Laserfiche WebLink
ASPECTS OF <br />CONSIDERATION <br />(4) Existence of an <br />additional <br />government <br />organization <br />(5) Development <br />of objectives. <br />(6) Development <br />of <br />management <br />plan. <br />WATER SHEDS <br />ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES <br />a) Provides an outside <br />organization to make <br />the decisions that are <br />politically difficult <br />for local govt agencies <br />a) may provide a forum <br />for future inllroved <br />agency interaction. <br />c) Relieve existing <br />agency wuLkl' '..- <br />a) Concentrates on water <br />6 environment related <br />items. <br />b) Diversity of board <br />nnmbership may lead <br />to broader perspective <br />of the problems 6 <br />objectives. <br />a) Better able to make <br />politically difficult <br />decisions on what to <br />do and when. <br />a) Pore duplication <br />of effort, cost, <br />overlapping of <br />authority, land use, <br />etc. <br />b) Poore time delays <br />for developrent. <br />c) Removes responsi- <br />bility further fran <br />tho nnhl il` <br />c.'___ <br />a) Less knodledge of <br />the details of <br />local problem. <br />b) Les,, likely to un- <br />derstand potential <br />inpct on local <br />agencies. <br />a) Potential to make <br />rajor plan deci- <br />sions which would <br />be incurpatible <br />with local perspec <br />tives. <br />b) Requires more co- <br />ordination effort. <br />c) potential for <br />overly techideal <br />6 expensive solu- <br />tions. <br />0 <br />JOINT POWERS <br />ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES <br />a) Positive agency <br />interaction which <br />sets the ground <br />work for continued <br />good interaction <br />in the future. <br />a) Local agencies wil <br />have a better know <br />ledge of the local <br />problems. <br />b) More likely to de- <br />termine impacts on <br />local agencies. <br />a) May be able to use <br />existing staff for <br />savings. <br />b) As a party involves <br />will evalue a plan <br />more likely to <br />dovetail with local <br />plans. <br />c) Approach could be <br />less restrictive of <br />rule oriented. <br />a) Pay be somewhat of a <br />duplication of effort, <br />cost, overlapping of <br />authority, land use, <br />etc. <br />b) %,ore time delays for <br />developers. <br />a) Pay not be broad enouy,i <br />in perspective in regard <br />to water ranagement <br />issues. <br />b) may concentrate on small <br />local problems & over- <br />look larger regional <br />issues. <br />a) may not address in a full <br />enough manner the poli- <br />tically difficult aspects. <br />b) Potential conflict in <br />selecting engineer, at- <br />torney, clerical, etc., <br />because of current in- <br />volvements. <br />c) Consensus in selling <br />priorities will be diffi- <br />cult. <br />