Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Sandy: Only good for the study. General investigation, study resolution, depends on <br />how it was set up. Normal path there would be two separate authorizations. One is <br />study, one is implementation of the project. <br /> <br />Dan: Switch horses? <br /> <br />Rick: Something big moving the ground here. <br /> <br />Dan: You are not really interested in us doing this? <br /> <br />Rhonda: Some of us only heard this first today. We need to discuss, have a lot of <br />questions, it appears there is a lack of communication on both groups on what is moving <br />forward until we are comfortable. Need more dialogue. <br /> <br />Dan: This has been the proposal for over a year. Went to DC to talk about this, we have <br />been talking about this for a very long time. And so we need to know... <br /> <br />Rhonda: Not in the form of a legislative proposal. <br /> <br />Dan: Yes we have. <br /> <br />Tom: Along this path, and the trips to DC, and with this group, common knowledge, we <br />specifically asked the Corps can the non-federal sponsor be in charge, and in the meeting <br />summary of most recent DC trip, Corps was asked very direct questions, although verbal <br />nods, looks good, been seeking that kind of go-ahead to do the implementation with the <br />state being the contracting one. <br /> <br />Sandy: Always viewed CWCB as our sponsor from basically initial work to project in <br />entirety. Always assumed that CWCB would be the sponsor. If that changes, everybody <br />will need to talk about this. <br /> <br />Tom: Nice all along, with CWCB role intact, look at some of the EIS nuances, <br />particularly the transparency that provides, when we contract with Corps, what we do <br />with local water users, provides some protection to them. Right now, everything is <br />classified as M&I, but if we start breaking it down into little pieces, it changes. <br /> <br />Dan: If it' s another entity, contract is up for renewal every 5 years. <br /> <br />Rod: First thought, have to share some responsibility for communication. Always been <br />CWCB position that they are the federal sponsor, the sponsor of the project as dealing <br />with the federal government. But that doesn't preclude the water users to organize to <br />work with the CWCB. Once mitigation is done, no need for CWCB if there is someone <br />to take it over. But as sponsor, CWCB has been there since 1998. 5 years behind <br />schedule, not CWCB's blame entirely. <br />