05 ‎(3)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 11/18/2007
• Description: IWMD Section - Water Supply Reserve Account - Criteria and Guidelines
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Brief Summary of Discussion -The committee reviewed the language in Senate Bill 179
and acknowledged that the language changes from "water activities" to "proposed water
diversion or nonstructural activity" when discussing the roundtable review process. It
was generally agreed that studies proposed by a roundtable of topics or issues in another
roundtables geographic location should be funded if they meet the criteria and guidelines.
The committee felt that if there was disagreement between the roundtables over the study
it was important to have the two roundtables fully discuss the issues and to try and reach
consensus. The committee requested that if there is disagreement over the
implementation of the study, and there has not been dialogue between the two
roundtables, then staff should send the application back to the proposing roundtable and
request that they try to reach consensus with the opposing roundtable. However, the
committee wanted to make it clear that the opposing roundtable does not have veto power
over another roundtables desire to undertake the study, especially if they are requesting
basin funds. The committee felt that if statewide funds are being pursued then the two
roundtables do need to try and reach consensus. It was also suggested to consider
bringing this to the Interbasin Compact Committee (IBCC) if it occurs in the future.
The committee agreed that applications to conduct studies in another basin would be best
handled on a case-by-case basis and that staff should use the above recommendations and
consider the above options if or when this issue arises.
- Topic Should any of the threshold or evaluation criteria be changed? Should we
include a requirement to provide matching funds?
Brief Summary of Discussion -The committee agreed that the current threshold and
evaluation criteria should remain in place. The committee agreed that providing a match
should remain an evaluation criterion not a mandatory requirement.
- Topic -There have been a few applications for rural and/or treated water projects and
there is possibly a large financial need out there with limited available sources of
funding. While this is not yet an issue staff wanted to bring this to the Committee's
attention.
Brief Summary of Discussion -The committee found this topic to be very interesting and
spend some time discussing the issues associated with rural water development and the
use of the fund for treated water. The committee acknowledged the need to consider
these types of projects but urged caution if these types of projects seek significant
portions of the WSRA.
- Topic -Several grant applicants have also sought funding from other CWCB sources.
Are any adjustments or provisions needed to address use of multiple CWCB funding
sources?
Brief Summary of Discussion -The committee did not have any opposition to seeking
multiple funding sources from CWCB. They agreed it vas important to account for these
-,
J