BOARD01670

• Board Meeting Date: 7/28/2003
• Description: CDP Section - Technical Assistance to Covered Entities
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

.

.

.

..

....

Policy Development Matrix p.t of2
June 20()3 -..-
Polley Components Pollcv Development Ootlons
Framework for Conservation Plannina
Threshold What Drop threSh~~: substantially and create Drop threshold from 2000 AF to 1500 or 1000 Keep threshold at 2000 AF
(Definition of covered entity) t1ersfclasses see MADollcatlonM)
Why Define covered entities and planning requirements .CreateN more covered entities Invest political effort on other frame\Wrk issues
based more closely on need for conservation
i Dlannina
Who Depends on proposed tiering structure 1500 adds 23 municipalities, >13 special districts; 10 municipalities. >7 special districts currently not
1000 adds 36 municipalities. >21 special districts participating could be targeted
includes #s under low ODtio~) .
How Change statute 37-60-126(1)(a) Simple change to statute No change
Other COuld change basis of threshold (e.g., based on
considerations looDulation, number of tans, etc:) ,
Application What Substantial variation In planning requirements Some extra planning requirements for those Simple additional plan approval criteria for
(Vary requirements based on based on system characteristics. One option: 3 above threshold that also meet certafn system systems submitting funding appffcatlons
system characteristics, e.g. classes based on size, with simple characteristics (e.g. If planning new water
water demand, population requirements for <2000 AF, more development or acquisition)
growth, infrastructure needs, requirements for 2-06 KAF, more for >6 KAF,
water sources, etc.) plus systems considering Infrastructure
expansion must meet requirements for next
Why Define covered entities and planning requirements Move toward -ideal- in high option, but on simpler COnsider funding application a surrogate for system
based more closely on need for conservation basis expansion, which should require conservation first
planning. Put onus on those who most need be adequately considered
conservation, orovide relief to those who don't.
Who Systems experiencing growth in water demand, Same as in high option, but less fine-tuned Those who apply for funding, not those tMlo don't
needing new infrastructure, etc.
How Statutory change to threshold @ 37-60-126(I)(a); Add sections to statute to add requirements for Board adopts policy on approval criteria under
define different classes. Then define plan systems meeting defined characteristics. Define discretion of 37-60-126(9)(b) to approve/deny
requirements for each class in statute. or give CWCB those reqUirements or give CWCS authority to define funding applications. Best if coordinated with
authority to define requirements by rule. CWRPDA.
Other Objectively, best public paricy, but must be carefully E~~a reqUirements cou'~~ncfude measure evaluation
considerations constructed e. . benefit/cost analvsis
Approval Criteria What Clear approval criteria commensurate with Clear approval criteria commensurate with Clear approval criteria commensurate with
(Basis for plan review and varied framework and content requirements other framework and content requirements other framework and content requirements
approval) under tier/class structure
Why COnsistency/equity in plan approval Consistency/equity in plan approval COnsistency/equity in plan approval
Who All covered entities All covered entities All covered entities
How Board adopts policy on criteria. Best if coordinated Board adopts policy on criteria. Best if coordinated Board adopts policy on criteria. Best if coordinated
with CWRPDA. May require some additions to statutE with CWRPDA. with CWRPDA.
given other channes for tier/class structure.
Other Create checklist, supplement with narrative indicating Create checklist, supplement with narrative indicating Possibly simple checklist approach
considerations the expected scope/quafity of plan content the expected scope/quality of plan content

4