Laserfiche WebLink
judg ment of the basin Roundtable s in reviewing the last round of applications – CWCB <br />does not want to be telling basin Roundtable s what they have to do. <br /> <br />Stan Cazier: We should do whateve r is most efficient. Basically, the people who are the <br />most involved can figure it out better than we can. Our r ole is to look at the criteria. If <br />all of the applications were approve d with conditions, then what would we have <br />reviewed ? What are we going to be debating? Would we have a final project at that <br />point in time because they ’re still providing information? <br /> <br />Eric Wilkinson: I agree there needs to be further staff resources available for the review <br />process, and having them in the same organization may provide con sistency. I think the <br />IBCC needs to have the policy discussions, and applications that come in will raise those <br />policy issues . The IBCC should hear what is coming to CWBC as early as possible, so <br />we can have these discussions. CWCB is open to policy input, but we should not do a <br />thumbs up/thumbs down. We should not create competition between CWBC and IBCC. <br /> <br />Eric Hecox : We need to review the criteria before October. Rick and I will put together <br />a subcommittee of the IBCC to do this. If this group wants to dedicate more time to this <br />issue, Rick and Eric can put together some ideas and bring them back to the next meeting <br />for discussion (before the CWCB meeting). <br /> <br />Bill Trampe : A comment on staffing. Since the decisions are made by CWCB, it might <br />be desirable to have any new staffing for application review under the Office of Compact <br />Negotiations, to provide an independent eye. The IBCC should suggest modifications to <br />standard criteria and guidelines and use this to filter applications, and not do an <br />independent review of issues after a party has applied. Ideas for m odifications to the <br />criteria should be solicited from Roundtables as well . We should review guidelines and <br />criteria on an annual basis. <br /> <br />Mike Shimmin : Before we hire a staff person, we need to know what we are trading off to <br />use these funds. We also need to develop models for scope of work, budget, and <br />performance guidelines. This might be an alternative to hiring a staff person. Comment <br />(Harris Sherman): We might need to do both. <br /> <br />Dan McAuliffe : It is not clear what will really be needed b y Roundtables once the needs <br />assessments are completed. W ork on applications? Note taking for Roundtables? <br />Budgeting and accounting? Technical support on water issues? Other specific assistance <br />to Roundtables? What pot pays for this dedicated CWCB or DNR staff person, and what <br />will they be doing? <br /> <br />Steve Vandiver: The IBCC was formed to talk about pol icy issues in the state and we <br />sh ould have an integral part in this work. We have the ability to take a global view, <br />perhaps even larger than the CWCB , a nd do not compete with them. It is my opinion that <br />we have evolved into something less than that, and I’m disappointed in this. This group <br />could be very helpful on these very large issues. I think there will be a handful of <br />applications that have major statewide implications. There may be some guidance that <br /> 14 <br />