Finance Team Perspectives

Proud Of1. Pioneered critical new dimension of the Water Plan2. Reached consensus on a new method for crafting

future finance policy3. Created a common understanding of current

conditions across diverse stakeholders 4. Reached consensus on Shared Values for Prioritizing

Investment5. Reached consensus on Attributes of Future Finance

Discussions6. Developed a new process for quantifying IWM

expenditures7. Analyzed existing and potentially new funding

strategies

Surprises1. The extent to which existing, often outdated, funding

constructs drive water management planning and investment priorities

2. Lack of (and lack of consistency of) finance data3. Had to recalibrate entire approach halfway through

the process4. Not a single stakeholder supports a State water user

feeMissteps1. Underestimated need to discuss precursors such as

scope of IWM and the role of State Government in IWM

2. Should have begun by identifying stakeholder values surrounding IWM (e.g. economic stability, enriching human experiences, sustaining ecosystems, etc.)

3. Spent too much time discussing State water user fees and GO bonds since these strategies can only help meet a small fraction of future IWM funding demands

Team Members- Allan Highstreet -Lisa Beutler -Paul Massera- Kamyar Guivetchi -Megan Fidell