Laserfiche WebLink
F xFain 17 <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 />o. SWCD--sediment/erosion control. <br />d. LCD (Lake Conservation District)--wator quality monitoring, lake <br />improvements. <br />e. MHD/water--potable water supply management authorities. <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, RCWD need not be involved in review <br />capacity. <br />5. ITEM <br />Nigh 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 adequately <br />take into account the impact these increased costs will have on the <br />property owners. The plan is not well focused to solve i4W <br />aSiZ346+ 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 ;ineecessarily 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 />Pn a j 5 <br />