score for securing a GNOWC endorsement. The criteria will be used as the framework
and terms of the discussion for considering programs or projects, and the final determinations will
be made through a carefully considered application of the criteria by the relevant Working Group(s)
and the Steering Committee. (See below for a description of decision-making authority related to
these endorsements.)
When GNOWC decides that a program or project meets the standards articulated here, there are
several options for actions to be taken. A GNOWC endorsement can be requested by an
organization(s) implementing the water-related program or project, or GNOWC can identify and
proactively reach out to a program or project to explore an endorsement. These are:
• Simple endorsement, which entitles the sponsor of the project to publicize GNOWC’s
endorsement of the activity, and GNOWC will provide publicity and visibility for the
project;
• Co-branding, which goes beyond a simple endorsement to where the activity is
publicized as a GNOWC project;
• Co-sponsorship and resource support, in which GNOWC plays a much more hands-on
role in the implementation of the project, and provides specific expertise as well as
staffing, material, and/or financial support.
The benefits to the organization seeking a GNOWC endorsement can be grouped into two
categories: 1) the imprimatur of Greater New Orleans’ pre-eminent collaborative of individuals and
organizations passionate and knowledgeable about water management; and 2) whatever specific
resources and expertise can be made available to support the project or activity.
Criteria for Educational Projects
Water-related educational and training programs potentially target three different audiences:
students in school; community residents, organizations, and businesses; and design and build
professionals. There are two sets of criteria that GNOWC will use of determine whether or not to
endorse such programs: content and methodology, which are described below.
Content Criteria
In order to be considered for a GNOWC endorsement, water-related educational programs must
accurately and appropriately address one or more of the following topic areas:
33
1) The difference between natural hydrology and gray infrastructure, i.e., traditional drainage;
2) The basic components of green infrastructure, and the important ramifications of various
specific design elements;
3) Soil’s role in water management: infiltration, permeability, and subsidence;
4) The key elements of the water cycle, and opportunities for intervention and impact within
the cycle;
5) Water quality issues, including pollutant sources and how green infrastructure reduces
pollutants;
6) The connection between water management and various aspects of the quality of life;
7) The connection of urban water management to larger water systems and initiatives (coastal
restoration, etc.)
8) The impact of the geographic context on the planning and implementation of water
management projects (e.g., the considerations are different for New Orleans and the North
Shore);
9) The role of native plants, adapted plants, and invasive species in water management;
10) The existing array of water management and green infrastructure resources available to
communities;
11) Awareness and/or preparation for career paths in water management, green infrastructure,
and water quality;
12) Arts and cultural activities that raise awareness of water management issues.
For education or professional development activities targeting designers and building professionals,
there are two additional criteria:
a) High level of technical detail and specifications regarding green infrastructure
implementation;
b) The necessarily multi-disciplinary nature of water management and green infrastructure
work (i.e., this work ideally involves architects, engineers, landscape architects, site
planners, urban designers, and city planners).
Methodology Criteria
The following criteria address instructional methodology and how the above content is delivered.
While there are many appropriate and effective ways of delivering the above content, the following
criteria are essential for a GNOWC endorsement:
1) Qualified speakers/presenters;
2) Overall appropriateness for the age, cultural background, and learning styles of the
participants.
Criteria for Green Infrastructure and Water Management Projects
Green infrastructure projects must conform to the following criteria to be considered for GNOWC
endorsement:
1) Full regulatory compliance, including having appropriately licensed people on the design
and build teams;
34
2) A technically detailed water plan for the project site that addresses the management of the
projected amount of water through best practices regarding soil type and depth, sub-base
type and depth, plants, outflow, and other landscape design features;
3) Plants that are appropriate to the urban settings in Greater New Orleans (e.g., native and
naturalized plants that are not fragile or short-lived), and no invasive plant species;
4) Documented inclusive community engagement and input into project planning, and
documented community support for the project. (Note: If a green infrastructure project is
seeking GNOWC endorsement on the design merits as part of their effort to build
community support, GNOWC may give a provisional endorsement, and may be more
actively involved in the community engagement process before potentially giving a full
endorsement.)
