Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br />...... <br />c..' <br />W <br />(.;'J <br /> <br />Would be acceptable to Lower <br />Colorado Regional Director. <br /> <br />Increases communication <br />difficulties with LC region. <br /> <br />Recognizes 90 percent of present <br />program is in UC Region; would <br />provide for day-to-day involve- <br />ment of CRWQO. <br /> <br />Organizational disruption. <br />Distasteful-possibly unaccep- <br />table to CRWQO and Forum. <br /> <br />Would eliminate mixed messages <br />to UC field offices. <br /> <br />Would put distance between CRWQO <br />and E&R Center contacts. <br /> <br />Would facilitate easier phasing <br />into construction at end of <br />planning. <br /> <br />Could be viewed as "organizational <br />solution" to a "people problem." <br /> <br />Would give UC Regional Director <br />complete ownership of UC salinity <br />program in his region. <br /> <br />Would hinder later move of CRWQO <br />to Servicewide jurisidiction for <br /> <br />Would provide for resolution of <br />most conflicts at Regional level. <br /> <br />Submerges "Advocate" position of <br />CRWQO. <br /> <br />Would place SCP in same city as <br />Executive Director of Forum. <br /> <br />Separates the location of the <br />strongest SCP constituency <br />(Lower Basin) from the CRWQO. <br /> <br />Possible reduction in required <br />personnel ceiling slots; would <br />remove one organizational layer. <br /> <br />Recommendations: <br /> <br />The study team, while considering these four alternatives realizes that <br />there are other considerations and program needs of the Commissioner and <br />the Overview Committee that weigh into the process. But in light of that <br />vulnerability a majority of the team has serious reservations about <br />options B or C. We strongly recommend that all effort possible be put into <br />the nonstructural recommendations associated with option A. If it is felt <br />by the Overview Committee members that the nonstrucutral changes will not <br />adequately address the problems, then they should openly and candidly <br />discuss the strength and weakness of the structural alternatives. <br /> <br />Action Entity: Overview Committee <br />