Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Policy And Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Water plan funding and transfers draw scrutiny as conference panel reconciles multiple water programs
Summary
Negotiators reviewed multiple state water plan fund items and transfers, including watershed dam construction, reservoir pilot programs and a proposal to allow intra-agency transfers of water plan accounts; members asked staff to clarify whether transfers could occur only within agencies or across agencies and requested updated balances.
Conference committee negotiators reviewed a package of water-related appropriations and transfer authorities, debating new line items, program amounts and the scope of transfer authority across accounts.
Line items discussed: members cited a set of water-related additions that included state water plan fund allocations for water resource cost share (a senate proposal to add $4,000,000), livestock water-efficiency accounts, watershed dam construction ($3,000,000 senate add), watershed restoration and protection plan ($1,000,000), local environmental protection ($800,000), a John Redmond reservoir pilot program ($1,500,000), water planning and project development ($1,500,000), and several assessment/evaluation and independent program evaluation allocations (figures were discussed in the transcript as $1,500,000 and $450,000 respectively). Members also discussed transfer authority (a $500,000 transfer line was cited).
Transfer authority: negotiators asked whether agencies could move state water plan fund money between accounts within the same agency or across agencies. A staff member clarified that the contemplated language permitted transfers within the same agency only; committee members accepted that restriction in the excerpt.
Budget balancing: participants noted projected shortfalls and discussed transferring other balances (including EDIF adjustments) to cover shortfalls: one negotiator observed that a $7,000,000 transfer from reservoir funds to the state water plan would still leave a projected deficit of about $900,000 in the state water plan under the scenario discussed. Members asked staff to show updated balances of water plan funds and to reconcile the final package before the conference report is drafted.
Next steps: staff were asked to confirm the final state water plan fund balance and to return with precise account-transfer language and any required county or agency restrictions before the committee finalizes the bill.