Beyond these basic criteria, green infrastructure projects will be given preference for endorsement if
they have the following features:
a) The project is located in a high priority area as determined by: underserved in terms of the
lack of green space; documentation that the area is flood prone; and documentation that the
area has experienced repetitive loss due to poor storm water management and flooding;
b) Documentation that this project will have a beneficial impact on these high priority areas;
c) Projects that are significant in scope and have the potential for a significant beneficial
impact;
d) The organization seeking the endorsement is an active GNOWC member.
Proposed Decision-Making Process for GNOWC Endorsement
The steps in the decision-making process regarding the potential endorsement of a program or
project are as follows:
 The initial request will come before either the relevant GNOWC Working Group or an ad
hoc committee convened for the purpose of considering the request. There will be at least
one Steering Committee member involved at this level. In the course of considering a
request, the Working Group or ad hoc committee may negotiate with the organization
seeking the endorsement to add or modify features of their project to better conform to the
criteria.
 The Working Group or ad hoc committee will make a detailed recommendation to the
Steering Committee, making the case for the offering or denying the endorsement on the
basis of a thorough analysis of the program or project in light of the criteria.
 The Steering Committee will be responsible for the final decision about the endorsement,
and will have several potential determinations: a) one of the three endorsement options
described earlier; b) the denial of an endorsement; or c) sending the recommendation back to
the Working Group or ad hoc committee for more analysis and potentially additional
negotiations with the organization seeking the endorsement. (Note: There may be times
when the Steering Committee chooses to withdraw an endorsement on the basis of new
information about the implementation of the program or project. In addition, there may be
times when a Working Group or ad hoc committee member will recuse themselves from the
35
discussion of a particular program or project so as to avoid the appearance of a conflict of
interest.)
 For every activity or project that receives a GNOWC endorsement, there will be some sort
of observation or evaluation conducted to ensure a level of quality control regarding projects
to which GNOWC has, to one degree or another, attached its name.
With regard to the timing of this process, GNOWC must balance taking the time to appropriately
consider a request with streamlining the process so that a decision can be made in a timely way and
not unduly delay projects from going forward. In this context, the Steering Committee will establish
specific guidelines for the advance notice required for organizations seeking a GNOWC
endorsement, perhaps 30 days, and similar guidelines for GNOWC’s review period, perhaps 10
business days. In an effort to further streamline the process, the Steering Committee may decide that
simple endorsements can be made at the Working Group level (subject to some sort of annual
review to ensure the process is working effectively) while co-branding and resource support
decisions must remain with the Steering Committee. Finally, in response to specific endorsement
requests where there may be barriers to scheduling a full Steering Committee meeting, the Steering
Committee may designate a subgroup to consider a request and to make a determination.
Organizational Structure of the Collaborative
In the following sections, all the structures and procedures for the leadership and ongoing
operations of the Collaborative are described. Two important points need to be made for context:
 This level of operational detail is not typical for a strategic plan. However, because this
strategic plan is, in many ways, the inaugural and establishing document for the
Collaborative, it is important that these procedures be articulated to ensure clarity and
transparency for the relatively new organization, and provide members and partners with
the clearest possible picture of the various pathways to participation.
 This is intended as an initial set of structures and procedures, and will be regularly
reviewed, revised, and updated as necessary by the Steering Committee in the context of
the ongoing organizational development of the Collaborative. Any changes in these
structures and procedures implemented in the future will not imply that we have revised
the Collaborative’s strategic plan. This is a living document, and will evolve
appropriately in the course of implementation.
Core Components of the Structure
a) The core components of the Collaborative’s structure include: a Steering Committee (see below
for more details) and the current five Working Groups: Community Education, K-12 Education,
Designers & Builders, Advocacy, and Research & Policy.
b) The establishment of new Working Groups will be authorized by the Steering Committee.
(Note: There has been some preliminary discussion of establishing the following additional
Working Groups: Workforce Development, Communications, and Arts & Culture.) In addition,
36
the Steering Committee may establish other standing or ad hoc committees for specific
programmatic or organizational tasks, e.g., a Nominating Committee (discussed in more detail
below).
c) The Collaborative Coordinator will be selected/hired and supervised by the Steering Committee.
