The document discusses the benefits of approving the Flathead Water Use Agreement and Flathead Indian Reservation Compact versus the costs of litigation. It argues that the settlement provides certainty, more water allocation, funding for irrigation project rehabilitation, and cooperative management, while litigation would result in uncertainty, less water, no rehabilitation funds, and tens of millions in costs. It asserts that change is inevitable and the status quo cannot be maintained, so negotiation is preferable to adjudication through the courts. The choice presented is between an upgraded, sustainable irrigation project or one that may cease to exist.
A new smart river water management system that can allocate water to states in a dynamic, equitable and efficient manner.
The current system relies on court-administered water quotas, which is broken and dysfunctional. We are proposing to replace it with a system where states get a basic water entitlement and have to pay a Kaveri River Fund for more, and receive payouts from the Fund during drought years. It can change the issue from an emotional-political one to an ordinary-economic one, as well as give the first incentives for water conservation in the basin at the state-level.
Presentation given to Carlsbad City Council by San Diego County Water Authority Board Chair Thomas V. Wornham and Assistant General Manger Dennis Cushman on the current and future activities relating to the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan
A resolution passed by Windsor and many other townships in New York State that says the town will not prejudge drilling and wants to allow the Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to do its job. Therefore it will not arbitrarily ban fracking ahead of the DEC release of new drilling rules. Anti-drillers take this to be a pro-drilling statement of support.
A new smart river water management system that can allocate water to states in a dynamic, equitable and efficient manner.
The current system relies on court-administered water quotas, which is broken and dysfunctional. We are proposing to replace it with a system where states get a basic water entitlement and have to pay a Kaveri River Fund for more, and receive payouts from the Fund during drought years. It can change the issue from an emotional-political one to an ordinary-economic one, as well as give the first incentives for water conservation in the basin at the state-level.
Presentation given to Carlsbad City Council by San Diego County Water Authority Board Chair Thomas V. Wornham and Assistant General Manger Dennis Cushman on the current and future activities relating to the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan
A resolution passed by Windsor and many other townships in New York State that says the town will not prejudge drilling and wants to allow the Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to do its job. Therefore it will not arbitrarily ban fracking ahead of the DEC release of new drilling rules. Anti-drillers take this to be a pro-drilling statement of support.
Jak skutecznie zapewnić realizację działań w wyznaczonym budżecie, na czas oraz bez kompromisu dla uzgodnionych kryteriów jakości i oczekiwanych efektów biznesowych?
Mój artykuł w nr 6/2015 magazynu Controlling i Zarządzanie
Problem Based Learning In Comparison To Traditional Teaching As Perceived By ...iosrjce
Objectives: To compare lecture based learning (LBL) with problem based learning (PBL).
Methods: A cross sectional prospective study was carried out among 145 3rd year MBBS students in
Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College(JNMC), Aligarh. The study was performedfor a period of 60 days. Data was
collected by means of structured questionnaire.
Results: 65 (44.8%) students were girls while 80 (55.2%) were boys. 89 (61.4%) students liked only PBL
followed by both LBL and PBL by 104(71.7%) students. 59(40.7 %) students claimed that PBL has led to better
understanding of subject while 71(48.9%) respondents favored both LBL and PBL. 98(67.6%) respondents
admitted that PBL has led to more clarification of their concepts while 105(72.4%) students appreciated both.
Coverage of sufficient syllabus through PBL and both was claimed by 91(62.8%) and 105(72.4%) students
respectively. Majority 94(64.8%) was satisfied with training of the teacher for traditional teaching while
106(73.1%) were satisfied with training of facilitator for PBL. 69(47.5%) students were satisfied with
availability of resources for PBL while 71(48.9%) were for both methods combined together. 91(62.8%)
respondents preferred present scenario (LBL parallel with PBL)in JNMC.
Conclusion: LBL must be in symbiosis with PBL for better analytical approach and clarification of concepts.
There is need to improve the information resources for PBL and enhancement of practical knowledge of
students.
Jak skutecznie zapewnić realizację działań w wyznaczonym budżecie, na czas oraz bez kompromisu dla uzgodnionych kryteriów jakości i oczekiwanych efektów biznesowych?
Mój artykuł w nr 6/2015 magazynu Controlling i Zarządzanie
Problem Based Learning In Comparison To Traditional Teaching As Perceived By ...iosrjce
Objectives: To compare lecture based learning (LBL) with problem based learning (PBL).
Methods: A cross sectional prospective study was carried out among 145 3rd year MBBS students in
Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College(JNMC), Aligarh. The study was performedfor a period of 60 days. Data was
collected by means of structured questionnaire.
Results: 65 (44.8%) students were girls while 80 (55.2%) were boys. 89 (61.4%) students liked only PBL
followed by both LBL and PBL by 104(71.7%) students. 59(40.7 %) students claimed that PBL has led to better
understanding of subject while 71(48.9%) respondents favored both LBL and PBL. 98(67.6%) respondents
admitted that PBL has led to more clarification of their concepts while 105(72.4%) students appreciated both.
Coverage of sufficient syllabus through PBL and both was claimed by 91(62.8%) and 105(72.4%) students
respectively. Majority 94(64.8%) was satisfied with training of the teacher for traditional teaching while
106(73.1%) were satisfied with training of facilitator for PBL. 69(47.5%) students were satisfied with
availability of resources for PBL while 71(48.9%) were for both methods combined together. 91(62.8%)
respondents preferred present scenario (LBL parallel with PBL)in JNMC.
Conclusion: LBL must be in symbiosis with PBL for better analytical approach and clarification of concepts.
