Laserfiche WebLink
<br />might t ake early advantage of the statewide resources and that they would become exhausted <br />and unavailable to the smaller basins . <br />? <br /> <br />An IBCC member asked how a basin would decide whether they would apply for money <br />from the basin account for a water activity or make an application from the statewide <br />account? It was pointed out that the roundtables will have the flexibility to make that <br />decision once they develop a process for how they will evaluate and approve water activities. <br />? <br /> <br />R ick B rown emphasized that once a r oundtable had approved a water activity then all <br />applications for funding, whether from the basin account or the statewide account, would go <br />through the evaluation process outlined in the criteria and guidelines. Rick mentioned that it <br />is important to not e that each Roundtable establish its own process to determine which water <br />activities the roundtable would like to seek funding for and that there is likely to be <br />competition within the Roundtables for these funds. <br />? <br /> <br />An IBCC member reiterated that it would be a good to have a provision that indicates the <br />criteria and guidelines will be periodically reviewed and if necessary modified. This is <br />important because it is hard to know now exactly how this process will unfold. <br />? <br /> <br />A question was asked regarding p age 8 of the draft, under eligible entities: Roundtables are <br />not listed as an eligible entity . Do we think they will ever request money for themselves? <br />R ick B rown responded that the working group discussed this and it was pointed out that <br />Roundtable s are not an entity that could receive funds, because Roundtables are not set up to <br />follow the revenue accounting procedures required for receipt of state monies. <br /> <br />Comments/Questions on Part 3 <br /> <br />? <br /> <br />A question was raise whether evaluation criteria are “and” or “or”? In other words, do they <br />all have to be met, or just some? It was answered that the more criteria that are meet the <br />stronger position the water activity will have in receiving funding. However, this will <br />depend on how many applications are submitted for tha t funding cycle. <br />? <br /> <br />A couple of IBCC members voiced concern over the criterion that would value water <br />activities that meet multiple uses. They pointed out that there are benefits to projects that <br />focus on single use, and strictly applying this criterion migh t rule them out. <br />? <br /> <br />A couple of IBCC members raised concern that a few of the criteria appear to encourage <br />more large scale, trans - basin diversion projects. <br />? <br /> <br />A couple of IBCC members expressed that they would like to see in - kind matching <br />contributions includ ed as a means for matching grants. <br />? <br /> <br />It was mentioned that the work group should change “water projects” to “water activities” for <br />consistency with the legislation. <br />? <br /> <br />There is a need for joint studies reflecting socio - economic impacts to basins that might be <br />c ollaborating, including potential impacts of trans - basin diversion s . Could the se kinds of <br />studies be funded under these criteria? Roundtables have been focused on needs, and <br />eventually we’re going to need more information about impacts. It is not clear t hat these <br />criteria address that. R ick B rown and several members of the work responded that the y felt <br />that the proposed criteria and guidelines were flexible enough to allow this type of study. <br />? <br /> <br />An IBCC member suggested adding “in - stream recreational op portunities” to item O under <br />this section. An alternative suggestion was made to incorporate the language “ preserve the <br />recreational stream environment .” <br /> 7 <br />