Laserfiche WebLink
Development of Alternatives Overview <br />Municipal and Industrial (M&I) Reuse <br />M&I Reuse for Irrigation <br />M&I Reuse by Exchange <br />Control of Non-Beneficial Phreatophytes <br />Evaluate Options <br />The families of options were evaluated in te rms of their performance according to the <br />water management objectives developed by the Basin Roundtables, which include: <br />Sustainably Meet M&I Demands <br />Sustainably Meet Agricultural Demands <br />Optimize Existing & Future Water Supplies <br />Enhance Recreational Opportunities <br />Provide for Environmental Enhancement <br />Promote Cost Effectiveness <br />Protect Cultural Values <br />Provide for Operational Flexibility <br />Each water management objective has at least one associated performance measure <br />that is used to evaluate how well an opti on meets that objective. For example, how <br />well an option meets the objective "Sustainab ly Meet M&I Demands" is measured by <br />"On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 does not have th e ability to reliably provide additional supply <br />during 1950s drought and 5 has the most ab ility to reliably provide additional supply <br />during 1950s drought." <br />A score was given to each option, for ea ch performance measure, using technical <br />analyses (e.g., free water estimates in a basi n), engineering and scientific knowledge <br />and judgment, and taking into consideration the specific characteristics and issues for <br />each basin. <br />Combine Option Evaluation with Stakeholder Preferences <br />Results of the above option-scoring evalua tion were combined with the information <br />on stakeholder preferences (i.e., weighting of the relative importance of each objective <br />for each Roundtable member) to obtain individual ranking of the options. <br />There are six basic steps for this option ev aluation methodology as depicted in the <br />figure below. First, the technical anal ysis and engineering judgment provides <br />information about the performance of an op tion with respect to each objective's <br />performance measure [Step 1]. This esti mated performance is translated into a <br />numeric score [Step 2]. In this example, the option in question is at the higher range of <br />costs when compared to the other options, so the standardized score for this <br />performance measure (between 0 and 5) is 1 (a fairly low performance). <br />DRAFT <br />2 <br />S:\Meetings\Basin Roundtable\BRT4 Meeting - Alternatives\Alt Dev Att1 Bd Mtg July-04.doc <br />