November 17, 2008 11:29 pm
—
An area resident is concerned that the current transparency with the state water plan process could evaporate once information collected from the public is given to the governing state agency.
Individuals associated with the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan update conducted a workshop on the University of Central Oklahoma campus Monday morning.
David Franklin, a UCO instructor who attended the workshop in his capacity as a private citizen, quizzed Jeri Fleming, communications manager with the Water Research Institute, the communications portal for the water plan.
Fleming was discussing upcoming phases of the update process, which will include three planning workshops with a two-month break between each. Fleming said a panel of experts would use the time to research issues that may arise and help determine if ideas are feasible.
Franklin asked if the institute’s involvement ends when a statewide report is given to the water board, or if it will be involved during plan implementation.
Sometimes residents will have a recommendation they all agree on and then the experts ahead of time will look at it and say, “Yes, that’s probably a good idea, we could do that,” said Franklin, a Logan County resident.
“But then when it gets to ‘agency X,’ their experts look at it and say ‘nay,’ and it goes away, and no one knows, really, of these 100 ideas that got there, how many were rejected (for various reasons) because the people who participated in the process are now all gone, ” Franklin said.
Fleming said the answer is part “Yes” and part “No.” In 2010, the process will include a town hall meeting done for the institute by the Oklahoma Academy for State Goals. They tackle issues like prisons and come up with consensus recommendations, which go to the governor, Fleming said.
The academy-led town hall meeting will be on water, which will involve 150 chosen participants, Fleming said. They will come up with some consensus recommendations that will be presented to the water board, which is responsible for writing the plan.
“We can’t make them include it,” Fleming said of the decision to include or not include recommendations. “They’ll include it or not. However, we do have a contract with them. They are paying for this.”
Concerns have been raised that the board already has their minds made up and they will not consider other ideas, Fleming said.
“That’s not what we’ve been told by (the water board),” Fleming said. “They do want to know and they will take it into consideration.”
A message left Monday morning for water board executive director Duane Smith was not returned.
The water board will draft the plan, which will be taken back to more regional feedback meetings open to the public, Fleming said. They also will receive more implementation suggestions, she said.
Another question raised has been, “Do we involve the public in implentation?” Fleming said. One of the recommendations may be that there is some type of public involvement in plan implementation, she said. The public also will get a chance to ask why the water board did not include something.
Still another concern raised has been that the water board will include an idea forwarded to the Legislature only to have some lobby group work to remove it, Fleming said.
Hopefully, the way the process is set up will help ensure a more comprehensive result, Fleming said.
“You mentioned earlier that the goal of your institute is an open and transparent process, which I appreciate, but the issue is the Water Resources Board is not open and transparent in their processes,” Franklin said.
Franklin said changes understandably happen, but he cited a water board proposal when Frank Keating was governor to sell water to Texas. But public opinion was contrary to the board’s proposal, Franklin said.
“I think when the light of day was shown on that, they backed off,” Franklin said.
Fleming said that’s why the institute wants to take the draft plan back to the people for feedback before the water board votes on the document, which will then go on to the Legislature.
“Our part of it we’re trying to keep as open as we can,” Fleming said, noting that everything the institute has is available at okwaterplan.info.
In 1974, the state Legislature passed a law requiring the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to develop a strategic guide for managing the state’s water resources during the next 50 years. The water plan, which was first published in 1980 and updated in 1997, is being updated again.
The current process involves two tracks, a technical studies side and a public input side, which will converge into the implementation phase.
In 2006, the Legislature appropriated funds for the update. The water board and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are investigating ways through the state’s existing programs to implement community water resource projects in the state.
Frequent concerns voiced by residents
Stabilizing lake levels.
Prioritizing water uses.
Recreational and aesthetic benefits of water and its importance to economic development.
Water reuse and reservoir development.
Conjunctive management of stream and groundwater.
Water conservation and incentives.
Water quality protection for public water supplies.
Impacts of oil/gas industry and agriculture on
groundwater.
Maximizing natural water treatment and storage through wetlands and riparian areas.
Instream flow protection.
Increased funding for water/wastewater treatment, collection and distribution systems.
Regionalization of water supply systems.
Local control of water resources.
Protection of water rights by landowners.
Metering irrigation use.
Sale of water to Texas.
Resolving conflicts between large cities and rural water systems.
State and tribal water ownership issues.
Unified “water portal” for educators and the public.
Researching aquifer storage and sustainable withdrawals.
Monitoring and gauging groundwater wells.
Impacts of climate change.
Unfunded mandates.
Source: Oklahoma Water Resources Board
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.