In the short-term, a Collaborative member organization will serve as a fiscal agent for the
purposes of hiring and compensating the Coordinator. There will be a detailed memorandum of
understanding, or MOU, specifying the delegation of authority over the Coordinator to the
Steering Committee, as well as other aspects of the relationship between the Collaborative and
the fiscal agent. All other staff of the Collaborative will be supervised and directed by the
Coordinator.
d) When Working Groups have funding (either raised independently or allocated to them by the
Steering Committee) and choose to subcontract with a member organization or other entity for
specific project activities, the management of that subcontract and the supervision of the related
staff is the responsibility of the Working Group. A similar MOU will be developed with the
fiscal agent for those funds specifying the relevant relationships and authority, as with the
Collaborative Coordinator, described above. (Note: The use of subcontracts for Working Group
activities will be undertaken carefully and judiciously to avoid any concerns about fairness
and/or the appearance of conflict-of-interest regarding the expenditure of funds.)
e) There will be an Advisory Committee that will function as a formal vehicle for the engagement
of high-level experts and activists who may not have time for full participation in the
Collaborative or its Working Groups. Specific individuals will be invited to join the Advisory
Committee by the Steering Committee, with substantial input and recommendations from the
Working Groups. The Advisory Committee will meet infrequently (perhaps twice a year), but
will be available as needed to advise the Steering Committee or the Working Groups on key
issues or strategies.
f) In the short term, the Collaborative will function as an unincorporated entity whose funds will
most often pass through a designated fiscal agent. In the future, the Collaborative may decide to
incorporate and seek tax-exempt status from the IRS in order to maximize access to funding that
the Collaborative can receive and manage independently while maintaining the ability to
conduct the anticipated advocacy.
Membership
a) Open and inclusive, with opportunities for both individual and organizational members.
b) Government officials (both elected officials and staff of government agencies) are eligible to join the
Collaborative as individuals, with the understanding that while they provide the Collaborative with
essential knowledge, expertise, and contacts/access, they are not there as official representatives or
spokespeople for their agencies.
c) Voting within the Collaborative will be based on the principle of one-person-one-vote, and while
there will be members representing a wide range of organizations, it is the individuals who are
counted for any vote. The Steering Committee will establish a definition of active membership
(which may include factors such as: meeting attendance, Working Group activity, longevity in the
37
Collaborative, signing a formal agreement specifying commitment to the Collaborative, paying dues,
etc.) as criteria to be eligible to vote. In general, members have to be present at a meeting to vote,
but the Steering Committee may institute a process, include appropriate notice and lead time, by
which individuals unable to attend a particular meeting can submit their vote in writing in advance.
d) The Collaborative will maintain a mailing list for information sharing and dissemination that will
include the full Collaborative membership, and may include others as well. There will be some
information and communications that will go only to the membership.
e) The Working Groups will build their membership through an open and inclusive process in which
all interested individuals may join, coupled with strategic proactive outreach for members who bring
expertise and resources to the activities of the Working Group. The Working Groups, to the extent
possible, will conduct their decision-making inclusively and democratically, ideally seeking a strong
consensus on any specific directions or activities.
Steering Committee
a) The current Interim Steering Committee will transition to a permanent Steering Committee.
b) The permanent Steering Committee will consist of five representatives of the Working Groups
(i.e. one per Working Group), and up to 6 at-large members. All must be members of the
Collaborative.
c) The Working Group representatives on the Steering Committee will have 1-year terms, which
may be renewed; and the at-large members will have 2-year terms, which may be renewed. The
terms of the at-large members will be staggered so terms will not all conclude within the same
year. Membership on the Steering Committee is understood to be a significant commitment of
time and energy, at least including preparing for and attending a monthly meeting as well as
participation in other activities, meetings, and events (i.e., as a Steering Committee member, not
just as a Collaborative or Working Group member). This may require up to 10 hours per month.
