Rivanna F2F

F2F Technical Session #1

Meeting Summary

March 31, 2010

Participants:

Dave Morris

Kristel Riddervold

Buck Kline

Greg Harper

Richard Collins

Jay Willer

Rob Farrell

Mike Santucci

Tamara Ambler

Leslie Middleton

Michael Collins

Discussion:

  • Michael Collins briefing to the group on current ideas for Auction and OEE model.
  • Discussion started with OEE model…
  • Model renders expenditures we previously thought were just “good ideas” into tangible benefits
  • Thoughts on revenue generation
    • Many types of revenue in a watershed
    • Base rates
    • Revenue impact fees
    • Conservation rates
    • Revenue streams not just from base rates
    • Declining and inclining block rates
    • Revenue proposed is for “non-normal” expenditure?
    • How complicated is necessary for revenue piece of model? Perhaps real issue is just dollars.
    • Not building a commercial platform
    • Getting revenue for sediment possible, harder for nutrients and baseflow is very tricky
    • Isn’t the goal here “efficiency of environmental expenditure”?
  • Thoughts on translation of revenue into environmental management
    • MEASURES does account for differences in pollutant load from flat vs. steep topography, i.e., it allows comparisons between biophysically different areas
    • Run of river water systems…they would also have a need for this model but might be more in the arena of flow, although there can be sediment problems here as well.
  • Philosophy of the project…
    • This is a shift in thinking that is being proposed here – market-based systems such as the one under discussion replacing government.
    • Market-oriented projects such as the F2F augments government, not replace it.
    • Be careful about terms like “command and control”.
  • Enrollment of people and organizations about this philosophy…
    • How will this be done?
    • Isn’t it needed before “auction”?
  • The Auction…
    • May not want to call this an auction
    • Consider the term “watershed marketplace”
    • RFP is another term some folks know
    • Be transparent – need to let bidders know what they will be evaluated on – not just price but potential sediment/nutrient reductions
    • It would be great if we could build that into the bidder’s knowledge – work MEASURES into the bidding?
    • Instead of prioritization up front, prioritize at the back – to get more participants
    • Consider how Albemarle County does bidding process.
  • Where project ends…
    • The essence of the project is revenue $ to lbs. pollution
    • The essence of the project is revenue $ to gallon potable H2O