My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00146
CWCB
>
Publications
>
DayForward
>
PUB00146
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2011 11:17:48 AM
Creation date
9/7/2007 5:02:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
2006
Title
Western States Water Council - Washington, DC., March 26-29, 2006
CWCB Section
Administration
Description
Western States Water Council - Washington, DC., March 26-29, 2006
Publications - Doc Type
Water Policy
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
366
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 />. <br />" <br />" <br />Ii <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ <br />II <br />il <br /> <br />Western States Water Council <br />Water Quality Committee <br /> <br />San Antonio, Texas <br />October 20, 2005 <br /> <br />Paul Frohardt moved that the Water Quality Committee support the farm bill letter with the <br />inclusion of Paul's paragraph (striking "such as agriculture development"). Joan Card seconded the <br />motion. It passed unanimously. <br /> <br />Stephen Bernath said in Washington, there is a concern of how Farm Bill money gets <br />delivered and how it gets prioritized. Ifthere is going to be accountability for the Farm Bill, there <br />needs to be a sense of prioritization. <br /> <br />Walt Baker said they do ok in Utah, but agrees that NRCS's priorities do not always mesh <br />with the state's priorities. <br /> <br />J eanine Jones said that the existing statute for the farm bill has four priorities and one is non- <br />point source. <br /> <br />Paul Frohardt agreed with Jeanine and suggests we flag that as a later agenda item, or that <br />Stephen work with Jeanine. <br /> <br />Section 319 Program Policy <br /> <br />Paul gave some background on the original letter, which is Position # 248(a) under Tab C <br />in the briefing book. He asked the Committee what it wanted to do with the letter or policy? In <br />Paul's opinion the letter is outdated, but the policy is probably still relevant. He asked ifthere is <br />there still a perceived threat to 319 funding? <br /> <br />Joan Card responded that at ASIWPCA, there was a strong comment from EP A that OMB <br />is trying to cut 319. They asked states to show watershed successes with 319 . Joan said she believes <br />this letter is still important. <br /> <br />Roger Gorke said EP A is getting scrutiny on all aspects of its budget. <br /> <br />There was a motion by Stephen Bernath and a second by Walt Baker to update the 319 letter <br />with no substantive changes and send it to OMB. Also, the Committee should send letters <br />supporting 319 to the appropriate congressional committees once the President's budget comes out. <br />The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />PREP ARING FOR MARCH MEETING WITH BEN GRUMBLES <br /> <br />Paul Frohardt said he wants the Committee to review where we stand with each of these <br />issues, and prioritize them. He said the Committee should consider each issue by asking what we <br />want on each, i.e., are we asking for an EP A position or assistance from EP A, or are we <br />communicating a states' position to EP A. <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.