Inactive Steering Committee members may be asked to step down by the Executive Committee
(see below).
d) The process for establishing the Steering Committee after the first year will be as follows:
• The Working Group representatives on the Steering Committee will be selected by the
respective Working Groups through a consistent and transparent process that allows for
both self-nominations and nominations by others.
• A Nominating Committee will be established by the Interim Steering Committee, and
will include a disinterested chair (i.e., not a candidate for the Steering Committee), 4
Interim Steering Committee members, and perhaps other Collaborative members or
advisors if they are thought to be assets to the process. The Nominating Committee will
prepare a slate of up to 6 at-large members of the Steering Committee, which will get an
up-or-down vote by the full membership of the Collaborative. Each year, there will be a
slate proposed to fill the empty slots.
• The Nominating Committee will both invite recommendations of individuals for the slate
of at-large members and proactively recruit individuals who they feel will be assets to the
Steering Committee.
38
• The Nominating Committee will create the slate of at-large members with a strong
emphasis on diversity across a number of variables: race/ethnicity, parish (initially:
Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard, and ultimately others), all key stakeholder
constituencies of the Collaborative, etc. The slate should also represent a wide range of
skills, professional experience, contacts, and resources. There will be a predisposition to
identify people who have been active participants in the Collaborative and/or the
Working Groups. Finally, the Nominating Committee will endeavor to ensure that no one
member organization is over-represented on the Steering Committee, and in this regard,
the Steering Committee may institute a formal cap on the number of representatives from
any one member organization.
Note: Concerns have been expressed that if certain government officials were on the
Steering Committee, it might compromise the Collaborative’s ability to conduct
advocacy independently and effectively. Similarly, those same government officials
might be reluctant to sit on the Steering Committee because of the degree to which it
might put them in a compromised position with their agency regarding a particular issue
or advocacy campaign. Therefore, the Collaborative will use the following language for
guidance on this issue: All Collaborative members, including government employees, are
eligible for the Steering Committee. Whether any specific individual will be nominated
for the Steering Committee will be decided on a case by case basis, with the selection
taking into account the degree to which the individual can make decisions on behalf of
the Collaborative and its mission independently and without unreasonable conflict with
the person's organizational, political, and/or commercial/professional associations.
Steering Committee members will abstain from voting in cases when there is a conflict
based on professional or political affiliations.
e) In the initial year of implementing the Strategic Plan, the entire Steering Committee
(Working Group representatives and at-large members) will be proposed by the Nominating
Committee, via the process described above, for an up-or-down vote of the full Collaborative
membership. This is to ensure continuity and institutional memory, and reflects the current
realities of the Working Groups’ numbers of consistently active members. The invitation for
nominations will be made the Collaborative members in late-July or August 2015 meeting, with
the goal of offering the slate for a vote at the subsequent meeting, likely to be in September or
October 2015.
Authority and Accountability
a) The Steering Committee will have authority over the following types of decisions:
• Hiring (and firing) of the Collaborative Coordinator;
• Approving budgets and authorizing expenditures;
• Authorizing external communication on behalf of the Collaborative;
• Collaborative endorsements of educational activities, design & build projects, and/or
advocacy campaigns;
• Authorizing the submission of grant proposals on behalf of the Collaborative, the
Collaborative’s involvement as a partner in other organizations’ grant proposals, and
other revenue generating activities for the Collaborative. (Note: There may be instances
when the Collaborative may decline financial support from an entity whose association
39
with the Collaborative may comprise the Collaborative’s reputation and/or capacity for
advocacy. Decisions of this type are the responsibility of the Steering Committee.)
b) The Steering Committee is responsible for determining which issues, for reasons of credibility
and engagement, should be submitted to the full membership of the Collaborative for
deliberation and decision-making.
c) The Steering Committee will maintain active, complete, and timely communication with the full
Collaborative membership, including:
• Distributing Steering Committee agendas in advance and providing an opportunity for
input;
• Distributing Steering Committee minutes and other documentation of Steering
Committee activity;
• Announcing the day, time, and location of Steering Committee meetings and opening
those meetings to the full membership.
