Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />r:. . , ,,') ~ <br />. ~ -'" <br /> <br />Identification and Initial Screening of Institutional Alternatives <br /> <br />To determine whether one or more of the conceivable alternative frameworks <br />might be preferable, eighteen alternative institutional frameworks were <br />initially screened and evaluated in terms of potential effectiveness in <br />continuing to plan and implement arrangements for M&I water supplies in <br />Northern Colorado on a regional basis. Eleven of the eighteen alternatives <br />involved existing institutional structures; seven involved creating a new <br />organization. <br /> <br />A screening criteria containing seven elements was used. Half of the <br />eighteen alternatives were judged to have one or more fatal flaws and <br />eliminated from further consideration. <br /> <br />Second Screening and Evaluation of Three Preferable Fr~eworks <br /> <br />Four additional elements were added to the screening criteria and the <br />alternatives remaining for consideration after the initial screening were <br />again screened for fatal flaws. All but three of the alternatives were <br />judged to have one or more fatal flaws. <br /> <br />The three alternatives which did not have fatal flaws, in the judgment of <br />the study team, were: <br /> <br />. a new Regional Water Authority <br />. the MS-NCWCD <br />. the NCWCD <br /> <br />Of these three, the MS-NCWCD and NCWCD were judged to offer significant <br />advantages. However, other options may become preferable should unforeseen <br />constraints surface or as conditions change. <br /> <br />-19- <br />