2010-11-30_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

require resources which we do not have, and this is not a minor issue it is a serious concern! Without increases in WMO resources our Board would not be likely to consider changes in current priorities in order to fulfill the legal requirements of the GPP. With limited resources, decreasing our other current important activities would not be acceptable. Questions #3. An adopted GPP could provide a impetus to request resources from our member Cities. Question 4. The absence of a GPP allows our Agency to execute groundwater protection measures on our own timeline and priority schedule and to balance it with our surface water goals. Question #5. Moderate Question #6. See comments in meeting minutes for August 2010 meeting. Question #7. As a WMO can only focus for very localized groundwater planning and execution within the watershed. The scope of groundwater initiatives needs to be much broader geographically, and requires at least regional effort and coordination. Our charge and responsibilities specific to our watershed and we cannot be expected to major players in programs that require coordinate interactive efforts across larger areas. Question #8. There is a need for coordinated, regional focus of GP efforts. A regional or state GP needs a substantive funding base and personnel of resources for effective improvement in the safety and continuity of our groundwater. State agencies such as the MPCA, Met Council and BWSR are be best situated to coordinate these efforts Question #9. It is unlikely that our member Cities will be able to provided resources to sufficiently fund effective efforts. Question #10. With a GPP our WMO will need to seek more external grant or contract resources in order to comply with GPP requirements. This is not a routine process and will require highly technical efforts and strong Board leadership to position ourselves to take advantage of availability of funds. Question #11. A Monthly or bimonthly meetings of our WMO board would most) likely be the best option, as quarterly meetings would be insufficient. A private sector business specializing in conservation resource management would be the most effective way to facilitate our progress. Question #12. Shoreline protection, landowner assistance, public education, run -off &stormwater management and coordinating with cities on CIP are currently done. Question #13. RCD coordinates with our WMO, but often or potentially seeks funding sources that we could also request. Question #14. Professional expertise and services from the private sector for water protection policy. Question #15. This is perhaps a very important, and essential issue that requires input from private sector conservation resource management experts. Board Member #2 feel I do not have the expertise to fully answer all these questions but here is my best shot. Question 1. yes Question 2. A GPP would increase the financial burden on our WMO and necessity increased financial support from our member Cities. Legal requirements of the GPP would require increased activity within our WMO, more time would be needed from both the WMO board and the member Cities to adopt appropriate measures and insure compliance. Operational changes involving planning, funding and execution of initiatives would require an input of further resources which we do not at this time have. Without an increase in WMO resources our Agency would probably rearrange current priorities in order to fulfill the legal requirements of the GPP thereby decreasing other important activities which are not legal requirements.