Laserfiche WebLink
<br />4 <br /> <br />3.1.3.3 The Formu1ative and Imp1ementive Technical Advisory <br />Committees <br /> <br />Exceptionally strong TACs involved in policy formulation and program <br />implementation were developed in two regions. In one region, a "Drought <br />Committee" h~d been established in May 1977--prior to the contract initiatives <br />. of the OSDC. Current and 10ngterm water supply problems were the focus of the <br />Drought Committee's policy and program initiatives. The process of policy and <br />program advocacy constituted its basic implementation methodology. Many of the <br />committee's advocacy act i vit ies exceeded the boundari es of its regi on. For <br />instance, the committee passed and submitted a resolution to the Carter <br />administration and the Colorado Congressional delegation against proposed <br />national water policy options which held both Statewide and regionwide <br />implications. In another instance, the Committee recommended to the State that <br />it implement a Statewide weather modification program for the winter of 1977-78. <br />More tangible implementive activities included the sponsorship of programs <br />a imed toward the improvement of local agri r.u1tura 1 . water management. The <br />committee requested and received funding for a supplemental well-pumping study <br />and for an on-farm demonstration project related to irrigation scheduling. <br /> <br />Another policy-building technical advisory committee (referred to as a <br />"drought council" within the region) was organized in a region in which the <br />regional COG delegated drought responsibilities to the region's large~t water <br />utility. The composition of the drought council membership included at least <br />one commissioner from each county within the region, a member of the regional <br />COG governing board, and various other county and municipal officials. The <br />combination of individuals comprising the drought council lent a great deal of <br />credibility to the drought project and substantially supplemented the <br />activities of an aggressive regional drought coordinator. The nature of the <br />drought council membership contributed to its independence in policy-making and <br />its ability to assume an imp1ementative role in program management. For <br />instance, municipal cooperation in providing data for the water systems survey <br />was encouraged in some cases by the presence of a county commissioner and the <br />president of the region's largest water board on the drought council. Many <br />muni c ipa 1 water systems were improved as a resu 1t of the resources at the <br />disposal of drought council members. <br /> <br />3Initially, the "Drought Committee" was resistant to State contract initi- <br />atives, but later acceded on the condition that it could retain relative <br />aut~n~m-r from the State project gu ide 1 i nes in its own drought mit i gat ion <br />actlvltles. The "Drought Committee" chose to retain full rein over drought <br />polic-r formulation and implementation, in lieu of appointing a drought <br />coordlnator. The "Drought Committee" had an adjunct. relationship with the <br />regional COG in that some COG board members also served on the "Drought <br />Committee." (The "Drought Committee" has been discus~cd in Section 3. 1.2.2 of <br />th i s report on page 36. ) <br /> <br />42 <br />