22 ‎(3)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 7/20/2004
• Description: WSP Section - SWSI Implementation Update
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Qi
:J
C)
:E
c
ns
en c
en G>
G>
G> ....
.... C)
0
(5 G> Q)
G> G> C ..... :!::
..... .c
c ..... "'C C .....
UJ 0 ns ns ~
ns "'C 0 a: c ns a:
UJ .~ ns (ij
ns .... :J
C .... C .c C) -, .c a.
ns 0 ..... ..... E
~ (5 c .... 0 C :J
.... :J 0 ii: ns 0 ns
Generic Options <( u C) z en en >-
Current Conservation
Moderate Conservation x x
Aggressive Conservation
Moderate Conservation wi storage for reliability x x
Aggressive Conservation wi storage for reliability
Agricultural Conservation x x x x x
Interruptible Agricultural Transfer x x
Rotating Agricultural Transfer wi Firm Yield for Agriculture x x x x x x x x
Permanent Agricultural Transfer wi Reservoir x x x x x
New Reservoir with New Water Rights
New Reservoir Firming Existing Water Rights x x x x x x x
Reservoir Enlargement x x x x x x x
Non- Tributary Groundwater
M&I Reuse for Irrigation x x
M&I Reuse by Exchange
Control of Non-Beneficial Phreatophytes x x x x x

"x" indicates that option ranked among the top 5 highest-rated options for that basin; basins with ties for the
top 5 options have more than 5 x marks.

The results of this evaluation suggest that the basins have different preferences regarding the types
of options that should be implemented, with some options showing potential for many or all of the
basins (such as rotating agricultural transfers). Some options, such as aggressive conservation and
new reservoirs with new water rights, were not among the top options for any of the basins.

Use Preferred Options to Construct Alternatives to Meet the Dellland Gaps

The options preferred by the stakeholders as identified through the process described above were
used to craft alternatives to meet the projected demand gaps for each basin. Demand gaps were
estimated by county or sub-region within a basin based on projected demands and accounting for
existing water supplies, water rights, and the identified projects and processes in each basin.

For each of the five top-ranked options for each basin, their applicability to that basin was
considered on a sub-basin level. A combination of the options was then developed to develop
hybrid alternatives for each sub-basin. For example, for the urban counties sub-basin in the
Arkansas Basin, a combination of conservation, reuse, and rotating agricultural transfers is one
potential hybrid alternative. For each hybrid alternative, yields and costs will be estimated. In
addition, environmental and recreational enhancements will be considered within each alternative.
For example, with a reservoir alternative, environmental enhancements could include additional
reservoir volume for a recreation pool and a pool for instream flows. Issues with each hybrid
alternative will be developed to facilitate a discussion of the pros and cons of the alternative.

Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and Lake Protection
Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning