Laserfiche WebLink
<br />spiritual and recreational uses of these rivers, each of which has a minimum, as well as an <br />optimum, flow need. These non-consumptive, instream uses and values deserve every bit as <br />much attention through the SWSI as traditional diversionary needs~ Particularly given that the <br />current list of Basin Advisors includes no one with expertise on any of these non-consumptive <br />instream uses, it will be all the more important for members of the public who do care about <br />these uses to be able to participate fully as the Basin Advisors consider elements for each basin's <br />alternative. Finally, it will be important to allow members of the public to participate in the <br />conversations that occur between Basin Advisory Committee xpembers, and not just be relegated <br />to giving comments at the end of a meeting. <br /> <br />e. Information on how to contact the involved CWCB members and l<ey Basin Advisors around <br />the state~ . <br /> <br />Given the pivotal role that the CWCB expects both the Basin Advisors and CWCB basin <br />representatives to play over the I8-month SWSI process, it will be important for members of the <br />public to have access to the Basin Advisors and CWCB members, including at times other than <br />during meetings. Establishing a web site for the SWSI, or at least a clear and obvious link from <br />the CWCB and DNR homepage, which would include contact information for the basin level as <br />well as the statewide leads will ensure that those members of the public who have questions and <br />want to communicate with the key personnel in their basin can do so. <br /> <br />Basin Advisors, or their Advisory Committee members, must include for every basin at <br />least one person who has expertise on environmental, recreational and other instream <br />water needs. <br /> <br />From the preliminary list of Basin Advisors that the CWCB has made available to the public, it <br />appears that no Basin Advisor has expertise in environmental, recreational or instream water <br />needs. Where Basin Advisors are not expert themselves on these needs, existing and future, the <br />Basin Advisory Committees must include individuals who can supply this information~ We <br />would strongly urge the CWCB and its contractor team to select such advisors or committee <br />members only after consulting with bona fide representatives of the envirorunental and <br />recreational communities. <br /> <br />The CWCB must also involve experts in environmental, recreational and other instream <br />water needs in the statewide roll-up of the basin alternatives. <br /> <br />Task 11 (evaluate alternatives at statewide level) will be a key step in the SWSI process. <br />Representatives for enviromnental and recreational uses must be given a meaningful role in this <br />part of the SWSI process as well. While the CWCB includes members from across the state, the <br />CWCB includes no me~ber with environmental or recreational credentials~ To the extent that <br />CWCB and contractor staff will be working with B~ard members to reconcile basin alternatives <br />or package them as a statewide blueprint, providing the public only with the ability to comment <br />at a CWCB meeting after the work is essential complete does not qualify as meaningful public <br />input. Earlier in the evolution of the ~WSI, the CWCB was planning to have a state-wide <br />.advisory committee~ We endorse this strategy, assuming that the advisory committee would <br />include experts in environmental and recreational w~ter needs, as a way to ensure that these <br />needs will get proper consideration in this phase of the SWSI. <br /> <br />3 <br />