1. Grants and funding proposals need to be based in a plan, preferably one that integrates all aspect of the effort. The clearer we are on why we need the funding, the more successful we will be in asking for it.
2. Without a plan, we do not know what must be done this year versus what can wait. We may miss taking action in a critical area and lessen our chances of being successful within the RWQCB's timeline. For example, should we be investing resources now in a grant writer who coordinates the funding application effort? (See below for more discussion on this issue.)
   Note: The Funding Committee recommends that each committee develop a three-year budget for their areas of responsibility as soon as possible. Each line item may eventually be covered through in-kind contributions of stakeholders, but, to begin with, should have an estimated dollar cost for implementation. Ideally line items would come with explanation of their importance and timing as well. This should make it easier for stakeholders to provide some or all of the resources needed to implement a line item, know how much it was estimated to be worth, and when it is budgeted to begin and end. Then if no one will contribute "in kind" resources, the Steering Committee could try to find cash resources to hire consultants or others to complete the priority work. Kevin

1. Monitoring
2. Database development and management
3. GIS and mapping
4. Conceptual model
5. Computer model
6. Urban BMP research
7. Agricultural BMP research
8. Other research (SOD studies, oxygen generation, etc)

1. Facilitation and coordination
2. Stakeholder database
3. Trust fund administrative overhead costs
4. Accounting
5. Fundraising
6. Grantwriting, coordination, consultants

1. Mailings
2. Email listserv and website
3. Newsletter
4. Brochures
5. Public Relations support
6. Speaker Bureau support

1. The Category III grant's contracts are being drawn up for approval by the Interior Secretary. Funds are expected to be available in late August.
2. Paul Marshall has been working to help secure future CalFed water quality and other funds to help meet the TMDL needs in 2000. He will provide more information on this in the future.

1. It is highly unlikely that the $1-2 million BCP we have been advancing for inclusion in the 1999 RWQCB budget will occur. Paul Simmons has been tracking and assisting this effort and will inform us if there is anything that can be done.
2. We will have better chances with 2000 budget, especially if we can convince the Administration to include the funds in its 2000 budget request. Paul Simmons will report on how we can best advance this at a future meeting. Work on this should begin this fall.

1. Paul Marshall reports the following: "This is a direct lobbying effort through California's congressional representatives. We basically request the money by writing, calling and bugging our representatives. The money comes out of the EPA Budget for the year. The heavy funded yeas puts a crimp on the EPA operating budget, so the EPA staff don't always support these requests. There is no need (though) to have concurrence from the Regional Board or EPA (to advance these requests.) Projects that are successful usually fit a niche that other funding does not accommodate. These projects are often innovative or the first of their kind. It is best to point out the special features of the project and tie the project into the watershed approach that the EPA has been promoting.
2. John Pulver announced that San Joaquin County is hiring a federal lobbyist to assist them in their needs. Resolving the low dissolved oxygen problem in the San Joaquin is one of their priorities. He will look into whether their lobbyist can help coordinate the effort to convince the US EPA to allocate some of this to our research program.
3. In order to request the funds we need to have a clear idea of what we want them for. This requires that we have our budget and projects prioritize and spread over the three years available to complete our studies.
4. The Committee recommends that when we are ready, the agricultural stakeholders' approach Richard Pombo and the environmental stakeholders approach George Miller for letters of support and assistance in convincing the EPA of the worthiness of our proposal.

1. There is likely to be an increasing amount of fines being levied against polluters in the San Joaquin watershed. New legislation signed by the governor requires a minimum fine for a pollution violation. And there seems to be a growing number of fines being levied through the Clean Water Act.
2. We can apply for Clean Water Account money which is derived from pollution fines. Each proposal for this funding is judged on its own merits. The Account presently has over $80 million available. There is no formal RFP timeline. Concurrence from the RWQCB is required and the Regional Board may have to be a partner in the request. Paul Marshall will follow up on finding out exactly how we can apply.
3. We can provide information on our TMDL program and budget needs to all parties being pursued for pollution violations in the San Joaquin watershed. If these parties propose that their funds go to our TMDL in any settlement conference, it is likely that their request will be honored and the fines (minus the USEPA or Regional Board's legal and administrative expenses) will be sent to our Trust Account. The Funding Committee realizes this is a sensitive area but felt that it could be presented as an opportunity for the potentially fined parties to keep their money in their local area on a project in which they are a stakeholder. The Steering Committee should consider pursuing in-kind staff time or hire a consultant to head up this effort which involves keeping track of Administrative Civil Liabilities complaints which are public record, and communicating with suspected parties.
4. Paul Simmons will research how the Regional Board might change its template language for Administrative Civil Liability complaints so that parties, which settle, can designate part of their funds to go to the TMDL process.

1. The Funding Committee thinks that pursuing grants is a low priority effort because the chances of getting funded are slim given how intense the competition is. And grants require a great deal of work, which would entail finding in-kind staff help or hiring a consultant.
2. Grants to which we might have an inside track or high priority focus such as the CalFed grant are always a possible exception to the low priority designation.

1. This Bond Act would provide significant opportunities for long term implementation of the TMDL adaptive management plan and could be critically important to our ability to craft a realistic plan that will meet the targeted TMDL we develop.
2. The Bond Act can provide us with a stronger case to push for a Budget Change Proposal to fund the research needed to apply for Bond Act funds.

1. The Technical Committee should recommend whether we should be working with the USGS to provide them matching funds to conduct some of the needed research and monitoring needed in the technical efforts.

I have spoken with Frances McChesney about using ACL fines to help fund the TMDL. From this, I conclude that it at least would be possible to ask the Board to promote this. It does not appear that new boilerplate in each and every ACL Complaint would be appropriate. But where the complained-of event affects the San Joaquin River, the complaint could potentially specify an alternative to the normal payment to the Cleanup and Abatement Fund. For example, "In the alternative, the (party) may direct up to ___ percent of the penalty to a local watershed project to improve San Joaquin River water quality." With this, the Board could maintain an acceptable list of specific projects. I really believe this comes down to a policy decision for the Board.

Frances also mentioned Water Code section 13442, which allows disbursements from the Cleanup and Abatement Fund to "public agencies with authority to clean up a waste or abate the effects thereof," to assist in cleaning up waste. I believe this is the source Paul (Marshall) was referring to. Plainly this would have to be directed to projects, not research.

Our committee could consider recommending a letter to the executive officer to try to get these sources.