Laserfiche WebLink
available funds — perhaps set a couple of meetings a year so that people interested in <br />g rant apps can compete locally for RGBRT $ <br /> <br />Mike G — that idea has merit — beware of getting bogged down in process — concern <br />about setting our own criteria - we need to be realistic about what we take on and who <br />will do all the work to develop this for ourselves - we’re all anxious to do things – but <br />even if have a project ready to go, the earliest would be next June <br /> <br />Ray — think we ought to give it a try without a process here — in general , our group is <br />meant to operate on consensus and have a diverse group — hopes tha t through the <br />discussion, the group can decide on a case by case basis — state will have an <br />application that is part of the package — this RT needs to forward recommendatio ns with <br />any applications <br /> <br />Fred B — point – whatever criteria we develop, want to send out broad invitation for <br />applications (press release), allow a decent interval and make it as plain as possib le <br />who can apply, publicize our general criteria, and give that time <br /> <br />Doug S — having been involved in prior criteria development, would hate to see RT g et <br />bogged down in creating criteria — we need to be flexible, use IBCC criteria since that’s <br />what CWCB will use, and need to use our common sense <br /> <br />Eric — also, document has 2 sets of criteria — threshold to be used by CWCB and then <br />eval uation criteria to rate ac tivities on a relative basis for statewide benefit — RT can use <br />that eval uation criteria as we wish — <br /> <br />Mike G. – reminds group that we had the chance to look at the criteria a month ago, <br />wait until the final comes out and then we can decide if we want to use in any way <br /> <br />Rio - suggests that we use the eval uation criteria as we wi sh, but most of all determine <br />th at we have projects that best address our biggest priority needs <br /> <br />Travis — timeline for R io G rande R es ervoir’s possible expansion is to try and have a <br />propo sal for the Jan uary, 2007 CWCB meeting - let’s get things going and see what we <br />can learn — look at projects and try to decide as a group what fits our need s <br /> <br />Transitioned to discussion about Needs A ssessment <br /> <br />Mike G. reminded us about this process — need to d o a “needs assessment” — building <br />upon SWSI, etc. <br /> <br />- asked everyone to think about what they would include — ended up in a list of possible <br />projects - realized that we could have a whole list of projects and apply funds on any <br />number of projects — But, then stepp ed back and ask, what were RT’s established for? <br />To look at issues in basins and across state — came to conclusion that top issue for RG <br />is non - sustainability of current water use — can debate and argue, but this is his <br /> Page 3 of 13 RGBRT <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> October 9 , 2006 <br />