My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
IBCC Meeting Notes March 30 2007
CWCB
>
Interbasin Compact Committee
>
Backfile
>
IBCC Meeting Notes March 30 2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2009 11:55:20 AM
Creation date
7/26/2007 3:03:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Interbasin Compact Committee
Title
Meeting Notes
Date
3/30/2007
Interbasin CC - Doc Type
Meeting Notes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
Harris Sherman: Let’s move on to the water supply reserve account and what we can do as the <br />IBCC. I e cho the earlier compliment to Rick – he had a very difficult task and did a terrific job. <br />Clearly the application preparation pr ocess could use improvements. There is a t ension between <br />our need to meet min imum state fiscal regulations while using th e least bureaucratic process <br />possible. It m ay make sense for the State to have a person on our staff whose jo b it would be to <br />assist applica nts in the prep aration of applications, as well as review those received. <br /> <br />Secondly, I would like to ask you your ideas on whether and how the IBCC as a group ought to <br />be mor e involved in the process of reviewing these applications . Right now the principal <br />involvement of this group is in development and review of criteria . Would you like to take the <br />step of getting involved ( through identified representatives, or in some other way ) in looking at <br />these applications and making recommendations to the CWCB? It would require e xtra effort, <br />and may be time consuming, but I would like to throw that out for your considerati on. Also, <br />would it be appropriate to review the criteria on an annual basis? <br /> <br />Alan Hamel: I’d like to add my compliments to the DNR staff supporting this process. <br />Heading toward the middle of the second year of this process, we are at critical point with <br />regard to Roundtable s and staffing. We’re h aving volunteers doing everything, with the <br />add ed layer of reviewing grant applications . Large communities in our basin don’t int end <br />to apply for these grants, but providing some assistance to small communities who want <br />to apply would help. We d on’t want to burn out our volunteers. This year the Arkansas <br />Basin will come up with some major leadership chang es. We backed up the email Eric <br />sent out about the 179 process with a mailing which cost $200 dollars and was funded at <br />local level. General staffing assistance to get minutes out would be valuable. Having <br />this group review grant applications doesn’t sound like a good investment of time, but I <br />support revising the application to make it easier. <br /> <br />John Porter: W hen we started developing the criteria, I thought IBCC should have role in <br />reviewing the applications . Now, I have changed my mind and think it would just add <br />another layer of process – the way things a re is fine. We trust CWCB, and really need to <br />be i nvolved a little more in our basins, but I don’t see the IBCC ge tting involved in <br />reviewing applications other than if that additional staff per son were under Eric instead of <br />R ick, but I think the two organizations have really concen trated on coordinating and <br />would like to see that continue. <br /> <br />Peter Binney : Considering applications for money from the statewide account could <br />potentially require comparing and prioritizing very different ideas, and maybe a <br />deliberative group like this could provide staff some h elp with those. If there are value <br />judgments to be made between competing issues, or multi - objective tradeoffs, it is the <br />responsibility of this group to help provide some feedback on that. <br /> <br />Jeris Danielson: P eter has a good point. Some app lication s ha ve issues that somebody is <br />going to have to make a value judgment on . Our Arkansas committee has no trouble <br />sending ideas packing that don’t make sense. However, on some issues, I think Rick may <br />need or would like some input. <br /> <br /> 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.