S9_11-15-04

• Basin: Statewide
• Title: SWSI Phase 1 Report - Section 9 Evaluation Framework
• Date: 11/15/2004
• Author: CWCB
• SWSI - Doc Type: Final Report

Section 9
Evaluation Framework
3. The municipal interest group average weights (when
compared against the overall group averages) are
highest for objectives such as Meet Municipal &
Industrial Demands and MeetAgricultural Demands;
while they are lowestfor Enhance Recreational
Opportunities and Promote Cost Effectiveness; and
they are about average for Optimize Existing &
Future Supplies, Provide for Environmental
Enhancement, Protect Cultural Values, and Provide
for Operational Flexibility.
4. Environmental and recreational interest average
weights (when compared against the overall group
averages) are highest for objectives such as Meet
Agricultural Demands, Enhance Recreational
Opportunities, Provide for Environmental
Enhancement, and Provide for Operational Flexibility;
while they are lowestfor Meet Municipal & Industrial
Demands and Optimize Existing & Future Supplies;
and about average for Promote Cost Effectiveness
and Protect Cultural Values.
9.4.2 Summary of Objective Weighting
Several overall observations can be made from the
basin-by-basin assessment of stakeholder preferences
for the SWSI objectives. These observations are
summarized as follows:
basin. Environmental and recreational interests
typically ranked this as one of the top objectives
relative to the others.
^ Prom~fis ~ost-Eff~ctiven~ss: Generally saw a
moderate to low level of support relative to the other
objectives, suggesting that many Basin Roundtable
members value other objectives more highly than
costs.
^ Pr~t~~t C~Itural ~lal~~~: This objective saw a
moderate to low level of support in most basins,
though with wide variability, suggesting an interest in
maintaining cultural values but not necessarily at the
expense of some of the other objectives.
^ Pr~vide f~r Op~ratianal Flexibifity: This objective
was moderately valued in most basins, except in the
North Platte basin, which, on average, valued it less
than all of the other objectives.
^ Gomply with all Applic~ble L~ws, Regulations,
and Water Rights: The Basin Roundtables
acknowledged that all alternatives must squarely
meet this objective, and rather than serving as a basis
of comparison of alternatives, it instead represents a
minimum condition or "gate" that all alternatives must
successfully pass through to be considered for
implementation.
9.4.3 Sub-objective Weighting
^ Su~fi~i~~bly M~~t M~I D~r~~nd~: A wide range of
preferences was evident in each basin. Municipal
water interests, as expected, generally preferred this
more strongly than did other interest groups.
^ Su~~in~bly Nie~t Agricul~ur~l D~~rand~: Also saw
a wide range of preferences in each basin. As
expected, agricultural interests typically preferred this
more strongly than did other interest groups.
^~ptimize Existing a~rd Future 1~O~t~r Supplies:
Relatively strong support for this objective was
expressed in each basin, with significant variability
between interest groups' perspectives from one basin
to another.
^ Enh~~~~ R~cr~~ti~r~~l ~~p~r~~niti~~: While
recognized as important, other water management
objectives generally received greater support, even
among recreational and environmental interests in
most basins.
^ Pr~vid~ for Envir~~r~ental Enhan~~m~nt: A very
diverse range of support for this objective was
expressed, both within each basin and from basin to
~
$~ole'ri~ice Wo~e' $upplY Initia~ive
In addition to the Pair-Wise Comparison of major
objectives, Basin Roundtable members were also asked
to provide their individual preferences - the relative
weights - of sub-objectives within each major objective.
As indicated in Table 9-1, performance measures for
each objective were generally aligned with that
objective's sub-objectives.
For each major objective, Basin Roundtable members
were asked to distribute 100 points among that
objective's sub-objectives to indicate the relative
importance that individual placed on the sub-objectives.
For objectives with only one sub-objective, the sub-
objective was automatically given all 100 points.
As an example, one Basin Roundtable member may
have given the "Protect Cultural Values" objective a
relative weight of 20 percent through the Pair-Wise
Comparison process. That individual was then asked to
distribute 100 points between the "maintain quality of life
unique to each basin" and the "maintain open space"
sub-objectives. The 100 points could be distributed in
~~
S:\REPORT\WORD PROCESSING\REPORT\S9 11-10.04.DOC 9-13