Meeting: Aug 15, 2022

During the meeting, the Task Force discussed the timing of the recommendations report and how members wish to proceed with the 60-day session approaching in late January. Task force members are also ambassadors for their own communities and constituents. This allows for organic communications and engagement, whether it be with local government, or water communities needing to know what the task force’s efforts are.

The next item on the agenda: consensus input on the 50-Year Water Plan. A survey was sent to Task Force members asking them to rank the 50-Year Water Plan’s 10 recommendations in order of importance. on reviewing the data, it’s clear to see that all of the recommendations were ranked highly, so in general, the members are in support of all of them moving forward. For each of the recommendations, members were also asked to rank the action steps to move them forward.

After giving everyone a few minutes to reflect, the floor was opened for everyone to share what they agree with. An overwhelming consensus showed that they are in agreement with the top four, with lots of individuals stressing which 1 or 2 they would prefer to prioritize over the others. Most people said that while they aren’t in disagreement with the top four, they feel as though it’s “comparing apples and oranges,” or that they may require sub-bullet points under each priority as there are recurring comments on “cross-cutting themes” that need to be reflected including: continued research and planning, focus on agency and community capacity, and equity.

During the discussion of arguments and advice, often overlapped under the same discourse, with several people wished to bump up the 5th ranked recommendation: Modernize Water Infrastructure. Generally, most argued that these recommendations need to be actionable, and list specific actions they want to take, while including agency capacity. Definitions were another thing people found to be lacking, as “innovation,” for example, can have different definitions in different contexts, or within different agencies. “Modernization,” as someone pointed out, can be a well-intended word, but can have a negative connotation for traditional communities and their own cultural values, which might need to be considered.

After everyone got a chance to voice their concerns, the meeting facilitator summed up the general consensus to ensure it reflected the group. A vote was held, which people agreed that the notes taken reflected the consensus of the task force. The task force took a short break, and then resumed in three separate work groups, with a facilitator for each group. The three work groups are: 1) Community Capacity, Infrastructure & Finance, 2) Water Resources Management & Planning, and 3) River, Aquifer & Watershed Health.

Feedback from the small groups and task force discussion would be consolidated and revisions made to the recommendations after the meeting, then sent to the task force for review along with a revised problem statement consistent to the framing and focus of the newly proposed recommendations.

Each work group was provided with a Water Task Force Workgroup Reporting form, to help keep everyone on task for greater efficiency. The form includes a space for each group to identify a problem statement, consensus recommendations, additional information, as well as a summary of their deliberation process.