Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />A specific listing of activities and tasks related to this base program element are as follows: <br /> <br />. IdentifYing candidates <br />o Promote, advertise, and conduct workshops <br />o Coordinate data collection and evaluations with recommenders, DOW, State <br />Parks and other key program stakeholders <br />o Conduct preliminary analyses (e,g" water availability assessment) to support <br />listing of the candidate with the Board for consideration <br />. Develop and evaluate candidates for public comment and Board consideration and <br />action <br />o Develop technical reports containing both biological and hydrologic analyses <br />o Work and coordinate with project stakeholders to collect information, <br />conduct assessments and analyses, and communicate with local citizenry and <br />other interested parties <br />o Resolve legal, technical and programmatic issues, as needed <br />o Conduct negotiations on contested cases, as needed <br />o Prepare for and present information to the Board <br />. Program outreach and education <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Water Acquisition Program <br /> <br />The Water Acquisition Program (WAP) follows generally the same process of candidate <br />identification, assessment and evaluation, filing and protection that occurs under new <br />appropriations, However, this program involves the use of somewhat different methodologies <br />by the CWCB in determining whether to obtain a water right since the acquisition program <br />allows for not only the preservation, but also the improvement of a candidate stream, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />With respect to the allocation of CWCB resources, there are three key differences that exist <br />between these two base programs, First, new appropriations have a more well defined <br />method for identifYing candidate streams and lakes, in part due to the role of State Parks and <br />DOW in the process, and in part due to the age of the appropriations program (which pre- <br />dates the acquisition program by 20 years). Candidates are identified through workshops and <br />stakeholder dialogue using methods developed over decades, Since the W AP is fairly new, it <br />does not have as deliberate a method for identifYing candidates, Second, a water rights <br />acquisition agreement may contain more flexible terms and conditions related to the <br />administration of the water right than exist for new appropriations; therefore, acquisitions can <br />require more negotiations to work through all the details associated with water use changes, <br />legal and physical protection, etc. Third, the uses that the Board may make of acquired water <br />are broader than those associated with new appropriations, As previously stated, the Board <br />must consider not only preservation, but also improvement possibilities related to an <br />acquisition, Further, the Board considers the potential impacts of changing the use of an <br />acquired water right to instream flow use, All of these issues influence the allocation of <br />Board resources, <br /> <br />A specific listing of activities and tasks related to this base program element is as follows: <br /> <br />. IdentifYing Candidates <br />o Promote water acquisition program <br />o Coordinate data collection and evaluations with recommenders, DOW, State <br />Parks and other key program stakeholders for potential candidates <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />5/13/2005 <br /> <br />2 <br />