Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />". <br /> <br />July 13-14, 1998 <br />Agenda Item 26.m. <br />Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br />the EQIP allocations primarily to the 4 Upper Colorado Basin States, At the <br />Forum meeting staff expressed the Board's position, and voted to support a <br />national priority, with Colorado's support expressly contingent upon obtaining <br />additional EQIP funding, While additional EQIP funding appears unlikely, staff <br />did not oppose efforts by the rest of the Forum to continue to seek a national <br />priority designation during ongoing USDA budget action in the Congress this <br />summer. <br /> <br />Locally staff has been involved in an issue raised by the Forum's program to <br />cost-share in EQIP projects. In Colorado this program is being carried out <br />through the state Soil Conservation Board and local soil conservation districts, <br />Potential participants in the Delta and Grand Junction area are concerned that <br />their input on how to achieve long-term cost-effective salinity control are <br />overridden by USBR At the Forum meeting it was agreed that cost <br />effectiveness should still control project selection, but that local input, when <br />carefully documented and justified, will be given full consideration in future <br />selections and maybe reason to override the short-term cost effectiveness <br />criteria if the long-term cost-effectiveness and benefits are greater. A follow-up <br />meeting was held in Delta to explain the Forum's position and develop a process <br />to present good rationales to support local selection decisions. Staff will <br />continue to work with the soil board, local districts, and USDA to ensure that the <br />valuable input of local participants is recognized, <br /> <br />D. Work Group Leadership <br />At the Cheyenne meeting it was learned that the states may be asked to <br />volunteer added time and effort to keep the Forum's Work Group functioning <br />efficiently since Arizona will no longer provide the Work Group chairman and the <br />significant staff support it has for the last several years, Before Arizona took on <br />this task California had provided chairman and staff time required to support the <br />Work Group, A decision on chairing the Work Group will be made next spring, <br />and there may be an opportunity for Colorado to assume a leadership role if the <br />Board is interested, Four options for chairing the Work Group could be <br />considered: <br />1, Increase Forum dues to pay for additional consultant (Jack Barnett) time to <br />staff the Work Group, <br />2. Rotate the responsibility between all 7-basin states on an annual or bi- <br />annual basis so that each state periodically bears the increased workload, <br />3, Colorado, or another state, could volunteer to provide the Work Group <br />chairman on a long-term basis using CWCB staff, and committing a portion <br />of an FTE to the task. <br />4, Colorado could volunteer to provide the Work Group chairman on a long- <br />term basis using personnel from the Colorado River Water Conservation <br />District. Dave Merritt from the District participates on the Work Group in <br /> <br />C \SRMlllERI8OAflOlolEM'I9IlJUl2eM DOC <br />P_...{OA.TEI.Jl.fr5.19\ll:!j <br />