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
<br />One of the reasons I thought this was a good process was because it would help meet <br />water needs in specific basins before issues of water transfers are considered. We need to <br />be open to meeting both small and big needs thorough this process, and allow <br />Roundtables t o identify and approve what they think is important. <br /> <br />Bill Trampe : In Gunnison, the Roundtable itself will not make an application – project <br />sponsors will make the applications, and it is those sponsors who might need assistance. <br />( Comment from Jim Isgar: The Roundtable may have to decide who is deserving of <br />tech nical assistance to prepare applications . ) <br /> <br />Dan Birch: This process is much more focused on small and medium initiatives. Good <br />things are happening in the State to address small and medium needs. <br /> <br />Eric Heco x: The I BCC may be able to bring people together to talk about how we can <br />address broader issues. <br /> <br />Rick Brown: Things generally went pretty well with the application process. M ost <br />projects had merit, but some were not entirely clear about how th ey fit the broader goals <br />defined for the use of the funds . W here they were not clear, the CWCB put conditions on <br />the approval . Two were pulled by the Board member. T he Arkansas Needs Matrix was <br />one , needed to be taken back and refined. The o ther , from the Rio Grande Basin, seemed <br />to be a more educationally based project and the Board was not sure it met the threshold <br />criteria. CWCB said it would help the Rio Grande Basin find funding for that project. In <br />the future, we may need to set the bar higher a s far as completeness of applications, and <br />make meeting the criteria a more explicit requirement . However, we needed to get <br />started and we let things go through to get things going. <br /> <br />Marc Catlin: The first $500,000 in funds designated for each basin shou ld have an easier <br />time getting through the approval process. Larger grants, where there is statewide <br />competition, should have to meet stricter criteria. Also, how many people on staff <br />reviewed these applications? <br /> <br />Rick Brown: Applicants for basin funds had to meet four threshold criteria. While the <br />funds are indeed reserved for each basin, applicants have to address these threshold <br />criteria and eligibility requirements to be approved by the Board. As staff to the CWCB, <br />I reviewed the applications . It i s largely a one - man show right now. There were not other <br />volunteers to read all the applications and make recommendations to the CWCB. <br /> <br />Dan McAuliffe: Now that Rick has reviewed and made recommendations, and th e CWCB <br />has approved them, the Offices of the State Attorney General and State Comptroller have <br />to review applications that have b een approved to make sure they comply with state fiscal <br />policy. <br /> <br />Ray Wright : I am pleased our Basin received funding for a study of maintenance and <br />expan sion of a small re servoir . It is vitally important that we can look at this level of <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.