Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Funding Eligibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RACC clarifies that irrigation-efficiency infrastructure can be eligible when it yields legally protected in‑stream water
Summary
OWEB added language to permit grant funds to pay for irrigation efficiency or conveyance infrastructure when projects result in legally protected in‑stream water through allocation-to-conserve-water programs or similar department-administered pathways (e.g., Deschutes alternative).
Brian Walcott explained a change to the "use of grant funds" section: costs for irrigation-efficiency infrastructure (piping canals, on-farm efficiency) would be eligible when those investments result in legally protected in-stream water via an allocation-to-conserve-water program or a similar department-administered in‑stream flow conservation pathway. "We basically want to show that it's an acceptable use of grant funds to pay for that irrigation efficiency infrastructure ... as long as it's resulting in legally protected water in stream," he said.
RACC members asked for precise wording and clearer definitions. Kaylin (Caitlin) Barter and others noted that terms such as "legally protected in-stream water rights" were not yet aligned with the defined terms in the draft, and that the Deschutes "alternative pathway" example should be described carefully to avoid confusion when other department pathways are later developed. Staff agreed to refine definitions and explanatory guidance.
