University of California, Davis
August 19-23, 2001
WHAT WERE THE STRENGTHS OF THIS COURSE? WHAT DID YOU VALUE MOST?
 | Good idea to bring state water quality people to the table. They provided a very valuable perspective on CWA issues. |
| The "faculteers" really did do a good job of pulling the topics (threads of thought) together into a coherent presentation and discussion. |
| 1.) Registration exercise – provided good opportunity for exchange. 2.) A week of interaction with other states informally. |
| Having two scenarios in one exercise gave everyone a chance to think about risk details and making quick decisions. Demo on GIS model, CWA, FIFRA, statutory conflicts was great. Conditional registration. Video teleconference. |
| Give five minutes per evaluation, you’ll see more comments. |
| Field trip, video teleconference, designating spokespersons was good. |
| I would shorten the course by one day. |
| This course was very very helpful in my understanding of pesticide and WQ issues. It was well planned and nicely presented. Although some issues were new to me I now much better understand how these issues affect my program. I greatly appreciate being involved in the PREP course and the effort put into it. Thank you! |
| Greatest strength was the "team" concept; basically heard from and learned from both FIFRA and WQ sides. Valued discussing course topics and how the applied to our state with my teammate the most. |
| Everybody talking. Being very well fed. Having office supplies handy. The pocket agenda. Whole thing was extremely well organized. |
| Diverse group. I like having the water people. |
| Hats off to the organizers of this program! It is great to have hands-on interaction with EPA/other states. Thank you very much. |
| Thank you for the opportunity to learn about this subject and see our differences and see the need to better co-op and in fact communicate and listen. |
| Course just about right in length and course content and variety. |
| Pacing (time) was just right. Emphasis on statutory conflicts and registration issues was timely and appropriate. Asking questions of headquarters was a good idea. Boat trip was great. |
| The emphasis on state presentations and discussion issues for each state to address was a good format. |
| Good overview of states’ issues. Insight into U.S. EPA registration process. Most states focused on ground water issues, unfortunately not the biggest water issue in my state. Teleconference was valuable. |
| Nick’s presentation and Rick’s presentation were highlights. |
| Speakers were excellent. The opportunity to interact with other states and EPA representatives to exchange ideas and "war" stories has been beneficial for me. |
| Excellent effort to bring together a relatively large group and get them to interact productively. Agenda was generally well organized – good speaker topic match and variety. Excellent clockwork. |
| Attendance by both pesticides and water. |
| The open discussions. |
| I would like to see some presentations on the nationally available resources for water quality work. Things like available databases, mapping projects, nationally recognized sources of information. Basically where the tools are to do our jobs and where to find them. Great course. I liked the format changes especially for the teleconference. |
| Hats off to UC Davis and organizers for another quality program. Very well organized. Stayed on schedule. Enjoyed the group discussion regarding conditional registration and the teleconference the most. Also enjoyed FL examples of where they are partnering with others to accomplish goals. More examples of this would be great. Maybe states with good partnerships could mentor some of those that are struggling. I would also include a registration topic. Also "Messages for the Masses" was a valuable exercise. A lot of good issues come out of these groups and this exercise provides hope they won’t get lost. |
HOW COULD THIS COURSE BE IMPROVED?
| Get OW involved as faculty. Make improvements in video, clarity of sound, and volume. |
| Scheduling during beginning of school year should be avoided. |
| Have headquarters OPP and OW person attend PREP. |
| The team concept worked and should be continued and/or expanded!!! And now this has been expanded to initiatives to include OW personnel. |
| Half-day off to see the state. |
| Some handouts/copies of presentation slides were too small to be useful. |
| Include a pencil sharpener with the supplies. |
| Bring people from the Registration Division/OPP. It would be useful to have this information presented to HQ Staff. I suspect that very few people in OPP have good feeling for the issues facing the states. I don’t have a good suggestion on how to do this. Perhaps hold the course in Crystal City and let RD/EFED/HED people sit and listen? The boat trip was fun but it might have been nice to spend part of the day visiting farms or other pesticide related sites. Seeing the estuary system reinforced the idea that cooperation was needed to protect the resource. It might be interesting to have people from other federal organizations, e.g. OW, Corp. of Engineers, etc. Overall: a well thought out and facilitated course. |
| Maybe spread state presentations out a bit more; 3 in a row got a little boring. |
| Add section on pesticide registration. |
| Skip Cattlemen’s. Add one UC Davis professional course on a technical subject. |
| I recommend the practical assignments right after lunch. It would improve our attention span. |
| Request greater preparation from all significant speakers. |
| The course didn’t become interesting until Day 2. |
| I would like to see a full presentation on IN’s two-disk info set. More on how GIS has been applied in water quality. |
| I would encourage you to continue to invite state water agencies. Created good discussion and better understanding. Suggest that OW and regional water folks should be "encouraged’ to attend. Only by first getting all of the players together in the same room can we really begin to understand each other roles and recognize the opportunities that will come through partnering. I am glad to see the focus on broad water quality issues as opposed to ground water only. Very appropriate mix. |
HOW WILL YOU APPLY WHAT YOU HAVE LEARNED?
| Provide ideas to pesticide water workgroups. |
| Get different agencies together. |
| Better interagency coordination. |
| I will work much closer with NMOA to better coordinate our programs. |
| Our respective agencies will be communicating more freely and frequently on WQ and ag issues, especially related to pesticides. |
| Mostly through personal contacts - keeping in touch and continuing to work together. |
| Dissemination of information. Provide short summaries of presentation to appropriate folks. |
| Use in writing state pesticide plans and reports. |
| Pursue greater interagency coordination with OW. |
| Conflicts issues will help me in delegation issues. |
| Made some good contacts. Will utilize later. |
OTHER COURSES/TOPIC YOU'D LIKE TO SEE US OFFER?
| Details of SPWA and CWA. |
| Water quality program explanations. |
| Political courses. |
| SDWA 101, CWA 101, emphasis on program US policy. |
| Bring in more OW people. |
| How about a course for technical people? How does EPA model and how do states do it. For example it could probably be one or two days. |
| Standards. |
| SDWA-CWA-FIFRA-ESA Interactions. |