Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . <br /> . <br /> PROBLEM <br /> . Proposed Rice Creek Watershed Plan and proposed Plan Implementation Budget <br /> may reflect duplication of activities in areas relating to regulation, <br /> planning, enforcement, and capital expentitures of current agency programs <br /> including the following agencies and current program. <br /> a. DNR--wetland management, shoreland protection, flood plain management, <br /> ground water protection and fisheries management. <br /> b. PCA--septic system regulation. <br /> c. SWCD--sediment/erosion control. <br /> d. LCD (Lake Conservation District)--water quality monitoring, lake <br /> improvements. <br /> e. MHD/water--potable water supply management authorities. <br /> dl\"t "\-~ .4ct\-' <br /> CITY POSITION <br /> RCWD Board should reevaluate and clearly define its role relating to water <br /> quality/quantity matters to insure that RCWD programs and resultant <br /> expenditures do not duplicate current activities of other agencies more <br /> qualified to deal with specific water quantity or quality issues. Final <br /> RCWD Plan should contain an Implementation Plan Budget and list of <br /> Management Strategies that have been carefully reviewed by each agency to <br /> . insure current programs and expenditures are not duplicated. When local <br /> units of government must work directly with affected agencies to meet <br /> statutory requirements or standards, RCwn need not be involved in review <br /> capacity. <br /> 5. ITEM <br /> High expenses to implement the plan (Page V-59 and VII-5). <br /> PROBLEM <br /> The plan includes levels of expenditures for the period of 1986 through <br /> 1990 which are too high for the benefit received and do not adequate!y <br /> take into account the impact these increased costs will have on the <br /> property owners. The plan is not well focused to so!ve identified <br /> criticall problems and prioritize the available resources to address such <br /> problems. City costs to complete the local plan by the January 1, 1990 <br /> deadline will be unnecessarily high due to the short time available. <br /> CITY POSITION <br /> The level of expenditures should be reduced. The schedule to achieve the <br /> goals should be extended to better match the ability of the property <br /> owners to pay for the work and to reflect a more realistic timetable for <br /> . accomplishment after the plan is finally approved. The expenditures <br /> should give priority to and better focus on the serious problems of the <br /> watershed. The deadline for the local plan to be completed should be <br /> changed to three years after the overall Water Resource Management Plan is <br /> approved by the State Water Resources Board and copies given to the city. <br />