d) The Steering Committee will create and disseminate an annual report of the activities of the
Collaborative, with detailed information about progress toward key goals and targets.
e) The Steering Committee will have officers (President, Vice-President, Treasurer, and Secretary)
elected by the Steering Committee to serve for 1-year terms. They will constitute an Executive
Committee with two primary responsibilities: coordination of the Steering Committee in terms of
meeting agendas, documentation and communication of Steering Committee actions and
activities, etc., and the direction and supervision of the Coordinator on a day-to-day basis.
f) To the extent possible, the Working Groups will have independent control over their activities,
but will also be responsible for determining what issues should be submitted to the Steering
Committee for deliberation and decision-making. The Working Group representatives on the
Steering Committee are responsible for sharing complete and timely information about the
activities of the Working Groups in a manner that creates oversight, transparency, and
accountability.
Staffing, Workload Distribution, and Organizational Capacity
a) The success and impact of the Water Collaborative is fundamentally rooted in an organizational
culture that emphasizes that this is an action-oriented and member-driven Collaborative in which
all members, as well as strategic partners, participate directly and share resources.
b) The Collaborative will have a Coordinator, whose job description includes the following:
• Managing information flow within the Collaborative and to other groups, partners, and
stakeholders;
• Coordinating activities within and among the Working Groups;
• Coordinating activities, responsibilities and follow-up with the Steering Committee;
• Assisting with the planning and conducting of Collaborative activities, with a significant
focus on communications and information sharing, membership coordination, and event
planning;
40
• Tracking participation and collective impact of Collaborative activities, including in-kind
support from members;
• Active involvement in seeking grants and conducting other fundraising activities for the
Collaborative.
c) Each Working Group will develop a workload distribution plan that specifies how their various
activities will be staffed and managed, primarily with the pro-bono efforts of members. When
Working Groups receive funding for specific activities or projects, they may choose to
subcontract some aspects of the work to member organizations or others. These subcontracts will
be managed and overseen by the Working Groups. When multiple Working Groups are involved
in a funded project, they will jointly oversee the use of funds. The specific individuals staffing
the work at the subcontracted organizations will also meet regularly with the Collaborative
Coordinator to ensure complete and timely communication, coordination, and accountability.
d) In the context of the Collaborative’s Working Group structure, the role of the Working Group
chair becomes especially important, and needs a significant amount of energy and attention.
When a Collaborative member assumes the role of chairing a Working Group, they are
responsible for managing and facilitating the Working Group, specifically including ensuring:
the development of the workload distribution plan referenced above, accountability by members
who take on specific tasks, and complete and timely two-way communication between the
Working Group and all other components of the Collaborative.
e) The Collaborative will explore, pending funding, a system of stipends for Steering Committee
representatives and Working Group chairs to support and recognize the time commitment those
roles require. In the future, again pending funding, there may be more formal Working Group
staff roles, in which dedicated staff time is funded by the Collaborative and/or the Working
Groups.
f) Through coordination by the Steering Committee, the Working Groups, to the extent possible,
will stagger the scheduling of their meetings so as to allow for the maximum participation by
some members in multiple Working Groups.
Funding and Financial Sustainability for the Collaborative
As the platform for collaboration regarding water management education, implementation, and
advocacy, the Greater New Orleans Water Collaborative will have operating costs related to:
• Staffing (beginning with a Collaborative Coordinator, and expanding over time to include
both Collaborative-wide and Working Group staff as driven by the Collaborative’s
programmatic and organizational growth and development);
• Non-personnel expenses relate to programming, research, and advocacy;
• Meeting and event expenses;
• Communications (mailings, publications, events, as well as traditional and new media);
• Office and other administrative expenses necessary to maintain day-to-day operations.
The Steering Committee will develop an annual operating budget based on the directions and
activities in the strategic plan, and a related annual calendar of fundraising activities and events that
41
will effectively cover the projected expenses. The components of the envisioned revenue mix that
will support the operation of the Collaborative are presented below.
