Laserfiche WebLink
<br />? <br /> <br />One IBCC member suggested that first priority should be given to address areas that SWSI <br />did not study, such as in - stream flow. <br />? <br /> <br />The issue is not whether studies will be funded but what is funded now, with what resources, <br />and what w ill be deferred. Some studies might be deferred until later years and/or covered <br />by other funding sources. <br />? <br /> <br />We need to prioritize and at the same time treat each other and all basins fairly. <br />? <br /> <br />The committee should have authority to develop recommendation s for how categorization <br />and prioritization should be done because they will have a better understanding of the range <br />of issues and studies to be addressed. <br />? <br /> <br />We need to look at what studies are currently being done in each basin and by groups such as <br />the USGS. This may help identify needs for future studies. <br /> <br />General d iscussion of the tasks of the Working Group and the contractor followed. Some of the <br />points noted included : <br /> <br />? <br /> <br />One of the tasks of the contractor may be to identify and fill in gaps in SWSI . <br />? <br /> <br />There is an opportunity in this process for basins to work together on studies. It would be <br />good not to spend dollars twice for two studies when one will do. <br />? <br /> <br />We need to link past studies, such as one conducted by BBC, so that there is continuity of <br />focus and studies. <br />? <br /> <br />Each basin should be able to complete at least some components of its needs assessment out <br />of the $ 600,000 available each year. Additionally if a basin wants to hire a firm to do an <br />additional study, they may not want to be restricted to CDM. (It was clarified that <br />performance of a study funded out of a basin grant under the Water Supply Reserve Account <br />is not restricted to the current contractor. The IBCC will need to decide if grants for studies <br />or projects funded by the State account will have to be handled through CDM or can be <br />performed by another contractor.) <br />? <br /> <br />We need to encourage basins to work together on needs assessment issues whenever <br />possible, but also recognize that basin interests and needs may be very different. <br />? <br /> <br />The contractor wi ll have to take direction from specific basin roundtables and work on a <br />continuous basis with them. <br />? <br /> <br />Should we assume that the $600,000 might not be renewed next year (July 1) and that we <br />will need to look for additional sources for future years, or can we assume that the legislature <br />is likely to give us the same amount next year? Russ George said that the same amount is in <br />the budget for next year, but will need to be approved by the Joint Budget Committee (JBC). <br />They will want to know whether the basins a nd contractors are using and spending the prior <br />appropriation. If not, they may try to cut it. If funds have been spent, the IBCC may be able <br />to continue future appropriations. Additionally, if more funds are needed, they will have to <br />be requested by Fe bruary of each year when the legislature is building the Long Bill. <br /> <br />Eric Hecox will set up a conference call of the Working Group to address the selection of the <br />chair and prioritization and timing of studies. Chris Moore will facilitate. <br /> <br />Discussion of the Report to the Legislature <br /> <br /> 3 <br />