Laserfiche WebLink
<br />In summary: $90,000-$100,000 available between July 07-July 08. <br /> <br />Ross Bethel: Consultant on CDM team providing technical oversight; <br />prepared a scoping document in response to Bill Jerke's letter requesting more <br />studies for refinement <br /> <br />See handout that addresses the following: <br /> <br />Scope: Water Source Identification/Analysis <br />1) Reset the planning horizon to 2050; would give better long-range <br />planning. SWSI looked to 2030 and criticism arose for short- <br />sightedness of study. Relook at demands; anticipate growing gap <br />area between supply and demand. <br /> <br />Harold Evans: CORPS and large studies looking at NEP A are <br />looking at 2050; large providers looking at 2050. <br /> <br />Ralph Topper: Does increase in time horizon impact cost; thus <br />will be doing more with less? How will we weigh uncertainties? <br />Will this not result in a lessening of information because of the <br />strain on resources? <br /> <br />Sue: Yes, unless CWCB decides to use some of their resources. <br /> <br />Bob Streeter: How much duplication with 2030 will there be as <br />we stretch to 2050? <br /> <br />Sue: We will start with what we have with SWSI; hoping to have <br />more participation as a result of Roundtable? <br /> <br />Fred Walker: My sense is that this roundtable has considered <br />taking some of our 179 monies to supplement our 1400 monies, <br />if there is shortfall in 1400 monies; thus we would not be <br />stretching dollars over larger scope. <br /> <br />Mike Shimmin: Concerns: heard summary of debate that came as <br />a result from SWSI, voiced concern that the results would <br />become more "fuzzy" and perhaps not as useful. Thus, what has <br />changed that has given confidence to go to 2050? <br />Other question: we have a long study in SWSI and SWSI II that <br />defines a gap just to get to 2030; we have not yet gotten a handle <br />on how to deal with that gap to get to 2030 and thus, how are we <br />going to more effectively use our funds to do yet more study to <br />see wider gap to 2050 when we don't know yet how to handle <br />gap to 2030? <br /> <br />3 <br />