Note: It is essential that the Collaborative follow through on these resource development
strategies in a manner that does not compete with member organizations. Whether grants from
philanthropic organizations, fee-for-service activities, events, or any other funding sources or
strategies, the Collaborative’s approach will be: a) to pursue funding streams or sources for
which member organizations would not be eligible or competitive, and b) to support and enhance
the grant seeking or other resource development activities of the member organizations.
a) Grants: The primary funding for the Collaborative, at least in the short-term, will come from
grants from private philanthropic institutions (i.e., foundations and corporate giving programs),
and government sources such as the National Science Foundation and the EPA. The range and
scope of the Collaborative’s activities opens the possibility of securing grant funds from sources
whose guidelines focus on any of a number of areas: community development, environmental
protection, resilience, science and innovation, education, policy advocacy, research, etc. Grants
may be submitted as the Collaborative (in the short-term through a fiscal agent, and potentially
under the Collaborative’s own tax-exempt IRS status), or as a joint proposal with a member or
group of members. An essential aspect of securing grants will be to enlist the support of current
funders (including the Kresge Foundation, who funded the strategic planning process, and the
Greater New Orleans Foundation, who provided funding to establish the Collaborative
Coordinator position) to advocate funding the implementation of the strategic plan with other
relevant funders.
b) Program fees/fee-for-service: The Collaborative will seek out appropriate opportunities to
develop fee-based contracts for specific services to private organizations and/or government
agencies. Potential contracts may fund activities such as research publications, ground water
and/or water quality monitoring, coordinating a symposium or conference, etc. (To reiterate, it is
critical that this be done with a vigilant eye to ensure the Collaborative does not compete with
members or member organizations for these types of contracts, but rather supports and enhances
members’ access to fee-for-service revenues. There should also be an awareness and vigilance
about potential conflicts of interest that might arise with regard to fee-for-service funding
opportunities.)
c) Events: All Working Groups will use their annual calendar of activities and events as
opportunities to solicit contributions, when appropriate. In addition, the Collaborative will
explore the possibility of a major annual event or gala, perhaps structured as a public
recognition event honoring significant local or national achievements in water management or
green infrastructure, as well as other events.
d) Member dues: The Collaborative will establish a member dues structure that includes a sliding
scale based on budget size and other factors, and different dues levels for organizations and
individuals. Participation in the dues structure will initially be voluntary, and there may be an
opportunity for members to cover their dues via in-kind contributions of staff time, access to
facilities, etc.
e) In-kind support: The operational effectiveness and sustainability of the Collaborative is
integrally linked to member in-kind support for both programmatic and organizational activities.
42
This includes staff time, access to facilities, printing, web resources, etc. Also, there are
opportunities for additional support in the form of interns from postsecondary programs and
departments, and other such contributions from organizations and institutions in the community.
The Collaborative will rigorously track the level of in-kind support both to understand the
resources necessary for effective operations, and to include as part of a match that may be
required for certain grant applications.
43
Appendix A
Greater New Orleans Water Collaborative Membership
(listed alphabetically by last name, as of July 2015)
Gabrielle Alicino, NEWCITY Neighborhood Partnership
Claire Anderson, Ripple Effect
Brett Arnim Long
Jamelyn Austin Trucks
Michelle Bales, Waldemar S. Nelson & Co., Inc.
Laura Banos
Robin Barnes, Greater New Orleans, Inc.
Alexander Baron Sheffield
Megan Bayha, Green Light New Orleans
Karl Becnel
Gretchen Becnel
Miriam Belblidia, Water Works
Michael Biros, Waggonner & Ball
Gabriel Bordenave
Ezra Boyd, DisasterMap.net, LLC
Dana Nunez Brown, Dana Brown & Associates, Inc.
