Laserfiche WebLink
Development of Alternatives Overview <br />Table 1 Top-Ranked Options by Basin <br />Options <br />Current Conservation <br />Moderate Conservation x <br />Aggressive Conservation <br />Moderate Conservation w/ storage for reliability x x <br />Aggressive Conservation w/ storage for reliability <br />Agricultural Conservation x x x x x x <br />Interruptible Agricultural Transfer x x <br />Rotating Agricultural Transfer w/ Firm Yield for Agriculture x x x x x x x x <br />Permanent Agricultural Transfer w/ Reservoir x x x <br />New Reservoir with New Water Rights <br />New Reservoir Firming Existing Water Rights x x x x x x x <br />Reservoir Enlargement x x x x x x x <br />Non-Tributary Groundwater <br />M&I Reuse for Irrigation x <br />M&I Reuse by Exchange <br />Control of Non-Beneficial Ph reatophytes x x x x x <br />"x" indicates that option ranked among the top 5 highest-rated options for that basin; basins <br />with ties for the top 5 options have more than 5 x marks. <br />The results of this evaluation suggest t hat the basins have di fferent preferences <br />regarding the types of options that should be implemented, with some options <br />showing potential for many or all of the basins (such as rotating agricultural <br />transfers). Some options, such as aggressi ve conservation and new reservoirs with <br />new water rights, were not among the top options for any of the basins. <br />Use Preferred Options to Construc t Alternatives to Meet the <br />Demand Gaps <br />The options preferred by the stakeholders as identified through the process described <br />above were used to craft alternatives to meet the projected demand gaps for each <br />basin. Demand gaps were estimated by coun ty or sub-region within a basin based on <br />projected demands and accounting for existing water supplies, water rights, and the <br />identified projects and processes in each basin. <br />For each of the five top-ranked options for each basin, their applicability to that basin <br />was considered on a sub-basin level. A combination of the options was then <br />developed to develop hybrid alternatives for each sub-basin. For example, for the <br />urban counties sub-basin in the Arkansas Ba sin, a combination of conservation, reuse, <br />and rotating agricultural transfers is one po tential hybrid alternative. For each hybrid <br />alternative, yields and costs will be es timated. In addition, environmental and <br />DRAFT <br />4 <br />S:\Meetings\Basin Roundtable\BRT4 Meeting - Alternatives\Alt Dev Att1 Bd Mtg July-04.doc <br />