Laserfiche WebLink
<br />to this account and why we suggest this lS an appropriate <br /> <br />expenditure of those funds. <br /> <br />So, we're asking for $10 million a year. <br /> <br />Initially, the <br /> <br />bill did not put a timeline on it. Now, it has four years as <br /> <br />part of the Senate amendments, which is fine. <br /> <br />There's a sunset <br /> <br />In the amended bill as you have it today. And that's fine with <br /> <br />me because, if we haven't proven the worth of this program and <br /> <br />the availability of these funds by four years, then we probably <br /> <br />ought to come back here and talk about that. <br /> <br />It doesn't bother <br /> <br />me at all. <br /> <br />I think we'll have the same kind of success in the <br /> <br />next four years that we've already found in the first year. <br /> <br />So, $40 million. A lot of money. But, any kind of <br /> <br />significant water effort consumes a lot of money, and even this <br /> <br />amount will probably be just the beginning. But certainly for <br /> <br />now, it's a very manageable sum. <br /> <br />You can follow in the bill, I think it's the re-engrossed <br /> <br />[sp] verSlon, page 3, that lifts out some of the eligible water <br /> <br />activities. We've already looked at it In the context of <br /> <br />structural and non-structural. <br /> <br />Pretty broad categories, because the whole 1177 process lS <br /> <br />designed to embrace whatever it is that the folks in the basins <br /> <br />feel is important and appropriate for the future of their <br /> <br />communities. And it might be any number of these in different <br /> <br />- 8 - <br />