Susannah Burley, Parkway Partners
Polly Burns
Colleen Butler, Bayou Land RC&D Council
Andrea Calvin, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
Aron Chang, Waggonner & Ball
Andrea Chen, Propeller: A Force for Social Innovation
Meredith Cherney, Urban Conservancy
Aaron Clark-Rizzio
Marco Cocito-Monoc
Kenneth Comfort
Matthew Cranney
Breonne DeDecker, Committee for a Better New Orleans
Mark DeJarnette
Bailey deRouen
Andrew Doyle
Danielle Duhe
Matt Durham, Edible Schoolyard New Orleans
Dana Eness, Urban Conservancy
Marisa Escudero, Land Trust for Louisiana
Melissa Eugene Duplantier, American Red Cross South Louisiana
Jason Faulk
Rashida Ferdinand, Sankofa CDC
Scott Finney
Rebecca Fisher-McGinty, Green Light New Orleans
Kelsey Foster, Committee for a Better New Orleans
Taylor Galyean, Feldmeier Galyean
Melissa Gascon, Green Project
Carlos Giron, CH2M HILL
Victor Gordon
Sydney Gray, Mama Maji
44
David Hand
James Hannan
Maggie Hansen, Tulane City Center
Ginny Hanusik, Propeller
Jennifer Hardin, Evacuteer
Rachel Heiligman
Jonathan Henderson, Gulf Restoration Network
George Hobor
Andreas Hoffmann, Green Light New Orleans
Meghan Holmes
Lauren Holtzman
Rachel Houge
Lauren Hull
Chet Jaynes
Lydia Jemison, APA LA
Nick Jenisch, Tulane Regional Urban Design Center
Alessandra Jerolleman
Arthur Johnson, CSED
Dan Johnson, Greenman Dan, Inc.
Jessica Johnson
Kezia Kamenetz
Senait Kassa
Bridget Kelly, Land Trust for Louisiana
KC King, International Council on Systems Engineering
Brad Klamer
Donald Lambert Jr., Hatch Mott MacDonald
Tara Lambeth
Angela Lawson, State of Louisiana Office of Community Development
Christopher LeBlanc
Debra Lombard
Nathan Lott
Harry Lowenburg, Gulf Restoration Network
Molli MacDonald
Darryl Malek-Wiley, Sierra Club New Orleans Office
Sean Mallin
Jodie Manale, NOMAR Green Committee
Billy Marchal
William Marshall
Taylor Marshall, Restore the Earth Foundation
Matthew Martinec, City of Gretna, Mayor's Office
Jill Mastrototaro, National Wildlife Federation
Cecilia McNab
Grasshopper Mendoza, NOLA Vibe
Tanya Mennear
Cindy Metcalf
Alexandra Miller, Miller Urban Consulting
Amanda Moore, National Wildlife Federation- Mississippi River Delta Program
Brooke Morris, Spackman, Mossop, & Michaels
Adrienne Mundorf
Jay Nix, Parkway Bakery and Tavern and Friends of the Laffitte Corridor
45
Joseph O Evans III, Evans + Lighter Landscape Architecture
Thom Pepper, Common Ground Relief, Inc.
Elizabeth Pfafflin
Rachel Pickens, Center for Sustainable Engagement and Development
Steve Picou, NOLA Vibe
John Preston
Christina Quijano,
Emily Ramirez Hernandez
Seamus Riley
Jen Roberts, Water Works
Sandy Rosenthal, Levees.org
Monica Rowand, Global Green USA
Colin Rowe
Kali Roy, Evacuteer
Jennifer Ruley
Swati Sachdeva
Hilairie Schackai
Talbot Schmidt
Gabe Schwartzman
Amber Seely-Marks, Regional Planning Commission
Vivek Shah
Daniel Smith
Nicholas Sorrells, University of New Orleans
Samuel Spencer, FOLC
Ciara Stein, NEWCITY Neighborhood Partnership
Amy Stelly
Harvey Stern
Julia Stewart, Propeller
Linda Stone, Global Green USA
Lauren Sullivan
Jeffrey Supak, Global Green USA
Katherine Tannian
Bridget Taylor, SWBNO
Jeffrey Thomas, Thomas Strategies
Gretchen Trauth
Eric Trehubenko
Keith Twitchell, Committee for a Better New Orleans
Connie Uddo, HIke For Katreena
Jesse Vad
Mark Venczel
Harry Vorhoff, Tulane Institute on Water Resources Law & Policy
Jessica Watts
Charlie Weber, Edible Schoolyard New Orleans
Prisca Weems, FutureProof, LLC
Danny Wiegand, Urban Waters Federal Partnership
Gaylan Williams, Dana Brown & Associates
Liz Williams, LSU Coastal Sustainability Studio
Taylor Williams
46
Appendix B
Summary of Working Group Metrics and Targets
The following chart presents the metrics and targets for each of the Water Collaborative’s current
Working Groups, taken from the strategic plan. These metrics and targets will be the basis for the
Collaborative’s regular data collection, reporting, and accountability to the community.
