My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Gunnison 7-10-06 Meeting Minutes PDF
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
Backfile
>
Gunnison 7-10-06 Meeting Minutes PDF
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 4:15:29 PM
Creation date
7/12/2007 9:17:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Basin Roundtables
Basin Roundtable
Gunnison
Title
Minutes
Date
7/10/2006
Basin Roundtables - Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />July 10,2006 <br /> <br />4. Should funding from this account be used to help further the needs assessments? Recall <br />funding from HB 06- I 400 (approximately $650,000) is also available for this purpose. <br /> <br />As little as possible should be used for needs assessments and the majority of the funding should <br />directed at construction of projects. <br /> <br />5. Do roundtable and IBCC members support allocating some money for water activities before <br />the needs assessment is complete? <br /> <br />Yes. <br /> <br />6. Should the criteria and guidelines establish a preference for water activities that provide <br />multiple benefits, involve multiple stakeholders/interests, and address statewide water needs? <br /> <br />Yes and no. <br /> <br />7. Should the criteria and guidelines establish a preference for on the ground water activities <br />(projects or restoration activities) versus studies (feasibility studies, need assessments, etc.)? OR <br />Should a spec(flc percentage (~lmoneys be allocatedfor on the ground water activities? <br /> <br />Roundtable feels that feasibility studies should not have preference over on the ground water <br />acti vities. <br /> <br />8. Should the criteria and guidelines establish a preference for loans over grants? How does <br />this relate to the legislative intent (~ffavoring grants? <br /> <br />Grants are preferred because most projects need "seed" money to get going. <br /> <br />9. Should the criteria and guidelines establish a preferencefor water activities that have a cost <br />sharing component versus those seeking total funding ii"om this account? <br /> <br />Most projects will have an "in kind" cost share. <br /> <br />IO. Should there be a limit on how much or what percent (~l funding can go to one geographic <br />area or similar types (~lwater activities (i.e. agriculture, M&I, environmental and rec.)? <br /> <br />Be flexible, preference can be shifted. <br /> <br />I I. Should the roundtables have any additional roles or responsibilities? <br /> <br />Yes. <br /> <br />I2. Should money be allocated for water activities before a roundtable's needs assessment is <br />complete? <br /> <br />Yes. <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.