IBCC Meeting Notes September 12

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

D R A F T

Dedicate at least $2,000,000 total to each basin account.
o
?

Should all basins accounts be allocated the same amount of money? The group reflected
on discussions at Roundtable meetings concerning how basin account money should be
allocated between Roundtables. Is splitting the money evenly between e ach Roundtable
equitable? Some roundtables have more people, some more water, and some potentially
a higher “need.”
?

Deadline for use of funds in each account. IBCC members raised the concern that the
proposed deadline of 2009 for expenditure of basin a ccount funds doesn’t provide
roundtables enough time to develop their needs assessments and agree on appropriate
water activities to address identified needs. The current draft states that funds revert to
the statewide account in January of 2009 . Working group members reported that their
intent was to make sure that no money went un - used, and to put the “remainders” in the
basin accounts into the statewide account in time for the last two rounds of the
competitive process.
?

Including provisions to revise t he criteria and guidelines, and setting a date for review.
Members stressed the need to run through one or two funding cycles to get a better idea
of how the guidelines and criteria function, and set a time to review and possibly modify
the document. It was suggested that the IBCC and CWCB review the do cument in a year
and set a date now for that review.
?

Importance of using the money well. Continued funding for this type of program may be
dependent on availability of funds (severance tax money), but also on the success of the
program, and the way in which the money is used. Building trust, support, and good faith
may help keep money flowing into the program.
?

Value of having needs assessments completed to get a better idea of water activity ideas
in indiv idual basins. Participants discussed the benefit of completed needs assessments
to the process of developing ideas for Roundtable water activities, with some expressing
the belief that it will be easier to allocate money appropriately once all nee ds asses sments
have been done. Others expressed the notion that needs assessments are planning
documents that will continuously be updated and refined; having the define when a needs
assessment is “completed” could be difficult.
?

Need to document interpretation of the criteria in a document so that Roundtable
members and others will know how they will be applied. The group expressed a need to
have the intentions and interpretations of the working group and the IBCC documented,
perhaps in the document itself, to he lp the Roundtables understand how the criteria will
be applied as they review and comment.
?

Preference for multiple - purpose versus single purpose water activities? A participant
raised the issue of single purpose versus multi - purpose water activities, and asked
whether the draft criteria preference multi - purpose activities. Members of the working
group responded that, because one goal of the funding is to foster cooperation and
collaboration, one of the criteria reference activities that engage multiple us es of water,
and such projects may score higher during review. However, Roundtables have the
power and discretion to approve activities that benefit a single use, and ask for basin
account funds or forward such activities to the Statewide competition. Th e process of
approving activities through the Roundtables will involve significant negotiation, and
multi - purpose projects may receive a greater degree of participant support. Even though
multi - purpose is part of the criteria, all projects don’t necessari ly have to meet all criteria.
4