Laserfiche WebLink
<br />PROBLEM <br /> <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 /> <br />a. DNR--wetland management, shoreland protectiont flood plain managementt <br />ground water protection and fisheries management. <br /> <br />b. PCA--septic system regulation. <br /> <br />c. SWCD--sediment/erosion control. <br /> <br />d. LCD (Lake Conservation District)--water quality monitoring, lake <br />improvements. <br /> <br />e. MHD/water--potable water supply management authorities. <br /> <br />CITY POSITION <br /> <br />R~vD Board should reevaluate and clearly define its role relating to water <br />quality/quantity matters to insure that RC\lD 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 ceet <br />statutory requirements or standards, RCvlD need not be involved in review <br />capacity. <br /> <br />5. ITEM <br /> <br />High expenses to implement the plan (Page V-59 and VII-S). <br /> <br />PROBLEM <br /> <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 adequately <br />take into account the impact these increased costs will have on the <br />property owners. The plan is r.ot well focused to solve 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 tiffie available. <br /> <br />CITY POSITION <br /> <br />The level cf expenditures should be reducea. 7he scnedule :0 achleve the <br />goal3 shot.:lct ~e extended ';0 better c::atcn t:;e aDility or' the r-roperty <br />owners to pay fJr ;,i1e '..on: 3nd to r'?rlect 3. Dare reali3tic ::.i::etable for <br />accoDDIL:::hI:'lent dt8r "',e rLm 1:3 finallj' 3Pf:rovpd. T::e excenllit:Jres <br />~hould ~ive ;.r:crl~~ co 3na ~etter focus un the serlOU3 proolems or the <br />'tlatersned.. .-: r) ";(:a\11.;.;;e :'::r '::-,e ~ocal ('lan to oe CGDC'l.t:t,.u .crlOUld be <br />':han~ed to) tcr'ce ';:"3r::: ,!':t'r ',:-.e cver'aJ.l ..;ater ~'e::!our('e :'!ana.,::er.1ent Plan is <br />llJproveu 'Jy tt.e "tate ..iater :~esources Lloara~lnO '_Jc:..es ~,~-,fen . _ ~:-.e City. <br />