Laserfiche WebLink
<br />? <br /> <br />It was pointed out that the suggested criteria that funding for a water activity be discontinued <br />if a Roundtables choose to opt - out of the Interbasin Compact Process would adversely effect <br />other entities within those basins that want to continue to participate and/or seek funding <br />from the Account. It was also mentioned that if a Roundtable opted out afte r an entity <br />received funding that was then discontinued, this would leave the entity “hanging.” It was <br />also pointed out that the suggested provision regarding opting out may not be needed at this <br />time. It was not clear that it adds anything except setti ng the wrong tone . In response it was <br />pointed out that if there is not up front notification about what happens if a roundtable opts - <br />out , someone could come in and get a grant for a large project, that basin will decide to opt - <br />out and the money that has a lready been promised will not be available to others. <br />? <br /> <br />A member of the IBCC voiced concern about criteria a, b, e, g, and n depending on how they <br />are intended to be used. <br />? <br /> <br />In sections A and B, multiple users multiple basins are mentioned as criteria – do intra - and <br />inter - basin needs have equal standing? Response: The working group concurred that this <br />interpretation was what they had intended. <br />? <br /> <br />Concerned that not including “in - kind” as a part of matching funds will leave a lot of water <br />activities out. <br /> <br />T wo member s of the public asked to comment on this topic. Reed Dils voiced his opinion that if <br />each Roundtable has been allocated one million dollars for a basin fund, perhaps the same <br />amount of money should be allocated to environmental/recreational water activities. He argued <br />that studies and research funded with that money could be made available to all basins, creating a <br />body of new information and methodological approaches. SeEtta Moss, Arkansas Valley <br />Audubon Society, expressed concern some of the c riteria would create an uphill battle for <br />environmental groups seeking funding, especially the criteria emphasizing matching funds. <br /> <br />Rick Brown asked IBCC members whether there was general approval for accepting the draft <br />document so a copy could be pro vided for Roundtable review. One IBCC member proposed that <br />the text boxes within the document be expanded to reflect the discussion had at the meeting. <br />Both proposals were approved. <br /> <br />IBCC m embers asked that clear information should be sent to the Round tables that explained the <br />current and still tentative thinking of the IBCC regarding the document. Roundtables should be <br />referred to the text - boxes which detail some of the on - going deliberations. The IBCC want ed the <br />document to be clearly marked “draft” and to have a cover memo that reiterate s that the <br />C ommittee ha s not yet reached consensus on the contents, and is awaiting feedback from the <br />Roundtables. <br /> <br />Discussion of Date s and Topics for Future M eeting s <br /> <br />The committee discussed dates for future meeti ngs, and noted that the next meeting is already <br />th <br />scheduled for September 12 in Alamosa, from 10:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. It was determined that <br />th <br />the following meeting would be held October 18 in Steamboat Springs, and the subsequent <br />th <br />meeting on November 16 would be in Cortez. The host Roundtable at each of these meetings <br />will be invited to make a presentation to IBCC members. <br /> <br /> 8 <br />