IBCC Meeting Notes September 12

• Title: Meeting Notes
• Date: 9/12/2006
• Interbasin CC - Doc Type: Meeting Notes

D R A F T
?

Do the criteria apply to projects asking for both basin account and statewide account
money, or just the statewide account? Participants expresse d the concern that if the
evaluation criteria apply to water activities making use of basin and statewide funds,
smaller feasibility studies won’t be possible and some roundtable flexibility in use of
funds is removed. Members voiced the opinion that basi n account funds should be easy
for R oundtables to access , and Roundtables should have some sense of security that a
project that they have approved for basin account funding will be approved by the
CWCB . Working group members responded that the ir intentio n was to have the criteria
in Section 3 used by the CWCB for administration of the statewide c ompetitive process
only . Activities approved by a Roundtable, for which the Roundtable requests money
from the basin account, will be reviewed against only the t hreshold criteria contained in
the document.
?

Can each pot of money be used for all kinds of water activities, including projects and
studies? Participants expressed concern that some characterizations of the two kinds of
accounts made it sound like the ba sin money should be used for studies, and the statewide
money for projects. Members of the working group clarified their view that both
accounts are accessible to all kinds of water activities – studies, projects, non - structural
solutions, etc. – and the reason behind the creation of two types of accounts was to
address equity concerns and not to segregate money for different purposes.
?

How much money should be dedicated to the basin accounts , and when ? Participants
questioned whether $1,000,000 ($500,000 in each of the first two years) in the basin
accounts , as written in the draft, provides enough resources for Roundtables to pursue
desired projects. Working group members reported on the rationale for the current
proposal, stating that they intended to “front load” the basin accounts, while still
providing a significant amount for the statewide, competitive fund. One member
expressed concern that if no money were made available in the competitive account at the
beginning of the process, all money in the roundtable accounts could be exhausted by
larger projects. Others expressed the fear that putting too much money into the
roundtable accounts at the beginning could decrease the chance that the Roundtables will
work toward consensus support for strong pr ojects that would be competitive in the
statewide fund. Each time a water activity comes before the Roundtable for review and
approval, the Roundtable will have to determine whether that activity should be funded
by the basin account or enter the statewid e competitive process. Some members
expressed the opinion that the process should move forward with the allocations set as
recommended in the draft, knowing that both the IBCC and the CWCB will have an
opportunity to revisit the guidelines and criteria (i ncluding the funding streams) to make
changes as necessary – “One million is as good a place as any to start.” The group also
discussed either adding or taking away money from basin accounts as a possible tool to
make sure that there is enough money in ea ch account while providing a mechanism to
ensure none expires before it can be spent. Possible alternatives to the basin account
funding stream proposed in the draft document:

Dedicate all of the first year’s ten million to the basin accounts, and start t he
o
competitiv e statewide fund in later years;

Dedicate $500,000 to each basin account in each of the four years;
o

Dedicate somewhere between $500,000 and $1,000,000 to each basin a ccount in
o
each of the two years;
3