Laserfiche WebLink
Questions #3. An adopted GPP would provide a legal route for seeking further resources from our <br />member Cities. A GPP would also provide a framework to take on the vital work of protecting our <br />groundwater. <br />Question 4. The absence of a GPP allows our Agency to execute groundwater protection measures on <br />our own timeline and priority schedule which is insufficient to take on the challenges of thorough <br />groundwater protection. <br />Question #5. Minimal <br />Question #6. See comments from my previous email. I will re -send that to you after I send this. <br />Question #7. As a WMO we provide a focus for very localized groundwater planning and execution <br />within the watershed and any groundwater initiatives entered into our 10 year plan would be <br />incorporated into the actions of our member Cities, or funded through our WMO. We are specific to our <br />watershed and are not placed to coordinate interactive efforts across larger areas. <br />Question #8. There is a tremendous need for coordination of GP efforts, this is a vital issue already too <br />long neglected. GP needs an influx of resources time, money, full time staff, clear plans and <br />coordinated execution are all necessary for effective improvement in the safety and continuity of our <br />groundwater. RCD may be best situated to coordinate these efforts? <br />Question #9. Only within the watershed and our member Cities and while we can fund efforts we are <br />not placed to sufficiently fund effective efforts. <br />Question #10. Without a GPP our WMO is likely to provide minimal resources for GP efforts. With a GPP <br />our WMO will need to seek more resources in order to comply with GPP requirements, this is not a <br />speedy process and would result in a lag time from the adoption of a GPP to availability of funds. <br />Question #11. A "Water Roots" meeting pulling together all legally involved agencies would be <br />extremely helpful within Ramsey County. Monthly or bimonthly meetings would tax the available <br />resources of our WMO, quarterly meetings would be more manageable. RCD would seem the logical <br />choice as a meeting facilitator. <br />Question #12. Yes we focus on the local level on shoreline protection, landowner assistance, public <br />education, stormwater concerns and retrofit issues among others. <br />Question #13. No RCD is not a competitor of our agency. <br />Question #14. Professional expertise and services and a framework for understanding water protection <br />policy. <br />Question #15. this answer is outside the scope of my expertise <br />Board Member #3 <br />Question #1. Yes <br />Question #2. Financially not that I can see Legally? Helpful Compliance, Helpful Operationally not <br />sure Agency priorities, very helpful Other How can a county- adopted groundwater protection plan <br />with NO mandates, only information, hurt anyone <br />Question #3. Actionable information and having an adopted plan for Ramsey County is important for <br />securing Legacy dollars for GLWMO groundwater protection projects within the plan. <br />Question #4. It sends a message that the county does not value groundwater protection. It significantly <br />slows down groundwater protection activities for lack of guidance and information and that increases <br />therisk of degradation and /or serious contamination. Ignorance is NOT bliss. It is can be very expensive. <br />(e.g. TCAAP) <br />Question #5. Both of the GLWMO cities public works depts. participated in the process. <br />Question #6. Yes, however I would like to see more emphasis on prioritization of the tactics based on <br />urgency and critical issues <br />Question #7. To make sure priority parts of it are incorporated into our 3` generation watershed plan <br />