There is need to improve the information resources for PBL and enhancement of practical knowledge of
students.
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Eminent Domain Presentation.pptxJeremy Young
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, will dramatically increase eminent domain and condemnation activity. This presentation summarizes key provisions of the law, provides a baseline understanding of important eminent domain concepts, and makes recommendations for businesses to prepare for the change that iscoming.
Presented by Co-Chairs: Brian L. Sledge, Attorney at Law, Sledge Fancher, PLLC Hope Wells, General Counsel, San Antonio Water System at TWCA Annual Conference
20 04 03 letter cipa to cal gem 2020_relief_letter_final
Moving Forward to the Future
1. Moving Forward
to the Future
Flathead Water Use Agreement
and the
Flathead Indian Reservation Compact
2. What do we want the
future to look like?
Do we want FIIP to
receive tens of millions
of dollars to construct
projects like this …
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. Or … Do we want
irrigators to pay tens
of millions* of dollars
in litigation costs and
continue to have this?
*Dr. Kate Vandemoer, WMWUA meeting, Ronan, MT, January 21, 2013
8.
9.
10.
11. Benefits of Settlement vs. Costs of Litigation
• Uncertainty—irrigators won’t
• Certainty--Irrigators will
know what their future will
secure a legally enforceable
look like for decades
right to receive water from
FIIP. • Water—the CSKT will seek
significantly higher instream
flows in litigation. They
• Water--Irrigators on single certainly will not receive less
duty land will receive 10 than they have now. The FJBC
percent to 20 percent more has already litigated instream
than they have historically flows and lost (1987). Will a
received for the past 25 years. second litigation have a better
Irrigators on extra duty land result—especially with
will be allowed to receive current ESA issues?
their extra duty as they prove
their need.
12. Benefits of Settlement vs. Costs of Litigation
• Land—in this • Land--In litigation, the
settlement, all land, both Court may likely apply
allotted and homesteaded Walton. That means
will be treated the same. allotted lands receive a
Both will enjoy an 1855 senior priority date over
priority date. homestead lands.
Project Rehabilitation— • No Rehabilitation--
settlement provides for Litigation will provide no
tens of millions of dollars in funds for Project
state and federal funding rehabilitation. Litigation
to rehabilitate the FIIP. will cost irrigators tens of
Some of this money will be millions of dollars and 20-
available for on-farm 30 years of continued
efficiency improvements deterioration of FIIP.
and stockwater mitigation.
13. Benefits of Settlement vs. Costs of Litigation
• Flathead River Pumping • Pumping--Litigation will
Plant—settlement provides provide no funds for pumping
for $300,000 per year to fund and other Project purposes.
pumping and other Project
purposes. • Power--Litigation will mean
• Low Cost Block of Power— that the LCB for pumping at
settlement provides that it the Flathead River Pumping
will be continued for as long Plant will expire. Pumping
as the CSKT hold the FERC costs will increase 30 percent
license for Kerr Dam. to 60 percent, depending on
• Net Power Revenues— BPA rates.
settlement provides for net • Power Revenues--There will
power revenues in the be no further accumulation of
amount of $100,000 per year net power revenues to FIIP
to accrue to the Project. with litigation.
14. Benefits of Settlement vs. Costs of Litigation
• Extra Water—settlement • No Extra Water—litigation
provides a mechanism for will provide no mechanism for
irrigators to obtain water irrigators to obtain extra
above their FTA, up to 2 water.
af/ac, plus purchased water • No Saved Water—with
above that, where available. litigation, there will be no
• Saved Water—settlement saved water to be divided
provides a mechanism to between irrigation and
divide saved water between fisheries. Litigation provides
irrigation and fisheries that the winner takes all. Is
purposes. that a risk irrigators are
• Cooperative Management prepared to take?
Entity—will continue to • No CME--The CME will cease
function under settlement. to exist in litigation.
The CME will be Management of the Project
implementing major portions will go from local control back
of the settlement. to federal control under BIA.
15. All Water Users Are Protected
• The Flathead Reservation Compact: The Flathead Project Water Use
Agreement must be approved by the Montana Legislature. No changes
can be made by any single party to the Compact, without approval of all
parties. The CSKT will not have unilateral control over anything in the
Compact or FWUA.
• The Compact calls for the CSKT to appoint 2 people to the Unitary
Management Board and the Governor of Montana to appoint two
people to the UMB, after consulting with water users. Those four
people then choose a fifth member. The CSKT do not control water use.
A true partnership of all parties exists to administer water rights.
• The CME will continue to manage and administer all FIIP water use.
• By legal definition and court ruling, instream flows can only be used for
fisheries purposes. The CSKT will have no ability to lease or sell water
from instream flows to any entity or person.
16. Change is coming …
• There is a misperception. Defeat of the Compact and
WUA will not protect the status quo. That is totally
erroneous. The status quo is not an option in this
situation.
• The state of Montana is bound by law to adjudicate the
water rights of this area. That means quantifying both
tribal and all other rights. If all these rights cannot be
quantified by negotiation, they will be litigated through
an adjudication process. There are no other options.
• The question is: How can some irrigators believe they
can get more through litigation?
17. What can we conclude?
• Litigation can only mean less water
and greater costs for irrigators
• Settlement has only positive benefits
for irrigators, more water and more
money from state and federal sources
• Litigation brings less water and
greater costs
18. What Is Your Vision for the Future?
An irrigation project rebuilt to modern
standards…
20. The choice is yours …
• Please join with us in moving
forward toward the future with a
modern, economically viable
irrigation project that will exist for
our children, grandchildren and
great grand children, for
generations to come.