Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Rick: CWCB is project sponsor, must be or can't get reallocation. The word sponsor <br />includes implementation and operation of this reservoir. <br /> <br />Sandy: We will have no ownership in the water, but operations, that is also driven by the <br />agreements. Again, looking at an operation into perpetuity. Someone has to take that <br />one. Makes sense for CWCB to be involved to end of mitigation, if another entity wants <br />to step forward, that would be a possibility, but I thought CWCB would be in perpetuity. <br />You can have sub-agreements, but CWCB being longevity interest would be prime <br />interest. <br /> <br />Tom: Think water users should organize into a legally recognized unit, easier to contract <br />with them. Benefit to do that. I don't think any reason for them not to organize and <br />come up with some kind of entity. Think at this point in the game, it's imperative to have <br />a unified approach or we are in trouble. <br /> <br />Rod: I think water users surprised by state legislation. And primarily to accept and <br />disburse those funds. <br /> <br />Tom: How else would we do it? <br /> <br />(?) Next to Rod: If there was another entity to disburse funds after the mitigation. After <br />the ROD, there is no role for CWCB. Question is the mitigation portion we are talking <br />about. That is not to preclude what Dan is saying, what is the defined role of the State <br />through those three phases of the project. So when we go and have this legislation, we <br />understand what the defined role of CWCB is. <br /> <br />Rod: All along, CWCB has been positioned to finance this project, this is the silver <br />lining. We will never get money at that rate anywhere else. Because of that I would be <br />in support of the process to allow CWCB to make the decisions, because one of the <br />elements is to go beyond this $5 million limit to $10 million, to remove legislative <br />approval. In this case, saying no, we will make this loan just for this project, but it's a <br />win-win for everybody. There will be pressure to take this money away from CWCB for <br />education, etc. This bill protects them. Its win-win for both of us, role for the water <br />users as they want to organize, and CWCB in completing this process, which was <br />authorized in federal statute. <br /> <br />Rick: Flash point for Curry was holding storage space. Can you do this without CWCB <br />holding space? Pass it to entity? <br /> <br />Dan: Based on CWCB holding storage space in perpetuity. Then up to us to contract <br />with who will get the space. CWCB becomes the holder of the space, then we contract <br />with individual entities, they are paying us for the value of that space, and then we pay <br />the federal government. You are saying you want to step into those particular shoes, into <br />the role the state was going to have, which will require us looking into the original <br />wording to see if you an do that, which I am not sure of it. In order to do it for <br />