Working
Group
Community
Education
K-12
Education
Targets for levels of activity
• 200 community presentations
and events per year;
• Community of practice
convening quarterly;
• One-on-one
conversations/technical
assistance with 100 property
owners about green
infrastructure annually;
• Living With Water Festival
annually (each November).
a)
• 2 introductory/overview
seminars annually
• 4 - 6 Collaborative-sponsored
topic-specific workshops
annually
• 3 - 5 new service learning
projects annually
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Designers &
Builders
• Engage 100 professionals
annually in training and
professional development
activities;
• Sponsor 12 major professional
development activities
(approximately monthly) in the
form of walk-and-learns,
seminar, technical workshops,
training sessions, or other
related activity per year;
• Generate and disseminate 12
fact sheets/FAQs
(approximately monthly) per
year.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Metrics to track and document,
to assess activity and impact
# of linkages with government and communitybased civic engagement organizations and
initiatives;
# of neighborhood presentations or events;
# of participants in community education
activities;
# of resource guides and other informational
materials developed;
# of participants in the water educators
community of practice;
# of new community-based green infrastructure
projects catalyzed by the efforts of the Working
Group.
# of schools with water education programs
and/or green infrastructure projects;
# of teachers involved in professional
development and/or curriculum implementation;
# of students exposed to water-related curriculum
and/or other learning activities;
# of programs, curricula, guides, and other
resources in the resource library.
# of educational sites/locations identified and
publicized;
# of successful educational policy reforms;
# of national presentations/conferences about the
Water Collaborative’s educational programs and
curriculum.
# of university-based and professional
development workshops or presentations;
# of participants in professional educational
and/or training activities;
# of informational resources, manuals, and guides
for professionals in the design, construction, and
planning fields;
# of new green infrastructure projects in the
community;
# of green infrastructure experimental research
projects completed and disseminated;
# of existing green infrastructure projects
monitored, with results disseminated.
47
Working
Group
Advocacy
Research &
Policy
Targets for levels of activity
• 2 community training and
capacity building workshops
and/or events per year;
• 1 advocacy training for
Collaborative members each
year;
• 12 public meetings, hearings,
public comment events, etc.
(approximately monthly) at
which the Water Collaborative
has active and visible;
• 1 major grassroots
mobilization around water
issues per year;
• 12 presentations
(approximately monthly) to
neighborhood organizations or
other advocacy partners as part
of the community organizing
effort per year.
• Sponsor 3 - 4 issue forums per
year, and generate a major
policy paper for each;
• Produce 1 additional major
policy research papers or
abstracts per year (beyond
those generated for the
forums), and 4 basic fact sheets
per year;
• Present at 1 major conference
per year, building over time to
4 or 5 conference presentations
per year by Year 3.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Metrics to track and document,
to assess activity and impact
# of advocacy campaigns related to the adoption
and enforcement of water management policies
and practices;
# of nonprofits, businesses, and other communitybased organizations involved in Water
Collaborative advocacy campaigns;
# of community capacity building workshops and
training activities conducted;
# of neighborhood presentations and other
community organizing events;
# of grassroots mobilizations in support of water
management advocacy;
# of new public dollars invested in water
management and green infrastructure;
# of new water management policies adopted at
the state and local levels.
a) # of issue forums;
b) # of attendees/participants in forums;
c) # of policy papers, abstracts, and/or fact sheets
produced;
d) # of conference presentations;
e) # of specific policy recommendations developed
for advocacy by the Collaborative;
f) # of established ongoing partnerships with public
entities and research institutions.
48